obama keeps saying that a government run health care will INCREASE and PROMOTE competition. Well, we already have government run health care. Medicare, medicaid and VA. They cover approx. 50% of the population. So where is the competition from that?
So now obama want yet another government run health care system that will cost ONE TRILLION DOLLARS. And he plans to pay for it with cutting some medicare benefits. I also heard there will be a cut in va benefits as well.
Sorry....but I don't buy it the story they trying to sell. 'to promote competition'. I hasn't happened with medicare, medicaid or va....it ain't gonna happen with this one either!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
I agree with Charles Krauthammer’s Aug. 31 column, “Exit strategy for health care debacle,” with one exception — his individual mandate for healthy young people. They could not afford health care premiums initially, so why burden them now financially? Furthermore, this requirement borders on socialism. Finally, the rationing of health care should be decided by the individual, not the government.
Obama must use bully pulpit for health reform E.J. Dionne is a nationally syndicated columnist. E.J. Dionne
President Obama can still secure major health care legislation this year if he learns from his mistakes in recent months and spends more time reminding Americans why they were once eager for fundamental change. The White House lost sight of the need to make a strong case that reform would deliver specific benefits to the insured as well as the uninsured. Absent a consistent set of arguments from reformers, advocates of the status quo filled the vacuum — often with outright lies. The administration also sent mixed and confusing signals about its position on a public insurance option. This set off a liberal firestorm and increased the role that the public option played in the public debate — which, paradoxically, is exactly the opposite of what Obama’s lieutenants intended. And his aides did not foresee just how fraught the situation would become in the Senate, where Max Baucus, the Democratic chairman of the Finance Committee, allowed Charles Grassley, the committee’s ranking Republican, to string negotiations along indefinitely without making any commitment to voting for a bill. Senate leaders signaled Obama as early as June that they wanted him to intervene more actively to push Baucus along. The administration held back, hoping it could postpone its most forceful involvement until after both the Senate and the House had passed bills. But Baucus’ failure to produce a proposal before the summer recess added to the sense of legislative chaos and bred uncertainty as to what reformers are seeking. Despite health care’s summer of discontent, supporters of change are in better shape than the accounts of recent weeks would suggest. The House is poised to pass a bill in early fall that would achieve most of Obama’s major goals. And Obama is a full year ahead of the schedule on which the Clinton administration found itself in the 1990s. ............................>>>>.................................>>>>...............http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r00500&AppName=1
Restrictions on prescription of osteoporosis drugs 'defy belief', says leading doctorBy Fiona Macrae Last updated at 1:52 PM on 08th September 2009 Thousands of women are being denied better osteoporosis drugs because of unnecessarily restrictive Government guidelines, a doctor said last night. Professor David Reid, an expert on brittle bones, said the rules are so stringent that GPs are often prevented from giving alternative treatments to those suffering side-effects from their pills. A once-a-year jab that could save thousands from the misery of broken bones is also not going to be assessed for use on the NHS in England and Wales for at least three years, according to Professor Reid, despite being available in Scotland
Frail: There are 230,000 people in the UK who break weakened bones each year It means that sufferers are being denied drugs that could have a major impact on their health and their quality of life. The news will reignite the debate about the evaluation system used by drugs rationing body the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE has previously been criticised for banning or restricting breakthrough medicines for conditions such as breast cancer and Alzheimer's. Mr Reid, of Aberdeen University, told the British Science Festival that the NICE guidelines on the disease were 'unnecessarily restrictive'. Up to a quarter of patients taking the first-choice drug, the £50-a-year alendronic acid, will be troubled by indigestion, with some experiencing crippling stomach pain. But under guidelines, sufferersmay have to wait up to five years for their condition to deteriorate before being put on more expensive treatments with fewer side-effects. Mr Reid said: 'The guidelines indicate that a lady can have alendronic acid at a certain level of risk. 'If that person doesn't tolerate the drug and goes back to their GP, the GP might have to say, "Your risk isn't high enough to have the next drug" - and frankly, that is just bad medical practice. It defies logic.' Debate: Osteoporosis drugs are approved or denied by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence The science conference in Guildford, Surrey, also heard that thousands of osteoporosis patients in England and Wales are being denied the cuttingedge drug zolendronic acid. It has passed the safety checks for use in Britain and has been prescribed in Scotland for about 18 months. But NICE is not due to evaluate it for NHS use in England and Wales for three years, the conference heard. Although the drug is not vastly more effective than existing medicines, it has the advantage of being given just once a year, through a drip. With studies showing that over 50 per cent of osteoporosis patients find tablets so inconvenient that they stop taking them, the drug could have a huge impact on health. With 1,150 Britons dying each month after breaking a hip, better treatment of osteoporosis could have profound consequences. Nice said its guidelines aim to prevent fractures from occurring, as well as treat existing problems, and provide 'postmenopausal women with consistent access to the most cost-effective treatments'. A spokesman said that alternative drugs to alendronic acid are recommended based on cost-effectiveness and clinical criteria. He added that legal issues outside of the rationing body's control meant it could not give a date for guidance on zolendronic acid.
The creation of these medications to strengthened bones were considered a God send. The insurance companies and probably the government run medicaid, medicare, would have preferred to pay for these drugs as opposed to surgery and hospital stays by those with broken bones due to osteoporosis.
Don't make sense! Crazy!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Health care talks focus on illegal immigrants BY ERICA WERNER The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Senators closing in on a comprehensive health care bill have whittled away all but the most contentious issues and one of those loomed large Friday: coverage for illegal immigrants. Negotiators on the Senate Finance Committee thought they’d already resolved the question. That was before Republican Rep. Joe Wilson’s shout of “You lie!” as President Barack Obama said in a speech Wednesday that illegal immigrants wouldn’t be covered under his health plan. That led senators to revisit the issue to make sure they have provisions in place to enforce prohibitions against illegal residents getting federally subsidized coverage. “What we are trying to prevent is anyone who is here illegally from getting any federal benefit,” said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., a member of the so-called Gang of Six of three Democratic and three Republican members of the Finance Committee. The group is facing a deadline early next week to produce a bipartisan deal. If they don’t succeed, Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., plans to go it alone with a Democratic bill. The outcome remains very much in doubt. A successful effort could form the basis for legislation that could appeal to a majority in the Senate since the Finance Committee has a moderate makeup that resembles the Senate as a whole. This weekend will be critical as aides and lawmakers themselves hammer out language not just on illegal immigration, but also a handful of other thorny issues including abortion, medical malpractice and how much states must pay for an expansion of Medicaid. .............>>>>................>>>>................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r00400&AppName=1
On the health care debate, let's see: We have the right wing spouting misrepresentations, distortions, half-truths and outright lies to tap into a society permeated with governmental mistrust, fear and cynicism created by eight years of misrepresentations, distortions, half-truths and outright lies by George W. Bush — ably ghost-written by Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. Then we have members of the right penning missives to the Gazette (Sept. 9 article, "Left shouldn't talk about mob tactics") who see the efforts of MoveOn.org to encourage participation in town hall meetings (rallies, really) and to suggest slogans as a subversive activity — even as his First Amendment right to holler, cat-call, interrupt and in general farcify the event — I assume the author actually attended — were not denied or deterred in any way. At this point I remind the reader of Bush's second run for president when, at his rallies, there were erected "free-speech zones" — areas cordoned-off or fenced in via chain link and kept off-camera for those of opposing views. It's Orwellian. I feel like Alice; things just keep getting curiouser and curiouser.
Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist. Mona Charen
Let’s stipulate that it was wrong of Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., to shout “You lie” during President Obama’s health care speech. It was a violation of courtesy and etiquette. Wilson apologized — which is more than the Democrats who booed President Bush’s State of the Union address in 2005 ever did. But I confess that watching at home, similar expostulations were heard. Some seemed to have burst, irrepressible, from my own lips. There was, for starters, this misleading assertion: “If you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.” Ah, shades of Clintonesque lawyerly evasion. No, it won’t “require” you to change, but if the tax treatment changes (and Obama proposes, among other things, to tax high-end plans) and the public option is available, employers may choose to change their offerings and employees will then no longer get to keep their current insurance. The president then adverted to “more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.” As the Washington Examiner’s Byron York notes, the 30 million figure represents a climb down from the president’s oft-repeated claim (most recently in August) that there are “47 million uninsured in this country.” (The president’s track record on numbers is not inspiring. Remember his claim — since debunked — that medical expenses caused a bankruptcy every 30 seconds? Even ABC News called it “unsupportable.”) Perhaps by downgrading to 30 million, President Obama is attempting to exclude an estimated 9.3 million illegal aliens. But look closely at the rest of the uninsured. According to Census and HHS data, 10 million have incomes more than 300 percent of the poverty line, meaning they could afford coverage but for some reason choose to forgo it. And speaking of forgoing, 5 million are single childless adults between the ages of 18 and 34. An estimated 6.4 million are “Medicaid undercount,” meaning they receive Medicaid or SCHIP but tell census takers otherwise. Another 4.3 million are eligible for Medicaid or other government health programs but have failed to enroll. That leaves just 10.6 million U.S. citizens below 300 percent of poverty, not eligible for an existing government program, and not between 18 and 34. So the president’s claim that 30 million Americans “cannot get coverage” is, not to say more, inaccurate. So, too, was his statement, uncivil accusation really, that opponents of health care reform have “lied” about his plan providing coverage for illegals. The supposed bar on illegals receiving health coverage only applies to a section of the bill. And Democrats rejected a Republican proposal that would have required verification of eligibility. Ditto for the claim that the Obama plan would not cover abortion expenses. It would not explicitly do so. But money is fungible and it would be impossible to prevent public funds from subsidizing abortions. Again, Republican amendments to prevent taxpayer money from paying for abortions failed. That’s revealing. And then there was this: “Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan.” I didn’t think until now that President Obama had much of a sense of humor. Perhaps I was wrong. He also claimed that his plan will 1) extend coverage to all; 2) force insurance companies to cover “at no extra charge” routine checkups and screening tests like mammograms and colonoscopies; 3) place limits on how much people can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses; 4) forbid yearly or lifetime caps on coverage — and spend less than we are currently spending! He’s not a president; he’s a wizard. But no, the funniest part of the speech was Obama’s supposed overture to Republicans on malpractice reform.............................>>>>...................>>>>..................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r00701&AppName=1
The doctor will see you ... eventually Under reform, primary care docs would gain 50 million patients
By STEVE LEBLANC, Associated Press First published in print: Monday, September 14, 2009
BOSTON -- When Dr. Robert Flaherty launched a private practice in 2001, he soon found himself cramming in as many patients as possible to make ends meet, leaving little time to discuss with them the steps they could take to prevent future health troubles.
"I constantly felt that conflict of going faster than I should," said Flaherty, 40, of Mashpee, who gave up his practice after four years for a hospital post. "Everyone knows if you want to make a decent living, become a specialist; if you want to be banging your head, go into primary care."
Among the many hurdles facing President Barack Obama's plan to revamp the nation's health care system is a shortage of primary care physicians -- those legions of overworked doctors who provide the front line of medical care for both the sick and those hoping to stay healthy.
As Massachusetts' experience shows, extending health care to 50 million uninsured Americans will only further stress the system and could force many of those newly insured back into costly emergency rooms for routine care if they can't find a primary care doctor, health care observers said.
Massachusetts, home of the nation's most ambitious health care law, has seen the need for primary care doctors shoot up with the addition of 428,000 people to the ranks of the insured under a 2006 law that mandates health care for nearly all residents.
To keep up with the demand for primary care doctors, the country will need to add another 40,000 to the existing 100,000 doctors over the next decade or face a soaring backlog, according to Dr. Ted Epperly, president of the Kansas-based American Academy of Family Physicians.
"It's like giving everyone free bus passes, but there are only two buses," he said.
The need for more primary care doctors comes as the country's shortage of all doctors is expected to worsen, according to a study by the Association of American Medical Colleges, which found the rate of first-year enrollees in U.S. medical schools has declined steadily since 1980.
If current patterns persist, the study shows the country will have about 159,000 fewer doctors than it needs by 2025.
Many ideas have been proposed to ease that pressure, from boosting loan repayment programs for medical students studying primary care to narrowing the pay gap between primary care doctors and specialists.
All the efforts have a single objective -- increasing the number of primary care doctors to give them spend more time with the patients who need them the most.
As part of his health care overhaul, Obama has stressed the need to "elevate the profile of family care physicians and nurses as opposed to just the specialists who are typically going to make more money."
Obama has said that more insured Americans will require more primary care doctors and a team approach to care.
"If you look at what's happening in some states, like Massachusetts, where they tried to create a universal system -- and they haven't quite gotten there yet -- they have had a problem with an overload of patients," he said in July....................>>>>.........................>>>>.....................http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=841606&category=BUSINESS
Logged
