I do not support the new proposed government health insurance. What I do support is private health insurance reform.
When my dad was diagnosed with lung cancer, there were never referrals or approvals needed from medicare. He was allowed to go to any doctor or hospital of his choice and receive the same treatments as anyone else.
When my mom had open heart surgery, there was never referrals or approvals needed from medicare. She also was allowed to go to any doctor or hospital of her choice and receive the same treatments and followup care as anyone else. Her incision had split open and she was re-hospitalized and placed on a wound vac that she came home with, and no referrals or approvals were needed.
I, on the other hand, broke my leg a few years ago, which landed me in the emergency room with an overnight stay at the hospital. I was required, by my Blue Shield policy, to call within 24 hours of the incident or my claims would be subject to denial. (I did call from the hospital) Because of the severity of my injury, the process of healing took almost one year. After the first six months, my doctor recommended I use a machine called a Stimulator, to obviously stimulate the bone growth/healing in my leg. Blue Shield denied the request. I purchased it myself and it worked.
My husband was diagnosed with non-hodgkins lymphoma 10 years ago. He went through many bouts of chemo and eventually he went through a stem cell transplant. All approved through MVP first. Through these past 10 years, even though he is in remission, my husband's doctors have recommended a cat scan every 6 months. He has a slow growing cancer, that his doctors, and through my own research, have found that it will come back eventually. Every cat scan appointment, must first go through MVP's managed care department for their approval.
I am not promoting government health insurance! I am suggesting the overhaul of private health insurance without government oversight. Do away with the managed care aspect of private insurance. Let the patient and their doctor control their own health care decisions. We do not need a third party liaison between ourselves, our loved ones and our doctors.
JoAnn from what I've been hearing one way to force the insurance companies to lower their rates and improve their services is to allow people to shop for other insurance companies from other states which we cant do right now. Another way to lower rates is to cap the amount of money that lawyers can sue doctors for when mistakes are made. The cap should be in line with how much damage was done to the patient and if the doctor was truly in error. The government will not put tort reform in their bills because the lawyers contribute a lot of money to the Democrats campaigns.
I’ve read a Congressional Budget Office report [on health care]. The question is, Did Rep. [Scott] Murphy read it? This is the truth about health reform. No old people are being asked to die before their time. No people losing coverage. Just lots and lots of people and small businesses doing better. Rep. Murphy [should stand] up to the “Blue Dog” Democrats. They don’t care about the 75,000 people in his district who will go without health care if he doesn’t listen to his constituents instead of the Blue Dogs. Or is he listening to the 2,800 people in his district making over $350,000 a year, who might have to pay a surtax of 1.5 percent? Are they the ones he cares about? Maybe Murphy should listen to the 15,000 businesses in his district that would receive funds to help them provide health insurance for their employees. Those business people really need his help, not those 2,800 rich people. I know the congressman is rich, but I hope he didn’t take this job to protect people like himself from medical bankruptcy. Yeah, that’s right: The health care bill would have prevented the 1,170 bankruptcies in his district last year. Imagine if those voters knew he could help but didn’t. Not all those folks were Democrats. How about the 8,000 seniors in the district who hit the “donut hole” each year? This bill will cut their cost in half and eventually eliminate it. Now maybe he’s thinking that all the hospitals in the district will suffer with the downward pressure on cost. Not so. Last year those hospitals lost $48 million to uninsured or uncollectible health costs. That will be virtually eliminated.
I’m a strong supporter of President Obama, but I feel he has done a poor job of getting out the truth about the healthcare industry’s efforts to distort facts. I strongly encourage anyone who did not see Bill Moyers’ Journal on July 31 on WMHT to go to Moyers’ Web site, http://www. pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash. html, and listen to Moyers’ interview with Wendell Potter, a former public relations head at the massive CIGNA health insurance company. Mr. Potter worked for CIGNA for 20 years, and knows intimately the workings of CIGNA and other large insurance companies. His insider report is eyeopening and, at times, shocking. His testimony before Congress about a month ago is as important and courageous as Jeffery Wignand’s (see the movie “The Insider”) whistleblowing on the tobacco industry or even John Dean’s testimony on Watergate. Yet, as I listen to the news, Mr. Potter’s words are drowned out by deliberate efforts by the health-care industry to mislead Americans. As the Moyers report shows, the health-care industry’s message is parroted by U.S. legislators, both Republican and Democrat, who receive many thousands of dollars from insurance companies and their trade association. You will not feel good about our government or the status of health care in America after listening to Mr. Potter’s report. But in a time when there are many opposing views and so-called “facts,” you will, I hope, come away, as I did, feeling that you have listened to someone who is credible and who knows, from his own experience, what he is talking about. You may also share my feeling that he is a very brave citizen.
Considering the Democratic majorities the president enjoys in Washington, it seems pretty much a given that some sort of universal heath care will become law. Taxpayers will be paying for the 15 percent of the population who are uninsured. Although it’s a well-established fact that obesity is the primary cause of our country’s crushing health-care costs, nothing I’ve read about the legislation seems to address the issue. Although we enjoy the best health care in the world, we lead in obesity-related health issues like heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc. Wouldn’t it be great if the $1 trillion or so we’re about to spend led to a reduction in obesity rates, and thereby reduced the cost of health care for everyone? If the bill mandated that when “Obamacare” recipients went in for their six-month check-up and they were found to be obese, they would receive a suggested diet and exercise program to lose 5 percent of their body weight by their next six-month appointment? This would continue until they were no longer obese. Failure to comply would result in a return to “no-care” status. Seems like a win-win to me. We help you with free health care, you help us control health-care costs.
I suggest to everyone to read the bill yourself and draw your own conclusions about what will happen if the health-care bill is passed. The best defense against this bill is a well educated public who stays informed and holds their representatives feet to the fire to make the right decisions. If this bill in it's present form is so great then why doesn't our President and Congress sign on to it instead of hanging to their platinum plus plan that we all have to pay for? We need health-care reform but not what is contained in this bill that was written by too many of the extreme left that favor some pretty radical ideas.
Chamber a leading critic of Obama’s overhauls BY JIM KUHNHENN The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — If President Barack Obama wants to take the measure of his opposition, he only has to glance across Lafayette Park from the White House. There, behind 10 massive Corinthian columns, is the headquarters of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — a leading critic of the administration’s health care and banking overhaul plans. A fortress for the business community, the chamber has emerged as a multitasking, multimillion-dollar defender of the private sector against presidential initiatives. As lawmakers spend time at home during their August vacation hearing from constituents, the chamber is adding its own heat to the season. There’s a $2 million campaign against Obama’s proposals that would make the government a competitor in the health insurance market. It’s trying to make the case for insurers, which oppose a government-run insurance alternative but want to work with the White House to mandate coverage for all. The chamber also has become a pointed critic of a White House plan to create a consumer finance protection agency and is assembling finance sector trade groups to push for a delay in legislation. With 3 million members, the chamber is working with local and regional affiliates on letter-writing campaigns to lawmakers and plans to track their public appearances to make sure they hear the chamber’s point of view. The summer effort is just a start. The group also is readying an ambitious $100 million campaign to advocate for businesses and a free enterprise system, which chamber officials believe is under attack. The chamber is putting lawmakers on notice: the issues campaign will be timed to lead into the 2010 congressional elections. “You’ve got an administration pushing the federal government into a bigger and bigger footprint,” Bruce Josten, the chamber’s chief lobbyist, said in an interview. “CEOs start to get concerned when they see that. We felt we needed someone to step into this space.” Critics point out the chamber objects to government interference in the private sector even though it supported federal efforts to rescue the financial industry with hundreds of billions of dollars and to bail out struggling automakers. What’s more, the chamber is setting itself up as a foil to the administration on health care while insurers and the health industry seek to negotiate with the White House. As part of its health care effort, the chamber is running newspaper and online ads against a government-run insurance option that are targeted to moderate Democrats and Republicans in five states. On banking rules, it recently organized the financial industry to call for a delay in legislation that would set up a consumer protection agency. The chamber stands out for the bluntness of its criticism. A trade group representing drug manufacturers, for instance, is running an ad broadly supporting health care changes. In a reversal, the ad features a fictional couple, Harry and Louise, who appeared in ads by the insurance industry in 1993 opposed to President Bill Clinton’s health plan. The insurance industry opposes a government-run alternative to private insurers. But instead of criticizing, America’s Health Insurance Plans is running ads encouraging universal coverage and calling for “bipartisan reforms.” “We’ve been focusing on what we’re for,” said Robert Zirkelbach, the group’s spokesman. SENDING A SIGNAL Wary of having the chamber identified as an uncompromising opponent of health care change, Josten caused a stir recently with a letter to the Senate Finance Committee urging action on a bipartisan proposal before the August recess. Republican leaders have demanded that the pace of deliberations slow down. But Josten said “the business community vitally needs better policy alternatives to be proposed by Congress.” .........>>>>............>>>>............http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r00701&AppName=1
A premature baby declared dead by doctors was found to be alive hours later when he was taken home for a funeral wake.
The baby's father, Jose Alvarenga, was told by doctors that his son had died shortly after birth.
Staff from the state-run hospital in Asuncion, the Paraguayan capital, delivered the infant's body to Mr Alvarenga's home fours hours later.
Shortly afterwards, the grieving father opened the baby's coffin to bid an emotional farewell to his son.
"I opened it to look at his remains and found that the baby was breathing," Mr Alvarenga said. "I began to cry."
He rushed back to the hospital with his unnamed baby in his arms and nurses placed the infant in an oxygen chamber.
He is now reported to be in a stable condition.
"This is a very unusual case," said Ernesto Weber, head of paediatric intensive care at the hospital.
He acknowledged that the doctor handling the case did not properly check the infant's vital signs, and said an investigation would be carried out.
However Aida Notario, a doctor at the hospital's birthing centre, said that medics tried to revive the baby for a whole hour. "His pulse was so low that it was undetectable," he said.
According to medical records, the baby weighed only 500g (17.6oz).
The smallest on record was an American baby who weighed just 280g (10oz), born at less than 22 weeks.
Paraguay map
The baby was declared dead at a state-run hospital in the Paraguayan capital, Asuncion
Two years ago, a baby boy from Leeds ‘came back to life’ 30 minutes after doctors pronounced him dead.
Medical staff at Leeds General Infirmary had tried in vain to resuscitate two-week-old Woody Lander after the little boy suffered a heart attack.
He was handed over to parents Jon and Karen Lander so they could say goodbye, but half an hour later the couple heard the boy cough and doctors started his heart.
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
By CYNTHIA TUCKER First published in print: Monday, August 10, 2009
Why are the so-called tea party protesters so angry and frightened by the prospect of health care reform?
Why would any ordinary citizen be upset by proposals to modernize and rationalize what we generously call a "health care system"?
For most health care consumers, little is more frightening than the "health care system" that currently exists.
Let's leave aside, for a moment, the estimated 47 million or so Americans who have no health insurance. It's easy to understand their predicament. A young, healthy construction worker falls off a ladder and ends up with hundreds of thousands in bills he cannot pay. Or a middle-aged diabetic is laid off and finds herself skimping on doctor's visits. We hear stories like that often enough to enable us to empathize with the plight of the uninsured.
Yet, it shouldn't take much of an imagination, or much of a memory, to understand the dilemmas faced by many consumers who do have a health insurance policy.
While opponents of reform have frightened consumers with warnings of "rationing" if President Barack Obama's proposals are enacted, anyone with health insurance knows that medical care is rationed right now. You only get as much as you -- or your insurance company -- will pay for.
It doesn't matter what you may need. If your insurer won't cover it and you can't afford to pay out of pocket, you don't get the medical care.
The exception, of course, is emergency room treatment, which hospitals are obligated to provide.
The for-profit health insurance industry is in the business of maximizing profits for their shareholders, and the only way they can do that is to hold down the payments they make for medical care. That means they spend a lot of their time, and a lot of their money, figuring out ways to deny claims. ..................>>>>...............>>>>...............http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=829460&category=COMMENTARY
Obama and Big Pharma: Deal or no deal? by Jon Brooks 13 hours ago
Health care stories are clicking big in Buzz these days. This week, a series of articles from different sources about one particular skirmish in the overall battle illustrated just what a high-stakes—and fluid—game is being played by everyone at the table.
The latest flare-up was sparked this week when the LA Times reported the pharmaceutical industry’s top lobbyist, Billy Tauzin, crowing about what Big Pharma had received in return for agreeing to $80 billion in cost savings plus the bankrolling of a pro-reform campaign:
"Tauzin said he had not only received the White House pledge to forswear Medicare drug price bargaining, but also a separate promise not to pursue another proposal Obama supported during the campaign: importing cheaper drugs from Canada or Europe. Both proposals could cost the industry billions…"
The next day, the New York Times corroborated the deal:
"...White House officials...assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion…"
But then Congress weighed in. From a Bloomberg article titled "Drugmakers may have trouble enforcing deal w/ congress":.................>>>>...........>>>>............http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/92893?fp=1
Why are the drug companies 'helping' Obama? Because they have and actual countable chargeable controlable product.....
as a nurse you cant tell me not to give a backrub or a drink or give reassurance.....(you cant take that from me, you cant value that and you cant afford me)
SHOW ME THE $$ TRAIL
questions to ask ourselves is: What is healthcare? Why healthcare?
Everytime some 'expert' comes along and separates a group of people a whole bunch of rules and regs show up with fees and charges, via the government....hence the insurance companies must pigeon hole us as per the government.....are insurance companies in it to make $$----duh,,,of course.....but get the government out of their pants and we shall deal fairly face to face....
the government has preemptive fees/charges.....at the podium professing to 'protect the masses' from what? their bad hearts bad diets? smoking? drinking? gambling? childbirth? sex? what?
can someone explain this to me......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Logged
