I just had to talk about the crap that I'm hearing right now as I sit at my computer working my butt off to make a meeger income.
Firstly, there is some insurance executive explaining in detail how he raised his kids in the 60's and 70's, ZZZZZZZ, snooze fest, times have changed dude, get over it.
He is essentially elaborating the "blame the victim" mantra that's being bandied about in the media with regards to health care and the lack thereof for many Americans. I am so sick of hearing how the health care crisis is directly related to poor lifestyle choices. Yes, some folks live a bad lifestyle, smoking, drinking, cavorting, bad diet, no exercise, yeah we get it, NEXT!
What about those of us who got sick with a serious illness and yet lived a good lifestyle ? What about those of us who were genetically predisposed to getting cancer that had no direct correlation to how we were living at the time?
I do hate being lumped in with all the "baddies" and "naughty" folks who apparently are to blame for all that is wrong with the health care system.
I place the blame for the health care crisis directly on politicians and the health care industry. If they cherry pick only the healthy and deny care for their customers who get sick, aren't they the ones to blame?
How about the exorbitant costs of health care? Why is a CT scan $2400 in Los Angeles and $1500 somewhere else? Why are the uninsured charged MUCH, MUCH more than those with insurance? Why are the uninsured unable to negotiate better prices? Why aren't prices posted and known by staff when a customers who is self pay asks? Why does no one seem to know what things cost? Why do I feel like I get screwed more with costs than someone with Blue Cross? Why do my elected officials get such great insurance coverage and don't get denied for their preexisting conditions?
These issues are not being discussed on TV right now by this gentleman who is clearly living in the past. Instead, he is "blaming the victim." Gee, thanks I love hearing on a daily basis that everything is my fault, that the insurance industry and the politicians are completely blameless.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
SINGLE PAYER IS THE WAY TO GO
EDITORIAL: THE TRUTH ABOUT HEALTHCARE REFORM: WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW CAN KILL YOU
More June 2009 Articles
Editorial
healthcare reform
Send to friendPrinter-friendly version
"Single-payer is the health system that works for every other industrialized nation on earth."
By Sylvia Hampton
Supporters of real health care reform want a national expansion of the popular Medicare single payer program now covering every American over age 65. But they are being told that it is just not “politically feasible.” When one asks “Why?” there is double talk and a run-around. The facts are clear. Oxen will be gored--and the industry and some in Congress are circling the wagons to protect their own self interests. We have some blatant conflicts of interest here that would make an eight-year-old blush: Congress members who have stock holdings in the industry and get large campaign contributions from insurers. Imagine that.
The insurance industry competes by selling large group insurance to businesses employing young healthy people. Ca-ching! They get those contracts by promising low cost to the employer, so the employee “contribution” becomes a pay deduction. Then if an employee gets sick or in an accident, his co-pays can become so large as to cause him to go bankrupt. But hey---no skin off the insurance company’s nose! Ca-ching.
If the sickness or injury is bad enough to lose your job they don’t have to mess with you anymore. They just drop you if you live long enough (after they do everything in their power to deny the claims.) After all, they have stockholders to think about---they must, by law, make a profit. Ca-ching. And because the drug companies don’t want to have to negotiate with the big bad government on prices, they stick with the captains of this industry like two peas in a private money pot. That’s what makes health insurance hooked to employment so darn great--for insurers. The result is that they have so much money they can scare the pants off everyone in government. They will run an ad campaign so slick a good guy will look like Satan when they are done.
Who gets the money for all those campaigns to sell insurance, sell drugs, sell the negative campaign ads? The Media. Ca-ching. So don’t ask them to help you gore that ox. That money talks---big time.
Single-payer is the health system that works for every other industrialized nation on Earth. Single-payer results in health statistics better than ours, costs the people far less than ours, and at the same time covers everyone in their country. But it was not given consideration in Congress and is deemed an evil communist plot by 30% of our population. The other 70% have caught on after hard knocks in our system and now support single payer/Medicare for all. But that is not even what the president is asking for; he just wants a “public option” in addition to the private plans.
But no, the industry says that is not fair. Why? Too many employers and workers will grab it in a heartbeat. Why? Better, cheaper, faster, nicer and more complete---like what all of us over 65 have and love: Medicare. The modern robber barons are throwing so much money and weight around Washington D.C. right now that you ordinary people out here in the real world don’t have a chance.
There is only one way you young ‘uns will get what I have--and that is to take to the streets and demand it. Call your congressman, demonstrate in the street by his office, call the talk shows, and scream bloody murder. Because murder is what is happening to you right now. They are killing you. But as long as insurers, drug companies and legislators make a profit and you don’t pay attention, their life goes on.
Sylvia Hampton is the past director of Health Care for All CA and a current board member of San Diegans for Health Care Coverage.
The views expressed in this editorial reflect the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of East County Magazine. If you wish to submit an editorial for consideration, contact editor@eastcountymagazine.org.
More June 2009 Articles
Editorial
healthcare reform
Send to friendPrinter-friendly version
"Single-payer is the health system that works for every other industrialized nation on earth."
By Sylvia Hampton
Supporters of real health care reform want a national expansion of the popular Medicare single payer program now covering every American over age 65. But they are being told that it is just not “politically feasible.” When one asks “Why?” there is double talk and a run-around. The facts are clear. Oxen will be gored--and the industry and some in Congress are circling the wagons to protect their own self interests. We have some blatant conflicts of interest here that would make an eight-year-old blush: Congress members who have stock holdings in the industry and get large campaign contributions from insurers. Imagine that.
The insurance industry competes by selling large group insurance to businesses employing young healthy people. Ca-ching! They get those contracts by promising low cost to the employer, so the employee “contribution” becomes a pay deduction. Then if an employee gets sick or in an accident, his co-pays can become so large as to cause him to go bankrupt. But hey---no skin off the insurance company’s nose! Ca-ching.
If the sickness or injury is bad enough to lose your job they don’t have to mess with you anymore. They just drop you if you live long enough (after they do everything in their power to deny the claims.) After all, they have stockholders to think about---they must, by law, make a profit. Ca-ching. And because the drug companies don’t want to have to negotiate with the big bad government on prices, they stick with the captains of this industry like two peas in a private money pot. That’s what makes health insurance hooked to employment so darn great--for insurers. The result is that they have so much money they can scare the pants off everyone in government. They will run an ad campaign so slick a good guy will look like Satan when they are done.
Who gets the money for all those campaigns to sell insurance, sell drugs, sell the negative campaign ads? The Media. Ca-ching. So don’t ask them to help you gore that ox. That money talks---big time.
Single-payer is the health system that works for every other industrialized nation on Earth. Single-payer results in health statistics better than ours, costs the people far less than ours, and at the same time covers everyone in their country. But it was not given consideration in Congress and is deemed an evil communist plot by 30% of our population. The other 70% have caught on after hard knocks in our system and now support single payer/Medicare for all. But that is not even what the president is asking for; he just wants a “public option” in addition to the private plans.
But no, the industry says that is not fair. Why? Too many employers and workers will grab it in a heartbeat. Why? Better, cheaper, faster, nicer and more complete---like what all of us over 65 have and love: Medicare. The modern robber barons are throwing so much money and weight around Washington D.C. right now that you ordinary people out here in the real world don’t have a chance.
There is only one way you young ‘uns will get what I have--and that is to take to the streets and demand it. Call your congressman, demonstrate in the street by his office, call the talk shows, and scream bloody murder. Because murder is what is happening to you right now. They are killing you. But as long as insurers, drug companies and legislators make a profit and you don’t pay attention, their life goes on.
Sylvia Hampton is the past director of Health Care for All CA and a current board member of San Diegans for Health Care Coverage.
The views expressed in this editorial reflect the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of East County Magazine. If you wish to submit an editorial for consideration, contact editor@eastcountymagazine.org.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
More talk and no action, Here we go again!
Here we go again. More talking, more yakking, more yapping and no results, no solutions, just this endless debate by both sides that seems like it will never end.
This debate has been going on for 30+ years and quite extensively since Hillary Clinton's work in the early 90's. Thanks to Harry and Louise (i.e. the giant soul crushing insurance/big pharma money machine) that was killed before it even got out of the gate. Instead of talking, why aren't they just implementing something, anything at this point? Too many people are going without, delaying treatment and doctor visits and ultimately either dying or facing financial ruin.
Put a frakkin public option in place and at least let us 50 million uninsured/uninsurable Americans back into maintaining our health and pursuit of happiness without putting our CT's and doctor visits on credit cards.
This debate has been going on for 30+ years and quite extensively since Hillary Clinton's work in the early 90's. Thanks to Harry and Louise (i.e. the giant soul crushing insurance/big pharma money machine) that was killed before it even got out of the gate. Instead of talking, why aren't they just implementing something, anything at this point? Too many people are going without, delaying treatment and doctor visits and ultimately either dying or facing financial ruin.
Put a frakkin public option in place and at least let us 50 million uninsured/uninsurable Americans back into maintaining our health and pursuit of happiness without putting our CT's and doctor visits on credit cards.
Canada Health Care Myths so frakkin debunked!
Myths About Single Payer National Health Insurance
Wayne Parsons
Attorney(866) 735-1102 Ext 585May 13, 2009 6:38 PM
Tags: single payer, health care
3 CommentsPrint ArticleSubscribe
According to leading consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, "[t]he U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, but still has nearly 50 million people without health insurance and millions more with insurance who still cannot afford treatment?"Public Citizen is working to fix this serious problem by campaigning for the creation of single-payer national health insurance, because it is the only solution that provides universal access to care while reducing costs.A majority of American physicians and the public support such a program, but many have questions about what exactly single-payer is, and how it would affect citizens like you and me.
The following list of Myths Prepared by Public Citizen from Information compiled from Physicians for a National Health Program, part of the Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Health Care:
Myth: Single-payer would cost too much.Fact: Because of our patchwork system of private insurance, more than 30% of every health care dollar is spent on administration rather than on care. This includes underwriting, marketing, billing, denying claims, profit and paper-pushing that is foisted on hospitals and physician offices. By eliminating private insurance, a single-payer system would reduce administrative spending by roughly half (nearly $400 billion annually). These savings are enough to provide every American with comprehensive health insurance, without increasing total spending.Myth: Single-payer would cost businesses too much.Fact: Because a single-payer system is more efficient than our current system, health care costs would be lower, and businesses that already provide health care benefits would save money. In Canada, the three major auto manufacturers (Ford, GM and Daimler-Chrysler) have all publicly endorsed Canada's single-payer health system from a business and financial standpoint. In the U.S., Ford pays more for its workers' health insurance than for the steel to make its cars.
Myth: Lines for care would be extremely long.Fact: In countries with single-payer, urgently needed care is always provided immediately. People in these countries may have to wait for some elective procedures like cataract removal or knee replacement for arthritis, but because the U.S. spends double what they do on health care - and would continue to spend this much under a single-payer system - access to care here would be better and our waits would be much shorter.
Myth: People would overuse the system.Fact: Most estimates do indicate that there would be some increased use of the system, mostly by the nearly 50 million people who currently do not have health insurance. However, the dramatic savings from a single-payer system would easily cover the increased use of some services. Remember, doctors would still control most health care utilization - patients don't typically receive prescriptions or tests just because they want them, but because their doctors have deemed them appropriate.
Myth: Government programs are wasteful and inefficient.Fact: Some are better than others, just as some businesses are better than others. Just to name a few of the most successful and helpful: the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Social Security. Consider Medicare, which is national health insurance for the elderly; its overhead is approximately 3% of every health care dollar spent on administration, while overhead and profits for private insurance can add up to more than 15%.
Myth: The government would make health care decisions for patients and dictate how physicians practice medicine. Fact: In countries with a national health insurance system, physicians are rarely questioned about their medical practice, and usually only in cases of suspected fraud. Compare this to our system, where patients and doctors routinely must ask insurance companies for permission for certain procedures, tests and treatments.
document.write("")
document.write("")
document.write("")
document.write("")
document.write("")
document.write("")
Wayne Parsons
Attorney(866) 735-1102 Ext 585May 13, 2009 6:38 PM
Tags: single payer, health care
3 CommentsPrint ArticleSubscribe
According to leading consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, "[t]he U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, but still has nearly 50 million people without health insurance and millions more with insurance who still cannot afford treatment?"Public Citizen is working to fix this serious problem by campaigning for the creation of single-payer national health insurance, because it is the only solution that provides universal access to care while reducing costs.A majority of American physicians and the public support such a program, but many have questions about what exactly single-payer is, and how it would affect citizens like you and me.
The following list of Myths Prepared by Public Citizen from Information compiled from Physicians for a National Health Program, part of the Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Health Care:
Myth: Single-payer would cost too much.Fact: Because of our patchwork system of private insurance, more than 30% of every health care dollar is spent on administration rather than on care. This includes underwriting, marketing, billing, denying claims, profit and paper-pushing that is foisted on hospitals and physician offices. By eliminating private insurance, a single-payer system would reduce administrative spending by roughly half (nearly $400 billion annually). These savings are enough to provide every American with comprehensive health insurance, without increasing total spending.Myth: Single-payer would cost businesses too much.Fact: Because a single-payer system is more efficient than our current system, health care costs would be lower, and businesses that already provide health care benefits would save money. In Canada, the three major auto manufacturers (Ford, GM and Daimler-Chrysler) have all publicly endorsed Canada's single-payer health system from a business and financial standpoint. In the U.S., Ford pays more for its workers' health insurance than for the steel to make its cars.
Myth: Lines for care would be extremely long.Fact: In countries with single-payer, urgently needed care is always provided immediately. People in these countries may have to wait for some elective procedures like cataract removal or knee replacement for arthritis, but because the U.S. spends double what they do on health care - and would continue to spend this much under a single-payer system - access to care here would be better and our waits would be much shorter.
Myth: People would overuse the system.Fact: Most estimates do indicate that there would be some increased use of the system, mostly by the nearly 50 million people who currently do not have health insurance. However, the dramatic savings from a single-payer system would easily cover the increased use of some services. Remember, doctors would still control most health care utilization - patients don't typically receive prescriptions or tests just because they want them, but because their doctors have deemed them appropriate.
Myth: Government programs are wasteful and inefficient.Fact: Some are better than others, just as some businesses are better than others. Just to name a few of the most successful and helpful: the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Social Security. Consider Medicare, which is national health insurance for the elderly; its overhead is approximately 3% of every health care dollar spent on administration, while overhead and profits for private insurance can add up to more than 15%.
Myth: The government would make health care decisions for patients and dictate how physicians practice medicine. Fact: In countries with a national health insurance system, physicians are rarely questioned about their medical practice, and usually only in cases of suspected fraud. Compare this to our system, where patients and doctors routinely must ask insurance companies for permission for certain procedures, tests and treatments.
document.write("")
document.write("")
document.write("")
document.write("")
document.write("")
document.write("")
Oh Canada, my soon to be home and native land!
The Not-So-Awful Truth About Canadian Health Outcomes
Toronto General Hospital (Wikimedia)
Someone was on Fox earlier this morning arguing that including a robust public plan in health care reform would lead the United States to a Canadian-style health care system, which would be terrible. This is closer to the mark than Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn’s insistence that a public plan would be like the Veterans Health Administration, which he (also falsely!) claimed would be bad. Advocates of a public plan are proposing something very different from the Canadian health insurance system. But if a public plan were introduced, and then it succeeded in delivering consistently higher-quality, lower-cost care than all private insurance companies all across the country, US health care could evolve in a direction that would in some respects resemble Canada’s. How likely that really is is up to debate. But it could only happen if customers were to show a consistent and overwhelming preference for the public plan, in which case the public plan coming to dominate probably wouldn’t be such a bad thing.
Meanwhile, how’s health care in Canada? According to actual research it’s about the same as in the United States:
Objectives: To systematically review studies comparing health outcomes in the United States and Canada among patients treated for similar underlying medical conditions.
Methods: We identified studies comparing health outcomes of patients in Canada and the United States by searching multiple bibliographic databases and resources. We masked study results before determining study eligibility. We abstracted study characteristics, including methodological quality and generalizability.
Results: We identified 38 studies comparing populations of patients in Canada and the United States. Studies addressed diverse problems, including cancer, coronary artery disease, chronic medical illnesses and surgical procedures. Of 10 studies that included extensive statistical adjustment and enrolled broad populations, 5 favoured Canada, 2 favoured the United States, and 3 showed equivalent or mixed results. Of 28 studies that failed one of these criteria, 9 favoured Canada, 3 favoured the United States, and 16 showed equivalent or mixed results. Overall, results for mortality favoured Canada (relative risk 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.92-0.98, p= 0.002) but were very heterogeneous, and we failed to find convincing explanations for this heterogeneity. The only condition in which results consistently favoured one country was end-stage renal disease, in which Canadian patients fared better.
Interpretation: Available studies suggest that health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent.
If you ask me, health care in the United States is not so great, so Canadian health care—which turns out to be of similar quality—is not so great either. But it’s a lot cheaper, so that’s nice. Alternatively if, like most conservatives, you deny that our system is broken and want to maintain that we have “the best health care in the world” then it turns out that Canada’s is probably slightly better, almost certainly no
Toronto General Hospital (Wikimedia)
Someone was on Fox earlier this morning arguing that including a robust public plan in health care reform would lead the United States to a Canadian-style health care system, which would be terrible. This is closer to the mark than Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn’s insistence that a public plan would be like the Veterans Health Administration, which he (also falsely!) claimed would be bad. Advocates of a public plan are proposing something very different from the Canadian health insurance system. But if a public plan were introduced, and then it succeeded in delivering consistently higher-quality, lower-cost care than all private insurance companies all across the country, US health care could evolve in a direction that would in some respects resemble Canada’s. How likely that really is is up to debate. But it could only happen if customers were to show a consistent and overwhelming preference for the public plan, in which case the public plan coming to dominate probably wouldn’t be such a bad thing.
Meanwhile, how’s health care in Canada? According to actual research it’s about the same as in the United States:
Objectives: To systematically review studies comparing health outcomes in the United States and Canada among patients treated for similar underlying medical conditions.
Methods: We identified studies comparing health outcomes of patients in Canada and the United States by searching multiple bibliographic databases and resources. We masked study results before determining study eligibility. We abstracted study characteristics, including methodological quality and generalizability.
Results: We identified 38 studies comparing populations of patients in Canada and the United States. Studies addressed diverse problems, including cancer, coronary artery disease, chronic medical illnesses and surgical procedures. Of 10 studies that included extensive statistical adjustment and enrolled broad populations, 5 favoured Canada, 2 favoured the United States, and 3 showed equivalent or mixed results. Of 28 studies that failed one of these criteria, 9 favoured Canada, 3 favoured the United States, and 16 showed equivalent or mixed results. Overall, results for mortality favoured Canada (relative risk 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.92-0.98, p= 0.002) but were very heterogeneous, and we failed to find convincing explanations for this heterogeneity. The only condition in which results consistently favoured one country was end-stage renal disease, in which Canadian patients fared better.
Interpretation: Available studies suggest that health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent.
If you ask me, health care in the United States is not so great, so Canadian health care—which turns out to be of similar quality—is not so great either. But it’s a lot cheaper, so that’s nice. Alternatively if, like most conservatives, you deny that our system is broken and want to maintain that we have “the best health care in the world” then it turns out that Canada’s is probably slightly better, almost certainly no
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)