27 Search Results for "doctors"
- most relevant
- most recent
- highest rated
- most viewed
- top favorites
- most comments
-
WE DID IT! Be A Part Of Americ WE DID IT! Be A Part Of American History
- From: thinkingblue
-
Description:
WE DID IT!
I am so glad that I have lived long enough to see health care become a right not a privilege. I spent my whole life experiencing the misery, people suffer living in a nation that does not believe it is responsible for its citizens' health care. Too many of us have suffered and died just because we were either born into or through no fault of our own, found ourselves in a low income status. I saw it happen in my own family; My mother who was age 56 when she died of cancer due to not having enough money to take advantage of our superb medical system. She was a nonentity and this happens to young and old. What a disgrace! Now at long last we have opened the door (albeit just a crack) to make health care in our country a right. Thank you President Barack Obama, you have done what no president before you could or even cared to do. I am sending a contribution of $25 to this cause and will wear the health care tee shirt that comes with that small offering, proudly. thinkingblue
PS: Below are the numerous youtube videos I have done over the past year regarding this reform.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The New American Way - Blind Ignorance and Hate Filled Bigotry
March 20, 2010Thom Hartmann Weighs In On Teabaggers' Scorn and Disrespect For Man With Parkinson's Disease
http://www.thethinkingblue.com/newame...
---
I stumbled upon the Thom Hartmann Show on Free Speech TV a few months back. Since I had heard of Mr. Hartmann on Air America but really never tuned in I allowed this channel to remain for awhile so I could see what Thom had to say. Ive been hooked ever since. Not in the sense that the followers of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are HOOKED by: Blind Ignorance and Hate Filled Bigotry; Im captivated by Thom Hartmanns ideas and beliefs because of my desire for knowledge. This man has so much knowledge you have to wonder how he can retain it all. He takes phone calls then supports the callers questions or statements with his voluminous experience and perception. Many times he will get a question or suggestion and you can almost see the wheels go to work inside his head, admitting he may not know too much on the subject but will look into it.
Hes also not afraid to admit hes wrong unlike the hate mongers on the right. The Becks and Limbaughs (et al) are so sure they know it ALL, they would never back down or act human with a simple I have no knowledge of that, or maybe a I will research that Not these right-wing-nuts, Its always I KNOW and YOU DONT! jingle all the way.
If the right-winded jerks on the right just played their audience (for their listening and viewing pleasure) and that was all there was to it (Like an evening spent laughing at a comedian in some night club, then you go home) there would be no problem. But their devotees get so riled by the constant baneful and deadly rhetoric that spews from their TVs or radios that their newly found hatefulness spills out onto the streets and they group together and slap a label on themselves like TEABAGGER (thinking somehow they are aligning with the Boston Tea Party patriots). Now armed with this talk radio/ TV hatred theyre out for blood and anyone on the left is their target, whether it be a Parkinson diseased man or a small boy who just lost his mother to a disease because she had no health insurance. The rest is TEABAG history! thinkingblue aka thethinkingblue
---
15 Executives Who Get Paid Millions To Deny You Health Care Coverage
The business model of American health insurers is basically: try to get healthy customers as clients, and then resist as long as possible when it comes to paying out claims.
Thats actually not an indictment or a criticism.
Its just the way our system works, and its screwed up.
Whatever you feel about Obamacare (HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM), you probably think our current system needs reform in some sense.
MEET THEM HERE: http://www.businessinsider.com/here-a...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Limbaugh pulled something out of his BUTT...AGAIN! Now he's moving to Costa Rica
March 10, 2010
Hate radio host Rush Limbaugh has been one of health care reforms most vociferous opponents, warning that [h]uman beings will die earlier than normal under the freedom killing and life threatening ... Hate radio host Rush Limbaugh has been one of health care reforms most vociferous opponents, warning that [h]uman beings will die earlier than normal under the freedom killing and life threatening plan, and calling for it to be aborted. Yesterday, Limbaugh put his money where his mouth is, saying that if health care passes and all his fears are realized, hell leave the country: CALLER: If the health care bill passes, where would you go for health care yourself? And the second part of that is, what would happen to the doctors, do they have to participate in the federal program, or could they opt out of it? [...] LIMBAUGH: My guess in even in Canada and even in the UK, doctors have opted out. And once theyve opted, they cant see anybody Medicare, Medicaid, or what will become the exchanges. They have to have a clientele of private patients that will pay them a retainer and itll be a very small practice. I dont know if thats been outlawed in the Senate bill. I dont know. Ill just tell you this, if this passes and its five years from now and all that stuff gets implemented — I am leaving the country. Ill go to Costa Rica.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Fight Against Death From A Voice Of Reason
October 08, 2009October 7 Keith Olbermann Comment about Health Care Reform. It's the fight against death.
Keith Olbermann's special comment of October 7 got personal. He experienced firsthand and personally the broken system we call Health Care. The difficulties he went through with his ailing Father were unexpected to Keith even though he was well aware of others' (especially those without insurance) suffering under this system. But he had money, isn't that enough in Capitalistic America to protect you from becoming a victim of the Health and Insurance Industrys gluttony?
Yes indeed, as Olbermann earnestly commented, money had saved his father from needless suffering and loss of dignity. This made Keith even more compassionate to the plight of those who have no leverage. His money did afford some of the best attention by medical personnel thus making him even more aware of, how those with no health insurance must endure the lack of self-respect to which a society without responsiveness will put them through.
Having empathy and concern for others can be a misfortune because there is so little one can do to help the forgotten ones. That's the way the Insurance Industry would like those who can't afford their high premiums to become... FORGOTTEN.
It's only people with a platform such as Mr. Olbermann, who can bring to light the outrageous greed in this country where bottom-line is more revered than humaneness. I guess if they could just get rid of those who can't line their pockets, they would do so but since we are a nation of laws all they can do is lie, mislead and spend exuberant amounts of money lobbying their status quo.
Thank all that is good, for Keith Olbermann, he is the guiding light to benevolent thinking of which we all, Conservatives and Liberals alike, can follow, if you happen to possess a heart. He truly is A VOICE OF REASON. thinkingblue
The video will give you some of the highlights of Keith Obermann's hour long commentary on Health Care Reform.
You can view the whole segment here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33213245/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rep. Alan Grayson D-Fla, A Voice Of Reason
October 3, 2009Florida Representative Alan Grayson speaks for all of us who believe the Republicans are only responsive to Corporate Interests. They have shown time and again that "We The People" do not matter. Our only function is to keep the corporate world lucrative. The Health Care Reform debacle has exposed their greed to everyone except those who follow their creed, those who have been indoctrinated to blindly accept anything they have to offer as genuine and in their best interests; no questions are allowed. I swear the Republican Party and Religion are one and the same. thinkingblue
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Blog post
- 6 months ago
- Views: 124
- Not yet rated
-
USA - Doctors Over Testing Ove USA - Doctors Over Testing Over Treating
- From: thinkingblue
-
Description:
HERE WE GO AGAIN!
Another study proving doctors are over testing and over prescribing. NO SHIT!
These studies pop up now and then but nothing happens to change the nefarious doctoring methods here in the good ole US of A. Maybe for a short period but then it’s business as usual.
I remember a time when pediatricians’ handed out prescriptions for antibiotics to every child with a case of the sniffles. As a young mother I was led to believe that if I didn’t give my child this “miracle” drug they would surely die. My kids had this potion pumping through their veins at least 2 or 3 times a year. Then, sometime later, it was found that this over treating was causing the antibiotics not to be so ANTI anymore and bacterials were turning into HULKS, so it stopped! Nice, after I raised my kids on the stuff! I’m so cynical now, that I BELIEVE ‘NUTTIN HONEY’!
BTW, to you teabaggers bellowing "HANDS OFF MY HEALTHCARE!". What healthcare? Oh, you mean the one that uses your body as a guinea pig to increase “THEIR” wealth? thinkingblue
Experts say US doctors overtesting, overtreating
By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer Lindsey Tanner,
CHICAGO – Too much cancer screening, too many heart tests, too many cesarean sections. A spate of recent reports suggest that too many Americans — maybe even President Barack Obama — are being overtreated.
Is it doctors practicing defensive medicine? Or are patients so accustomed to a culture of medical technology that they insist on extensive tests and treatments?
A combination of both is at work, but now new evidence and guidelines are recommending a step back and more thorough doctor-patient conversations about risks and benefits.
As a medical journal editorial said this week about Obama's recent checkup, Americans including the commander in chief need to realize that "more care is not necessarily better care."
Obama's exam included prostate cancer screening and a virtual colonoscopy. The PSA test for prostate cancer is not routinely recommended for any age and colon screening is not routinely recommended for patients younger than 50. Obama is 48. MORE HERE
___
On the Net:
The National Institutes of Health: http://bit.ly/a8c7P0
The American Cancer Society: http://bit.ly/9w0fli
Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making: http://www.informedmedicaldecisions.org - Blog post
- 6 months ago
- Views: 114
- Not yet rated
-
Limbaugh pulled something out Limbaugh pulled something out of his BUTT...AGAIN!
- From: thinkingblue
-
Description:
Hate radio host Rush Limbaugh has been one of health carereform’s most vociferous opponents, warning that “human beings will die earlier than normal” under the “freedom killing” and “life threatening” plan, and calling for it to be “aborted.”
Yesterday, Limbaugh put his money where his mouth is, saying that if health care passes and all his fears are realized, he’ll leave the country:
CALLER: If the health care bill passes, where would you go for health care yourself? And the second part of that is, what would happen to the doctors, do they have to participate in the federal program, or could they opt out of it?
LIMBAUGH: My guess in even in Canada and even in the UK, doctors have opted out. And once they’ve opted, they can’t see anybody Medicare, Medicaid, or what will
become the exchanges. They have to have a clientele of private patients that will pay them a retainer and it’ll be a very small practice. I don’t know if that’s
been outlawed in the Senate bill. I don’t know. I’ll just tell you this, if this passes and it’s five years from now and all that stuff gets implemented — I am leaving the country. I’ll go to Costa Rica. Listen here:. - Blog post
- 6 months ago
- Views: 105
- Not yet rated
-
World-Mart World-Mart
- From: Natural Lefty
-
Description:
March 7, 2010
This is a revision of a post which I originally wrote on July 25, 2008. Ordinarily, I am not one to engage in apocalyptic or pessimistic visions of the future, but I think it would be appropriate to take a glimpse into the future in the case that political conservatism and corporatism prevail. I do not think this will happen, but if it does, we could wind up with World-Mart in charge. By happenstance, my wife asked me to take her shopping this afternoon to a place near the relatively new Super Wal-Mart here in Moreno Valley, after I had already started revising this post. Thus it was that we decided to go there for the first time ever, to buy some things she wanted. While there, I couldn't help but think that this represented the future of our world -- huge megastores with relatively little competition, and relatively fixed, not-so-cheap prices. My wife agreed with me about the not-so-cheap prices, for sure. Once we went inside, we heard a tremendous thunderclap, followed by the nearly deafening sound of heavy rain on the aluminum roof. When we left, the downpour was still ongoing, yet the late afternoon sun was shining, and a huge, beautiful complete rainbow was visible just to our east, from end to end, perhaps the most beautiful rainbow I have ever seen. Was that an auspicious sign? I don't know; I try not to be superstitious, but it seemed like a good sign.
World-Mart
After finishing their educations at the World-Mart chain of high schools, colleges and universities, where each receptive young mind was indoctrinated with World-Mart approved information, including its version of history, every young man was expected to apply for a position at World-Mart. Of course, it wasn't really a matter of being hired or not, so much as a matter of what position the individual would get. The better connected the applicant, the better the position, in general. Women could apply also, but only single women, and they only were given the more menial positions (greeter, cashier, stock clerk), especially since women had been banned from going to college. On the other hand, World-Mart was extremely generous. They could afford to be, since they basically owned everything, including our government. Every new employee was assigned a house in a World-Mart community. They had a choice of World-Mart doctors, and local World-Mart stores in which to fulfill their shopping needs. Of course, only approved World-Mart products were allowed. And prior to going to live in a World-Mart community, each person had to sign a document absolving World-Mart of any legal responsibility. Furthermore, since World-Mart controlled the entire housing market, there was no place to live other than a World-Mart community. Consequently, no one could sue World-Mart. At home, television viewers and radio listeners had a choice of several World-Mart stations, all plying the individual's psyche with appropriate propagandistic drivel chosen by World-Mart executives. On Sundays, all citizens were required to attend one of several World-Mart run churches.
Welcome to the world of 2110, a world in which World-Mart, the winner of a world-wide unrestrained capitalistic game of Monopoly, is in charge of the entire world. World-Mart had begun as a state run department store named Ah-Geng, in China, the world's most populous nation, and had used it's privileged position and the fact that other nations such as the U.S. were greatly in debt to China, as leverage to eventually gain world domimance. The corporation changed its name from Ah-Geng to its final form, World-Mart, after acquiring Wal-Mart. Also used to gain power was the all-to-easy to sell meme that "government is bad," which was promoted by companies such as World-Mart. Of course, they failed to mention that the alternative to government was corporate control, which is worse than even bad government, and infinitely worse than good government. In fact, there was only one viable political party left in the United States, the ironically named People's Party, which had effectively squelched all opposition one way or another, until there was barely a whimper of protest remaining. The presidential elections of 2000, 2004, and 2008 in the United States, all close and controversial elections, were looked back upon by historians and World-Mart's owners as crucial in the story of World-Mart's ascendency to power. In 2000, conservative Republican George W. Bush became president despite losing the popular vote, and despite the fact that he should have lost the electoral vote, as well, thanks to his friends in high places. In 2004, George W. Bush won another close election, although there were suspicious circumstances occuring in some areas, especially Ohio. In 2008, despite African-American Democrat Barack Obama's historic victory, the corporate class warfare on the middle class continued. Strangely, even when supposedly progressive Presidents such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and Democrat dominated congresses, were elected, U.S. government policy continued to become more and more corporate friendly, as though these administrations were operating under some sort of never-mentioned dire threat from corporate America. Also crucial in humanity's slide was a decision by the conservative dominated Supreme Court approximately one year after Obama's election, giving corporations the right to spend as much money as they wanted to in order to promote candidates and political causes who favored them. After that, not only American history, but world history was all downhill, as corporations solidified their worldwide dominance of life in the 21st century. Even relatively affluent socialist minded nations which resisted the tide of World-Mart's dominance, were boycotted, harassed and even militarily invaded into eventual submission by World-Mart. Of course, the historians who wrote the history were all empoyees of World-Mart, so their version of history celebrated these events as great turning points for the better, and failed to mention anything about the controversies and suspicious circumstances surrounding these elections. Similarly, politicians, being funded soley by World-Mart, voiced the official World-Mart version of history.
Meanwhile, executives at World-Mart's world headquarters in Beijing were in charge of setting policy. For example, the official policy for the United States included teaching its citizens that the United States was the "world's greatest nation" and the "world's greatest democracy." America was "the land of the free and the home of the brave" as it had always been. Now that China's government had control of the entire world's business, the world had been made to resemble a 1950's style Chinese commune, except that its citizens were being duped into believing that they lived in some sort of great democracy, in which people went to the polls every so often to vote for World-Mart's chosen politicians, and except that its citizens had more technology, but fewer actual choices to make. There were occasional grumblings among the citizenry about World-Mart's total domination, but people, even though secretly miserable with the situation, felt helpless to do anything about it. Mostly, they were too busy working like servants permanently indentured to World-Mart to really think about it. Meanwhile, use of the internet had been restricted to only World-Mart approved parties, and only for World-Mart approved purposes. And since vices such as smoking, liquor and gambling were rampant, as well as crimes both petty and violent, the food of the masses was cheap and of poor nutritious quality, and health care had deteriorated to third-world quality, except for World-Mart's executives, average life expectancy in the United States had decreased to 55 years.
In contrast to the rest of the world, World-Mart's executives lived like emperors, with a jet setting lifestyle, and numerous mansions to occupy. Over time, these people's behavior, already extravagant, greedy and self-centered, became increasingly pathological. Disregard for the welfare of their fellow humans, and narcissistic disregard of the law, became the norm. Children of World-Mart executives grew up in a world apart from the rest of humanity, shielded from the true conditions under which their workers labored. They were told that people were happy to be under the benificent auspices of the great leader class of the world who ran World-Mart, and they seldom learned any better. If they had, surely many of them would have been appalled and would have tried to change things in ways which merely contemplating, scared World-Mart's leaders as nothing else could. People who acted as servants to the World-Mart leadership felt lucky to work for these executives. The situation in the United States was typical of the entire world. World-Mart had taken over everywhere. "People's Party"s and their annointed representatives dominated politics in nation after nation. Just as in the United States, they had "elections" in which World-Mart's chosen candidate ran virtually unopposed and was "rubber-stamped" the leader of a relatively hapless and powerless government in low-turnout elections. The basic role of government was to enforce the will of World-Mart's executives, who came from a variety of nations, although the real chiefs were Chinese.
Even though individual governments were relatively ineffectual and weak, there were still wars and skirmishes between nations, many of whom, including the United States, continued to harbor the illusion of independence, despite the fact that it was really World-Mart which was pulling their strings as though they were puppets. In fact, World-Mart manipulated nations into conflicts, in order to distract nations from the real problem, and to keep any one nation from becoming too independent of World-Mart. Most of these wars were over meager resources. Meanwhile, psychopathology had reached record levels, with depression and suicide being epidemic. Why had life deteriorated so? In fact, World-Mart's leaders wanted life for ordinary citizens to be this way. The feared that a well-fed, well-rested, well-educated, physically and psychologically healthy populace would represent a threat to their power. When the standard of living rises among ordinary citizens, and people become well-educated, people start thinking for themselves, and when people think for themselves, they want freedom and want to reshape the world for the good of the people, rather than the glorification of its leader/owners. They get ideas, and that is not what World-Mart wants. Ideas -- especially in combination with time and energy -- can lead to revolutions. Thus I say, let us get the idea, and make sure that World-Mart never happens. Let us start by working to reverse the Supreme Court decision in the Citizen's United case, and continue to encourage the Obama administration to engage in progressive policies. Finally let us work to help our world enjoy a future in which good government prevails.
- Blog post
- 6 months ago
- Views: 72
- Not yet rated
-
Right Wingers murdered JFK, RF Right Wingers murdered JFK, RFK and King
- From: SunriseSpirit
-
Description:
Why haven’t Republicans ever been held accountable for the assassinations of the big 3 – JFK, RFK and Martin Luther King Jr?
No, this is not about conspiracy theories, or who actually pulled the trigger or stuff.
Who is to blame for these assassinations?
It’s a simple process of elimination.
We can eliminate the Irish Catholics, for sure.
And all Liberals, and all Democrats.
Basically, no one anywhere near the Left of center would kill any one of them.
The people responsible had to have come from the Right. The Right of Center.
This point always gets lost in the discussion. It’s always “was the FBI, or the CIA, or …” The answers to which we’ll never know.
But we do know they weren’t Radical Lefties. They didn’t come from the ranks of the Hippies, Yippies or even the Weatherman.
This isn’t ancient history, folks.
So,
Let’s us, TODAY, hold the Far Right accountable, hold the Right Wing and their ilk responsible for the murders of one president and 2 extremely important and noble leaders of these United States.
The Far Right gave us the totally unlawful and destructive Charlie McCarthy. It gave us lynchings.
Their self righteous evil violence continues today – witness the murder and violence to abortion clinics and doctors, Obama Hitler rants and Gitmo torture.
In a 5 year period, from 1963 to 1968,
3 of the most beloved leaders of the last half of the 20th century were murdered by one or more fractions of the Right Wing of the Republican Party.
This is fact.
- Blog post
- 7 months ago
- Views: 82
- Not yet rated
-
Why did I bring a kid on the 9 Why did I bring a kid on the 960 boat!!??
- From: carolyncoastbound
-
Description:
This is an open letter to Thom and all especially those on the boat!
-----------
Hi, last night there was a Hornblower cruise for 960 and Thom Hartmann in San Francisco. In a whimsy, I decided to bring my 8 year old son, who is almost 'recovered' from 'autism' --which is not really the point, it would have been a mistake for any 8 year old child! . . . But we were so isolated for many years due to his more severe autism that I tend to overdo giving him opportunities. I'm so grateful he's doing so well. Anyhow, I hope that wasn't too weird (bringing a kid on a nightime boat ride)! But I wanted to explain!Especially to the people whose candle he blew out (sorry!)
First, I thought it was going to be something like a book signing in a library where we'd sit at our tables and my son could draw and listen with me to all the wonderful liberal talk surrounding us, people in interesting discourse, a paradise of tolerance and ideas! Instead it was really a date night type event with not enough seats. I would have really enjoyed it as a newly single woman if I'd left my son left at home. But--not an event for a child. The person who took my credit card assured me it would be fine to bring a child . . .well, I hope the money went to 960 and not all to Hornblower.
But, that's not the point! This is the point.
Do you remember how you felt when you saw the Supreme Court give Gore v. Bush to Bush? The shock? To me, it was a worse shock than 9-11. Because the enemy was within. The enemy was our own govt. A silent coup.
This is how I felt when Andrew Wakefield was excoriated this week for doing nothing more (do your research) than suggesting in a paper 12 years ago that children who had the 'new' MMR vaccine and autism also had severe bowel disorders that could potentially explain autistic behaviors. If you read the paper, he was asking this question. He was reporting initial clues. He was daring to challenge this insane idea that all vaccines are always good. He even said "get the regular measles vaccine but lets do more research on the MMR". He didn't say "all vaccines are bad" he said "this one shows clues of causing issues. Get this other one. " BIG DIFFERENCE.
For this, the man and his colleagues have been destroyed.
Why do I care? Because the child I had with me has a diagnosis of autism (which by the way often "improves" into ADHD--which I have and agree is a strength).
Prior to us consulting with doctors at a clinic where Dr. Wakefiled is the expert, my son was literally banging his abdomen into walls daily, and couldn't stay in school longer than an hour a day. He was in great pain and because of Dr. Wakefields work, and other telltale symptoms, we suspected bowel issues. We went to Thoughtfulhouse in Austin Texas. And they found them, and they treated him, and yesterday, I was able to go with him to Pier 39, enjoy walking around San Francisco with him, etc. All things unthinkable 2-3 years ago.Because he is no longer in pain. "Behaviors" were symptoms a child with verbal issues could not easily express. For scientifc explanation of how the bowels can cause autistic symptoms see http://www.chem.cmu.edu/wakefield/ for an amazing presentation. Skip through the boring earlier videos and watch wakefield and krigsman.
But what's the connection to you? Well, I would listen to Sirius and 960, usually only you in front of my son, as I schlepped my son around here and there, interspersed with Kids stations. You are the best because you don't scream but you have gentle logic. I didn't think my son was paying attention. Then--he was in the bathtub with toy ducks. Suddenly he had "ExaggerDuck" say "ObamaDuck doesn't care about you. Let's put him in jail". All the other ducks were horrified and wanted to put Obama in the bath version of the jail. And then "TruthoDuck" came rushing in "The insurance ducks PAID ExaggerDuck to LIE abourt Obama Duck. HE should go to jail". So all the ducks broke Obama duck out of jail ! It was an exciting breaktrhough moment to me --my son picked up information by osmosis and turned it into a story! This is a great sign he is ovecoming many of the autism issues. And -- my son never could have figured this out without listening to you. (Actually he has done many similar, elaborate plays. I am only telling you the tip of the iceberg. He's in special ed (and hates school) but can create these amazing plays that show the insight of a much older child, while some of his behaviors are more like a 3 year old) (he's 8).
But he never would have been able to articulate if he was still in pain from his bowel issues (he has a form of colitis) that was discovered because of Dr. Wakefield also. The confulence of both these things this week --the opportunity to see you and the terrible travesty against Wakefield --somehow I thought if we talked to enough people we could wake them up. For God's sake just look at the possibility that just as some kids can't have peanut butter, no one is saying banish peanut butter! Autism Moms like me with kids mildly affected know we are only the tip of the iceberg. The parents of kids who are still severely affected never get out of their homes! The bottom line is these people think that if vaccines cause autism, so what. It's worth the price. Save the lives of all the kids, a few get autism. Well, that's insane. Because we can save the lives of all the kids AND figure out how to identify which ones might be susceptible to autism if we will just ADMIT it's possible and turn our research that way! Also autism isn't just my son and Bill Gates and Temple Grandin. Austism is kids in special ed writhing and screaming on the floor. If you don't believe me go look at a special ed class for very young severe children. Take off the glasses of denial and ask yourself if it is possible these kids are expressing pain from physical damage rather than random 'behaviors'. All I know is the more I detoxed my son the better he got.
Remember how you felt seeing the disasters of the last 30 years coming (reagan, bush, the election therft, the ad hominem attacks against Gore, etc etc etc) ---and you couldn't wake up those around you to see it? I lived through the steel mill collapse in Youngstown Ohio and perhaps that is why I saw the Reagan collapse coming. I'm a programmer and know that touch screens can be manipulated (I don't think that guy won in MA by the way). . .
This frustration at KNOWING what is true--this is what most of us autism parents feel. We saw this happen with our own eyes in our own children. We saw them healthy robust and alive one day and wissome, hurting and not fully there the next. And for so many of us, the trigger was a vaccine. Just listen, please. And research. And think about how the attacks against Wakefield are ad-hominem. And how he would have had far more to gain peronally had he just slipped into hiding. Instead he's been fighting for our children and helped thousands of them.
Go to ghttp://www.generationrescue.org and read the statement about the upcoming monkey vaccine study. It's devasasting and pharma will do anything to suppress it.
I could not, as a newly single Mom, really afford to spend $80 on the Hornblower event last night. But I wanted to meet you because Andrew Wakefield and many other amazing doctors have lost fortunes and reputations standing up for my child and others like him. We parents need to pull out all the stops and start speaking our truth. This just has to stop. If not even for autism for every other medical issue. It has to be okay to ask "could childbed fever be casued by not washing hands. Could scurvy be casued by not enough fruit (it took the brits 60 years to admit this at the cost to their own navy . . could ulcers be caused by a bug (they got the nobel prize but were ridiculed).
If there is any justice in the world, Wakefield will one day get a Nobel prize. I think you should interview him on your show. He's a gentle, good man. I've met him. You would be blown away by his ability to focus on facts and the children who are injured instead of his own travails becasue of how this turned out. If this is of interest to you, go to www.thoughtfulhouse.org. - Blog post
- 7 months ago
- Views: 47
- Not yet rated
-
Self-Esteem Versus Accomplishm Self-Esteem Versus Accomplishment
- From: Natural Lefty
-
Description:
January 27
Education is Progressive Part 9: Self-Esteem Versus Accomplishment
One of the most interesting developments in recent years in Personality and Social Psychology is that self-esteem has turned out not to be what it was supposed to be. Jail inmates often have higher levels of self-esteem than accomplished people such as doctors or lawyers, at least as measured by self-esteem questionnaires. This is obviously absurd. As envisioned by Abraham Maslow, self-esteem comes from appreciating one's own accomplishments. However, what passes for self-esteem, as measured by our common self-esteem measures, is more a function of several other factors such as physical appearance, praise from others, and most tellingly, having relatively low standards in order to achieve satisfaction. People who have high standards tend to be perfectionistic, and thus, have relatively low self-esteem, regardless of their accomplishments. In contrast, it has been suggested by some Psychologists that having unrealisitcally high levels of self-esteem leads to narcisism and perhaps Narcisistic Personality Disorder, a dangerous thing.
One of the most startling cross-cultural studies I heard of regarding education, compared the achievement levels of grade school students in different nations with their self-ratings of competence. Among various industrialized nations, the highest math achievement among grade school students was in Korea. The United States, I believe, had the lowest test scores. However, students' self-ratings were exactly the opposite. The students in South Korea felt the worst about their math skills, while those in the U.S. felt the best! Clearly, far more is expected of students in Korea, and far less in the United States, resulting in a false self-derogation by the South Koreans, and a false sense of esteem in the Americans. I saw my own step-daughter's scholastic records from Taiwan after she moved here at the age of 16. One of the comments was that Isabella was "not very good at math." Obviously, that was relatively speaking, as she did very well in math courses here in the U.S., and now is an accountant. (She was just hired last week to be an accountant once again after being unemployed for 16 months, during which time she managed to complete her MBA degree.) Also, Isabella and her mother told me that in Taiwan, any score over 80 is considered an "A" -- a fact which I could see from her report cards. In the United States, that is considered to be a distressingly low "standard" for an "A." I know, because I used to give my students difficult tests but reward any student getting a score over 80 an "A," Taiwan style, but was reprimanded for this practice, and forced to increase the percentages required for all grades. The fact is that, exams are more difficult in Asian nations such as Taiwan, than here in the U.S., resulting in greater achievement, even though the average scores are lower.
Since I am not allowed to do the same here, for the sake of the appearance of having reasonable "standards," I have tried to make my exams somewhat easier. I choose somewhat easier questions from the test banks than I used to, and write or rewrite others to test basic concepts I have covered in class. These efforts only go so far in maintaining a decent grade distribution. I have always given lots of low grades, "D"s and "F"s, and not very many high grades, but since increasing the percentages required for a particular grade, I have assigned even fewer "A"s and "B"s, and more "D"s. (The cutoff for an "F" has not changed.) For example, during a recent semester, I wound up giving only 7 "A"s out of about 130 students in 3 classes. I remember this because I told this to my eldest brother Craig, who teaches at U.C. Davis, and he was astounded at how low the grades I assign are. Of course, I would like my grades to be much higher, but I feel my hands are pretty much tied in this regard.
Meanwhile, the community college where I teach has a student population which is not nearly as good on the whole as at a university, and many of the students find it difficult to handle my university-type exams. When one teaches at a community college, it doesn't take long to realize that it isn't exactly Harvard, if you know what I mean. One of my good friends, Steve, who also teaches at a community college, told me that he has downgraded his course content and/or exams 5 times in order for his students to have decent grades. Thus, the prevailing mindset at our community colleges, and probably much of the rest of our educational system, is to "dumb down" courses, and "idiot proof" exams, while keeping percentage criteria for grades high. This way, the appearance of having high standards is maintained, as long as potential critics do not look to closely at the actual course content and exams, and reasonably good grades are attained by the students. At the same time, we continue for the most part to salve the egos of students and allow them to maintain relatively high levels of academic esteem, even if they do not deserve it. It all works out from a face-saving point of view, except that students face relatively little challenge in school, mostly know only the basics, and have lousy critical thinking skills. No wonder we end up with a nation of mostly low-information (but high self-esteem) voters who are easily swayed by sound-bite messages.
I would suggest that we adopt a system more like Asia's, with challenging material, difficult exams, but somewhat relaxed percentage criteria for the better grades. Additionally, we should teach more critical thinking and logic, and give more educational opportunities for creative thought. Furthermore, we should encourage students' interests to give them the greatest possible opportunity to develop intrinsic motivation. And most importantly, we should hold the educational process itself in high esteem, as it is in much of Asia. We should reward students for good performance, and have far more opportunities to recognize their accomplishments, including awards and public recognition -- something which is common in Chinese communities. This will give students the best opportunity to develop their intellectual potentials, and to develop true self-esteem -- self-esteem based upon true accomplishment rather than well-intentioned but overly accomodating praise for no particular achievement. Finally, we should be sure to recognize progress -- the progress of the individual, in this case -- rather than focusing solely upon competition and social comparison. I try to do this as a teacher. The accomplishment is when a student masters new skills and knowledge, not so much when he or she beats classmates on an exam. This way, every student can develop a sense of accomplishment and self-esteem, not only the best ones, and the cooperative aspects of education will be validated. After all, education in the end is a social, cooperative process.
- Blog post
- 8 months ago
- Views: 152
- Not yet rated
-
The Biggest Pigs Have Taken Ov The Biggest Pigs Have Taken Over
- From: Natural Lefty
-
Description:
January 23
The Biggest Pigs Have Taken Over
The biggest pigs have taken over. Their bank accounts are huge
The humongous hogs have taken over; they rule by subterfuge.
They buy the politicians; they buy the network news.
They've got their own spin doctors, and "think tanks" they've got too
To tell us that what's good for them is also good for you.
They lobby for their points of view; "we're good for you" they spew.
These piggies run the highest court, and rule all the land;
They've got things going their way, now they do proclaim
"Pigs and banks are people now, and corporations too;
We know because the Supreme Court announced that is their view"
Whoever put a bank in jail? I say this is insane.
They never really let us know, how vicious is their plan.
We cannot see 'til its too late, just how things really stand.
You find them in the boardrooms, and find them in D.C.
In movies, music, sports and more-- they've got their own celebrities.
They wallow in their money pits, the only thing that's green
And keep their bank vaults safely locked, the only thing that's clean.
They have the most expensive suits, and plastic surgeons too
Their piggy wives wear lipstick, and fashions old and new
They fancy themselves slim and sleek, and drive expensive cars
But no matter how they cover up, gigantic pigs are what they are.
When they look in the mirror, they see something unique
Amazingly endowed with looks, of beauty at their peak.
They cannot see that they are pigs; delusion rules their minds.
They only can see what they want, and speak to their own kind.
We must percieve how men of greed, as their power grows strong
Through lack of regulation, turn surely into hogs.
Faithful Social Darwinists, they praise their own success.
"Greed is good" they sing and shout, "and I'm the greediest"
Greed is good" they dance and sing "and I'm the very best."
They sit down at their obscene feasts and eat the smaller pigs
As cannibals, they are quite proud; it makes them feel more big.
If we were pigs, we'd take them in and slay the fatty hog
Eat pork and bacon all day long and wallow in the bog,
But being civilized, I say, our task is justice based
Jail for some, strict diets for all; let them join the human race.
Let's make sure that this kind of pork, never grows again
Humans unite! Let's claim our human rights once more and then
Let rule of law and regulation always be our guide
The greater good for all this earth, always be in mind.
Let us resolve to do these things, for change we can believe in
To rule by greed, money and might, we say "Never again!"
Note: I actually began this poem about a week ago, before the recent Supreme Court decision giving corporations the right to use all of "their" money however "they" want to.
- Blog post
- 8 months ago
- Views: 76
- Not yet rated
-
Progressive Professors Progressive Professors
- From: Natural Lefty
-
Description:
December 1
Education is Progressive Part 3: Progressive Professors
As long as I have known about higher education, I have known that education was a progressive force, and educators were largely progressive. Thus, I find it distressingly surprising that much of the public is not aware of this. In fact, this is one of my reasons for writing this series. Even among progressives, I find widespread misunderstanding of education's progressive role in society. I also find many legitimate criticisms of our educational system as it currently stands in the United States, as well as critiques of education around the world in general. I plan to address these concerns and make suggestions eventually, but first, I need to address a point which is obvious to anyone who has spent much time in our higher education system, or anyone who looks at statistics regarding the political attitudes of professors, medical doctors, scientists and others with advanced degrees. That obvious point is that those with graduate degrees represent by and large the most progressive demographic in society.
A few weeks ago, I heard Thom Hartmann on the radio citing a study of the public's knowledge of the political attitudes of professors and scientists. The study showed that the public consistently underestimated the progressiveness of these intellectuals. I tried to find this study online, but could not. I also tried to find it among the archives on the Hartmann site, but every time I try to enter his main site, my low-speed computer becomes unresponsive, although it doesn't have a problem with the Thom Hartmann Community site. Nonetheless, these findings are what I would have expected, despite the impression among many conservatives that higher education is "biased" against them, and the efforts of conservatives to increase the number of conservative university professors, and to discredit progressive-minded academia as a whole. (If you do an internet search including the words "liberal" "bias" and "university," you will see what I mean.) I did find abundant research about the political attitudes of professors and other highly educated people. In response to the bias claim by conservatives, I find it is actually a natural phenomenon that professors tend to be progressive, as I will explain later in this essay.
The general finding is that highly educated people tend to be very liberal politically. However, there are differences among various specialties in political attitudes. For example, as of 2005, 72% of full time college faculty identified themselves as politically liberal, and only 15% identified themselves as conservative. (See the note from Wikipedia at the end of this essay for more information.) In general, social scientists and educators of humanities have the most politically liberal attitudes. In some studies, social scientists are the most liberal; in others, professors of humanities topics are the most liberal, but these two areas definitely are the most liberal overall. The same 2005 study found that 81% of Humanities faculty identified themselves as liberal, along with 75% of social sciences faculty (College Faculties a Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds). Another study in 2007 found social scientists to be the most liberal group (The Social and Political Views of American Professors). As a social scientist (Social Psychologist) and Psychology Instructor, this is as I would expect. I have never known even a single social scientist to be a political conservative. Furthermore, probably over 90% of mental health professionals are on the progressive side of the political spectrum. I have never personally known a mental health professional to be a political conservative. The only conservative one I can think of is "Dr. Phil." Here's a sarcastic thanks a lot to Oprah! More than 90% of mental health professionals are progressive, and she chooses to promote a conservative bully of a mental health professional. But "Dr. Phil" is from Texas, so it doesn't surprise me that he is a Republican.
Overall, liberals outnumbered conservatives in all specialties, as well as professional research scientists and medical doctors. The most conservative specialty, distressingly but not surprisingly, is Business. In the 2007 study, conservative Business professors were slightly more numerous than progressives. However, liberals mildly outnumbered conservatives even among Buisness Professors in the 2005 study. Thus, the people who would run (and perhaps ruin) our economy are more conservative than other academics. However, I suspect that progressive ideas are gaining traction among business theoreticians, especially with recent economic developments revealing the fallacies of the dominant, free market business ideology of the past several decades. By the way, I saw nothing about the political attitudes of lawyers, which would be most informative, since attorneys dominate politics. I suspect that they are somewhat like business professors -- business oriented and narrow-mindedly analytical people who are more conservative on the average than most people with graduate degrees, much to the detriment of our political system and society. Nonetheless, attorneys probably are fairly moderate to somewhat liberal politically, on the whole, compared to the general populace.
Now that it has been established that people with advanced education tend to be on the progressive side of the political spectrum, the obvious question is: Why is this the case? Personally, I find this to be an easy question to answer. Perhaps it seems obvious to me, though, due to my own education and background. Basically, two factors are involved. The first is personality and the self-selection process; the second is the effects of education itself. Thus, a synergistic process exists in education, in which personality and intellectual attributes which make a person suited to academic life, interact with the lessons learned during the educational process itself, in order to shape a progressive mindset. To be specific, people who are high on the personality trait of open-to-experience are attracted to lifelong learning and education or scientific pursuits as a profession. This trait is one of 5 described in the currently popular trait theory of personality, the Big 5 Theory of Personality, by Costa and McCrae. Furthermore, the notion that people with high levels of education tend to be high in the open-to-experience trait is not just speculation. Research already confirms this to be the case. People who are open to experience are open-minded, tolerant, and like to explore various ideas and concepts freely. Although Costa and McCrae did not set out to create a set of traits with positive and negative poles, this is largely what emerged from their results. One side of the spectrum of a trait seems better than the other extreme in at least 4 of the 5 traits. Thus, being open to experience seems to be one of these trait outcomes which represents desirable characteristics, as opposed to its opposite, closed-mindedness. Being an intellectual is a good thing. It leads to progressive ideas, which ultimately lead to real progress.
The other, more relevant factor in the educational interaction which leads to progressivism, is the effect of education itself upon the minds of students. Education exposes people to new ideas, peoples and cultures. The farther one progresses, so to speak, in education, the more this is the case. In this essay, I have concentrated on discussing higher education, because this is where the progressive effects of education are most clearly seen. However, to a lesser extent, any and all education is progressive. Some disciplines especially expose people to progressive ideas concerning the nature of our society. These disciplines are those in the social sciences and humanities, thus, the consistent finding that those whose careers are in these disciplines generally have the most progressive attitudes out of all the academic disciplines. Those of us who are social scientists or who work in the humanities, are exposed to thinking about the nature of society, and ideas and research regarding what works and what does not. We are encouraged to think about these issues not only as part of our work, but as an integral part of the totality of our beings. For example, as my Clinical Psychologist friend Ben says, Psychology exposes us to the nurturing, caring, compassionate side of life, thus, showing us the need for progressive policies. To speak for progressive social scientists and humanities professionals as a whole, we are offended by unfairness and inequities which we are made to be aware of. We see solutions to these problems, and sometimes find that certain ones are being implemented in other nations (such as universal health care), but are frustrated to see that the United States is caught in a politically moribund system in which corporate greed rules. No matter how much we complain about what is, explain what should be, and try to make it be so, we seem to keep fighting enormous societal inertia. The election of Barack Obama has given us much hope that the tide of history is changing to a more progressive tone, but we (social scientists and humanities professors) find that although politics in the U.S. have improved considerably since Obama's election, far less progress is being made than we think should be. Yes, we are at the forefront of progressivism in society, not just for now, but always.
Even those who study topics with fewer social implications such as biological or physical sciences, or any other profession, as a graduate student, are exposed to mind-opening and often mind-boggling information and ideas. They also typically become friends with foreign students as well as domestic students with a wide variety of backgrounds and belief systems. All of these experiences serve to reinforce the trait of openness-to-experience, which in most cases, was already a fairly strong aspect of the personalities of students before they found their way into graduate school. The fact is, that there is no more progressive force in society than education, and the farther education proceeds, the more this is the case.
Postscript note: The following information is from Wikipedia on the Democratic Party.
Professionals
Professionals, those who have a college education and whose work revolves around the conceptualization of ideas, have supported the Democratic Party by a slight majority since 2000. Between 1988 and 2000, professionals favored Democrats by a 12 percentage point margin. While the professional class was once a stronghold of the Republican Party it has become increasingly split between the two parties, leaning in favor of the Democratic Party. The increasing support for Democratic candidates among professionals may be traced to the prevalence of social liberal values among this group.“ Professionals, who are, roughly speaking, college-educated producers of services and ideas, used to be the most staunchly Republican of all occupational groups... now chiefly working for large corporations and bureaucracies rather than on their own, and heavily influenced by the environmental, civil-rights, and feminist movements — began to vote Democratic. In the four elections from 1988 to 2000, they backed Democrats by an average of 52 percent to 40 percent. ” A study on the political attitudes of medical students, for example, found that "U.S. medical students are considerably more likely to be liberal than conservative and are more likely to be liberal than are other young U.S. adults. Future U.S. physicians may be more receptive to liberal messages than conservative ones, and their political orientation may profoundly affect their health system attitudes." Similar results are found for professors, who are more strongly inclined towards liberalism and the Democratic Party than other occupational groups. The Democratic Party also has strong support among scientists , with 55% identifying as Democrats, 32% as Independents, and 6% as Republicans and 52% identifying as liberal, 35% as moderate, and 9% as conservative.
Academia
Academics, intellectuals and the highly educated overall constitute an important part of the Democratic voter base. Academia in particular tends to be progressive. In a 2005 survey, nearly 72% of full-time faculty members identified as liberal, while 15% identified as conservative. The social sciences and humanities were the most liberal disciplines while business was the most conservative. Male professors at more advanced stages of their careers as well as those at elite institutions tend be the most liberal. Another survey by UCLA conducted in 2001/02, found 47.6% of professors identifying as liberal, 34.3% as moderate, and 18% as conservative. Percentages of professors who identified as liberal ranged from 49% in business to over 80% in political science and the humanities. Social scientists, such as Brett O'Bannon of DePauw University, have claimed that the "liberal" opinions of professors seem to have little, if any, effect on the political orientation of students. Whether or not that is true, some conservatives and Republicans complain they are offended and even threatened by the liberal atmosphere of college campuses. As of July 2008 the Students for Academic Freedom arm of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a conservative organization, posted a list of 440 student complaints, most of which pertain to perceived liberal bias of college professors (Abuse Center). The liberal inclination of American professors is attributed by some to the liberal outlook of the highly educated. Those with graduate education, have become increasingly Democratic beginning in the 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008 elections. Intellectualism, the tendency to constantly reexamine issues, or in the words of Edwards Shields, the "penetration beyond the screen of immediate concrete experience," has also been named as an explanation why academia is strongly democratic and liberal. Although Democrats are well-represented at the post graduate level, self-identified Republicans are more likely to have attained a 4-year college degree. The trends for the years 1955 through 2004 are shown by gender in the graphs below, reproduced with permission from Democrats and Republicans — Rhetoric and Reality, a book published in 2008 by Joseph Fried.These results are based on surveys conducted by the National Election Studies, supported by the National Science Foundation.
- Blog post
- 9 months ago
- Views: 125
- Not yet rated
-
Sita in hoodie ;) Sita in hoodie ;)
- From: SoloPocono
-
Description:
This is my "Baby", also known as my Feline Mistress. As I wrote in comments under that sweet picture of the cat among a litter of prairie dogs, Sita is a rather unusual cat-a major understatement. To say that she's saved my life in a number of times, is an understatement. I'm disabled, a former healthcare professional of 25yrs, who became a survivor of the "Pre-Existing Condition Scam". She came to me as I was pulling out of a deep depression and going through intensive treatments for ovarian cancer a little over 2yrs ago. She was barely 3wks old when a lady brought her to my door-giving me a chance to help a creature MUCH more helpless than I was myself at the time. (This person had planned on just, literally, throwing her away.)We kind of took care of each other for the next 6 months-but I always thought that SHE was doing more good for ME than I was for HER. Obviously, we needed each other, and over the past 2yrs-MUCH of which I was often housebound/bedbound for weeks at a time; me and this wacky ball of fur, have grown together-in more than one weigh,..I mean, way. ;) Here's a collection of photos of my lil brat-who I wasn't sure WHAT I was going to do with for,..maybe a day or two? Now, I can't envision my life without her. Oh, and yea-I know what some folks are going to say; but I live in a town with no friends and thousands of miles from family, trapped by circumstances beyond our control.
HOWEVER-a couple of folks already know-my son has been saving up to bring me to his gorgeous Island-where he's actually found Doctors to treat both of us-regardless of coverage.
(and the fact they are MUCH closer than 3hrs away kinda helps too!! ;)Princess Sita
She likes to steal the covers from me; pulls my heating pad away when I get up to get my tea, actually covers it with a sheet or "HER" blanket; and recently, has figured out if you close a door, the room warms up. Either that or my son no longer has his own room when he comes to visit.... ;) But, at night in "our" room-if she gets chilly, she pushes my door shut. I live in a VERY old building and have the old iron radiators in each room-talk about getting "toasty" when the door is shut!! I THOUGHT the hoodie would help-and it does, after she settles down and quits playing with it. ;) (And NO, I don't think it's because it bothers her-it HAD a tie to make the hood smaller-I had to take it out but she keeps looking for it. Otherwise, she's actually tried putting it on herself--and will carry it from room to room with her.
- 10 months ago
- Views: 36
- Not yet rated
-
Gayle Gayle
- From: Travellini
-
Description:
Because my sister died when her insurance used her premiums for profit rather than care, I have submitted the following commentary in support of a robust public option, at the very least.
At her fortieth birthday party, my sister basked in the warm glow of loving friends, candlelight, and good cheer. She laughed her big beautiful smile, and we marveled at her vibrancy. An effervescent children’s librarian and comedienne, Gayle cherished her pint-sized audiences, her friends, and her family, and she was beloved in return. Two years and three months later, she lay dead and emaciated, somehow expendable to her “health care system” which had made a killing.
Neither First Nor Best: Health Care in America is 37th in the World: At least a dozen times between April and November 2005, increasing fatigue, rashes, weight loss and a myriad of over fourteen other symptoms led Gayle to seek a diagnosis, but with a history of depression, she was repeatedly diagnosed with “anxiety.” One doctor burned off a facial rash later determined to have been Lupus-related, yet, when Gayle’s own Internet research led her to request a Lupus test, she was told the results were negative.
Alarmed by her odyssey of dead-ends, I drove from Dallas to Albuquerque just after Thanksgiving, 2005. I found my tall willowy sister now bone thin, her clothes draped awkwardly as if many sizes too large. Forty pounds below weight, she napped during work breaks, could barely keep down her food, was often disoriented, and aches and rashes plagued her constantly. Walking across the room exhausted her, and she often gasped breathlessly even without exertion. Anxiety, my ass.
Co-workers and friends buttressed her finances, and I served as chauffeur and caretaker. I had my Dallas household put into storage, and together, we set to work, determined to save her life, and insisting on referrals wherever we could get them. She began a battery of tests in December.
Just before Christmas, at long-awaited appointment (which we’d been encouraged to cancel by her “primary care” doctor), our new rheumatologist stated: “I don’t understand why you are still seeking a diagnosis when the original test four months ago was positive for Lupus.” The next day, an oncologist reported the presence of a lung tumor. Gayle had never smoked, but the tumor presented clearly in the first series of tests.
I left her weakly sitting on snowy curbs while I parked the car and scurried to find wheel chairs. We wished for our own gurney. We waited for hours in emergency rooms; on one occasion she waited six hours in emergency for a bed in the hospital. After long waits, doctor consultations generally lasted five minutes, fifteen if we were lucky. Too many times she was sent home with no medication or tests, only the nonchalant suggestion: “You need to work at getting your strength up.” We begged for a home health nurse.
We desperately needed someone to coordinate her care. A new doctor, strongly recommended, kept her waiting for three hours one morning. She collapsed in his office and we left without seeing him.
Neither the oncologist nor the rheumatologist had hospital privileges, and only once at my insistence, did they speak to one another. It simply wasn’t the way things were done; their frail patients are their conduit to one another. “What does the other doctor say?” they’d ask. With each hospital visit, new doctors started from scratch, now happy to re-run exhausting tests before sending her away to “work at getting stronger.” Even when re-admitted to the same hospital, they’d begin again, never the same doctor twice, seemingly never having consulted her records.
“She’s already taking that!” I said with alarm as a doctor duplicated a medicine. “OH! Well! I didn’t know,” he huffed, crumpling the prescription.
Someone decided to remove the tumor, but a high fever the day of the surgery left her sitting in an emergency room stall for eight hours waiting for the fever to come down . . . just waiting. They finally sent her home again to “get stronger.” The tumor stayed.
We mused that this was nothing like an after-school special where one of us might dramatically declare: “As God is my witness, we’re going to beat this thing!” Beat what thing? Even God was on a smoking break and we were left just dinging the little bell in perpetuity. No time for resolve or acceptance; her free-falling decline met no resistance, no plan of action to which we could commit, nothing to grasp in hope, and no one to help.
Fourteen days before her death, we sat cross-legged on a bed with a laptop, two tall red-headed sisters making out our wills. We laughed with dark humor as we melodramatically disinherited childhood bullies and bequeathed our shabby treasures to loved ones who’d no doubt view them as junk. We left each other the lion’s share, swapped passwords, and told each other what to burn.
We planned who we’d haunt. “If you see a beautiful woman in white float by the riverbank, that’s ME!” she said, referencing the legend of La Llorona. “Like you know how to float by a riverbank!” I scoffed. “Sing me a little ditty,” she said weakly, and I solemnly crooned the first line of Ave Maria¸ which made us giggle as if we were six. “You better not die!” I shook my finger fiercely. “People do,” she rasped. Neither her humor nor her wisdom failed her.
Her liver did. They rushed her to ICU shortly after her second dose of chemotherapy through a Rehab hospital into which we’d finally begged our way. At 5’11” she now weighed 112 pounds. A few days later, the ICU nurses said that she had a staph infection which may have come from an open wound. “Perhaps it’s the bedsore on her back,” I suggested. “What bedsore?" the nurses asked, apparently also never having read her file - nor apparently, having bathed her so that the wound would be noticed.
Once stabilized, they moved her from ICU to a mid-ICU unit downstairs. She seized within twenty minutes of the move. The Lovelace staff panic was palpable, “Give her this, NO - um - give her that!” “NO! NO! OH, MY GOD!!” To the layman, the energy of a code call is terrifying, but we are in adamant agreement that the lead doctor panicked, as did the staff under his direction.
Now in a coma, Gayle was returned upstairs to the ICU. My cousin asked a nurse how the drugs they had given her in the mid-ICU unit had affected her condition. The nurse replied, “We have no way of knowing what they gave her downstairs.” No idea what they gave her one floor down in the same hospital?? Nothing in her file? No update between the staff when a patient is handed off??
Gayle’s dearest friends stood with me in the early morning hours when I called them to “sing her on” as her life support was removed.
Who among you thinks this is the finest care in the world? What is the point of files that aren’t read and uncoordinated treatments? They weren’t sure how one diagnosis affects another or how the medications would interact. They told us so. God help the patient who must do this all alone or whose sister doesn’t have the luxury of time to learn the medical maze before it’s too late.
They will insist that their level of care was the highest in the land. They’ll say I’m grieving, it was God’s will, and they are an easy target. Bullshit.
Really? They Fear Malpractice? The statute of limitations expired just as I inquired into legal recourse. The deadlines are tied to the offending action – so which act was the culprit? I should have been more attentive, but then, like a car warranty, they seem to know just tipping point, don’t they? Planned obsolescence . . . that sweet spot where the engine will crack or the family will emerge from despair.
Since Gayle was single, there was no aggrieved party, no dependents to rely on her income. No plaintiff, even if I’d tried. Otherwise, it sounded to the attorney like an incredible case, and he told me, “They say if you want to die, go to Lovelace.” Funny, that’s not in their ad.
Highest Expenditure Per Capita is NOT for “Care” From the moment they diagnosed Gayle with two conditions, we repeatedly requested a transfer to MD Anderson in Houston - they were willing to take her, and our transportation and housing were arranged. Yet each time, Lovelace refused. The oncologist suggested that it might be a “paraneoplastic syndrome,” a complicated anomaly which presents itself as another disease – it was a mystery, but they weren’t about to let anyone else figure it out. It was their hospital, their doctors, and their insurance, and clearly they wanted the money to stay in house.
A Starbucks employee to whom I unburdened suggested I request a Lovelace patient advocate, but it took weeks to prove the situation was critical enough to warrant one. Once assigned, the advocate “could not” provide us with a full copy of patient benefits, and stonewalled even harder against going to MD Anderson. “You can appeal in 30 days,” the advocate said. “She’ll be dead in 30 days,” I replied. The “advocate” disappeared, and Gayle was dead less than ten days later.
Premiums Support the Corporate Agenda: For all the care that Gayle didn’t get, together we watched the daily unrolling of the new Lovelace Health System’s advertising campaign. Brightly dancing flowers gently floated across images of healthy skipping people, obscuring nightmares like ours from the unwitting healthy consumer. We hated those empty, superficial ads which bombarded us from television and billboards.
In 1997, the World Health Organization rated the US overall health system performance as 37th in the world with the highest expenditure per capita . . . perhaps because premiums that businesses and individuals pay in good faith don’t go to the care of our loved ones, but instead, to sustain an industry whose goal is profit, not health. Talking points, until you’ve lived them . . . or died by them . . . or scattered your loved one’s ashes in a lonely meadow.
Our politicians, by and for the people, dare betray us to benefit the greed of corporate health industry, which is by and for profit. For all the care that Gayle didn’t get, I now watch the figures and dollar signs estimating lobbyist budgets. I watch the health insurance cartel/industrial complex find ways to ensure that they spread the Travis sisters' nightmare to the same unwitting Americans who support their cause. I watch the numbers that show shareholder profits, and executive benefits and bonuses . . . those bonuses.
The “rights” of our economic system trump the needs of the people . . . but capitalism is a false god, not worth the sacrifice of my sister . . . or yours. Health reform naysayers have never watched their own Gayle die or they wouldn’t protect a system that obligates the patient to pay for advertising, corporate jets, bonuses, dividends, ponzi schemes, and the run-around even as they suffer and are forced to beg for moth-eaten care. The health industry has had decades to show integrity, and now deserve no “second” chance to squander our trust and our health.
Quite simply, Lovelace waited her out. When Senator Grayson revealed his white board explaining the Republican plan: “Die Quickly” I burst into tears, simultaneously sobbing and screaming in my head: “Did she die quickly enough for you, Lovelace? Did she cost you a week of lobbying funds? Did some shareholder pout that his check wasn’t big enough? Did some executive forfeit his limo for a day, or a sliver from fat bonus? Did my little sister die quickly enough to save you money?”
I miss Gayle every day . . . a ground-hog day repetition of deep grief that demands a do-over, or at least, some other way of being. Yes, I know. Even if Sanjay Gupta and Dr. Oz had held her hands the whole way, we might have lost her. But we were only asking for reasonable care, so we'll never know, will we?
Somewhere along the way, my only sibling was caught in a vortex of “policies and procedures” designed to minimize costs and avoid accountability. Really, what are you clutching so fiercely? There’s no death panel, you foolish Sarah Palin. There doesn’t need to be. It’s already built into the codes and tables of your precious for-profit hospitals and insurance companies. That’s what stands between you and your health. You’re clutching fool’s gold, my deluded friends.
So, haunt away, Gaylee-Bird! Walk the halls of Congress in your flowing white gown and whisper your story as they reach to cast their votes. Leave no conscience unturned, no greedy fingers clenched. Don’t let your last experience be as Lovelace’s profit #1067678-00. You’ve work to do! Light the way, and haunt them from here to the finest non-profit single payer health reform America can imagine.
For the sake of health care reform, I submit this in loving memory of the magnificent Gayle “Timber” Travis (1964-2006). - Blog post
- 11 months ago
- Views: 104
- Not yet rated
-
When I Get Sick, I Hope I'm in When I Get Sick, I Hope I'm in Taiwan
- From: Natural Lefty
-
Description:
October 25
Okay, here we go. This week, I started a group on Facebook (using Eunice's account), which I named The Thom Hartmann Bloggers Group. We already have several members who are bloggers or potential bloggers at Thom Hartmann's website, and several topics of discussion. For me, it's a big development, and the group members are people whom I consider to be good friends (although I just met a couple of them). I plan to address three major topics facing the Obama administration, perhaps with some input from the group, and submit our conclusions to the Obama website (Change.org). The first issue is health care.
When I Get Sick, I Hope I'm In Taiwan
Fortunately for me, I have been relatively healthy, at least since my nasty encounter with pneumonia about 2 years ago. But if I were sick, I think I would pray to be magically transported to a nation which has a truly good health care system which does not cost an "arm and a leg" metaphorically speaking. Meanwhile, let us do what we can to bring the health care system of the United States into the public sphere.
There has been much debate about how to reform the health care system of the United States. Mostly, it has focused on mere modifications of the current system, rather than creating a new system, much to my chagrin. Tweaking, or modifying, our current system in the "least painful" possible way to the health insurance system, drug industry and to health care providers, frankly, it is clear to me, will not get the job done. The usual egocentric American position of American exceptionalism seems to hold sway over the American public, by and large. Consideration of other nations' health care systems has been minimized; either they are thought not to be applicable to the United States, or somehow inferior, as foreign products. However, I suspect that the real reasons behind the unwillingness to learn from other nations are that for one, legislators consider the changes necessary to incorporate crucial elements of other nations' health care systems would hurt the health insurance and pharmeceutical industries too much, combined with the lobbying and financing power of these industries. When other systems are considered, it is usually that of various European countries or Canada. However, I and others with whom I am close have experience with, or knowledge of, a number of other health care systems which work well. In particular, the health care systems of Taiwan and of Australia have relevance to people I have spoken with. In addition to interviewing people and studying the health care systems of these two nations, I have also studied that of Japan, which has the highest life expectancy in the world.
My wife is from Taiwan, so I have learned much about Taiwan's health care system through her. Ten years or so ago, my wife's stepson in Taiwan was afflicted with colon cancer. Doctors and nurses in Kaohsiung City, Taiwan, where my wife's family is from, effectively treated his condition, performing surgery to remove the cancer and taking care of his recovery needs, all for very little cost. That treatment probably saved his life. Now, he is healthy. In fact, a few years ago, he was married, and now has two young sons. Another of my wife's relatives in Taiwan had a bad kidney stone problem, which was treated for free. Now his kidneys function well. Whenever my wife, Eunice, or stepdaughter, Isabella, want any involved medical care, such as dental care, they prefer to delay it until they go to Taiwan for a "visit." Despite the fact that both of them are naturalized U.S. citizens, they receive very inexpensive and very effective health care in Taiwan. The medical staff are very competent, well trained, and able to use the most modern medical techniques, and unlike the United States, people in Taiwan are not scared away by the likely cost of the medical care. In fact, both of them are in Taiwan now, and both have had dental work done while there, opting to have it done in Taiwan rather than the U.S. So reluctant are we in the United States to seek health care, that I never even went to the doctor when I had a bad case of pneumonia and was sick for about two months. This was almost 2 years ago. I had the good fortune to have well-trained health care professionals in my family -- my nursing-trained wife and retired physician father -- who took good care of me while I was sick, but most people are not so lucky. In any case, we were scared of having to pay the $2000 deductable on the life insurance policy which my parents bought for us. Were my parents not paying for our life insurance, I am not sure what we would do about health care; most likely, we would just forego life insurance altogether, since it would be very difficult for me to pay in addition to our other expenses, using my meager salary as a half-time professor. We would just have to cross our fingers and pray that neither of us gets sick or injured, as so many millions of Americans are currently doing in the absence of health insurance.
I actually interviewed my wife about the health care system in Taiwan recently -- a little bit of a strange experience, but the best way to attain the necessary information. The following is what I was able to gather from her. The health care system in Taiwan has been modified very recently. Before -- dating back to 1996 -- people could go to treat any medical problem for only a $100 NT processing fee. That is the equivalent of about 3 to 4 U.S. dollars. Now, due to the debt the system was invoking, the $100 NT processing fee only applies to serious medical problems, not routine ones. For optional care, the patient has to pay more, but not very much, relatively speaking. Even special care in Taiwan, however, is very inexpensive compared to care in the United States. For example, a hospital room costs about $1,500 NT, which is about 50 U.S. dollars, far cheaper than such care in the U.S. The most a person in Taiwan may pay for medical care is around 70 to 80 U.S. dollars per day. This is even without medical insurance. Also, a person in Taiwan can purchase cheap health insurance for serious medical disorders such as cancer or stroke. The purchaser pays a few dollars per month, and if the person does not get cancer, a stroke or heart attack, the money is returned to the person after 20 years. If the person does get such a medical condition, the treatment is free, other than the price of the policy, and includes better hospital care such as private rooms which are considered "special care" -- those rooms which cost $50 per day which were mentioned previously. In addition to medical treatment, the government of Taiwan sponsors free health care classes to educate people about health care, including teaching good health habits, and proper use of the health care system.
I also asked a health care professional whom I know about his ideas for what should be done with our health care system. Here are his suggestions, paraphrased from a letter he wrote to me except for the quote:
1. Expand Medi-Care; however, this may be difficult to finance as Part A (Hospital) and Part B (Doctor and outpatient) are currently financed by different means. The premiums for Part B come out of Social Security checks.
2. Expand Medic-Aid eligibility. The problem with this is that each state has slightly different coverage, although they all have to meet certain minimum Federal standards.
3. Tax deductions up to a certain amount with adjustment for inflation and vouchers for purchase of Health Insurance for lower income people. The vouchers should only be valid for purchasing Health Insurance and not for food or clothing, etc. "This would not disrupt the current system as much as some other ideas, but would probably be stongly opposed by some. It would probably result in almost everyone being covered after a period of time. It's hard to figure out what Congress will do with their bills."
In addition, he mentioned to me that he thought Australia had a good health care system.
Three Alternative Health Care Systems
An internet search revealed the following information about Taiwan's healthcare system. According to Wikipedia (Healthcare in Taiwan), the current health care system in Taiwan, which is called National Health Insurance, began in 1995. "NHI is a single-payer compulsory social insurance plan which centralizes the disbursement of health-care funds. The system promises equal access to health care for all citizens, and the population coverage had reached 99% by the end of 2004. NHI is mainly financed through premiums, which are based on the payroll tax, and is supplemented with out-of-pocket payments and direct government funding. In the initial stage, fee-for-service predominated for both public and private providers. Most health providers operate in the private sector and form a competitive market on the health delivery side. However, many health care providers took advantage of the system by offering unnecessary services to a larger number of patients and then billing the government. In the face of increasing loss and the need for cost containment , NHI changed the payment system from fee-for-service to a global budget, a kind of prospective payment system, in 2002." This does not reflect the most recent changes in the system, which have been instituted within the last year or two, as described previously.
The history of the NHI traces back to a committee which actually studied various health care systems around the world to create the best possible one. "Taiwan started its health reform in the 1980s after experiencing two decades of economic growth. In 1987, the government did away with the martial law which mobilized the governmental departments. The government set up a planning commission and looked abroad to study other countries’ health care systems. Taiwan looked at more than ten countries and combined their best qualities to form their own unique system. In 1995, Taiwan formed the National Health Insurance (NHI) model. In a 2009 interview, Dr. Michael Chen, Vice President and CFO of Taiwan's National Health Insurance Bureau explained that one of the models investigated was the United States and that fundamentally, NHI 'is modeled after (U.S.) Medicare. And there are so many similarities - other than that our program covers all of the population, and Medicare covers only the elderly. It seems the way to go to have social insurance.' NHI delivers universal coverage offered by a government-run insurer. The working population pays premiums split with their employers, others pay a flat rate with government help and the poor or veterans are fully subsidized. Taiwan’s citizens no longer have to worry about going bankrupt due to medical bills.
Under this model, citizens have free range to choose hospitals and physicians without using a gatekeeper and do not have to worry about waiting lists. NHI offers a comprehensive benefit package that covers preventive medical services, prescription drugs, dental services, Chinese medicine, home nurse visits and many more. Working people do not have to worry about losing their jobs or changing jobs because they will not lose their insurance. Since NHI, the previously uninsured have increased their usage of medical services. Most preventive services are free such as annual checkups and maternal and child care. Regular office visits have co-payments as low as US $5 per visit. Co-payments are fixed and unvaried by the person’s income."
In other words, Taiwan's health care system is similar to a "Medicare for all" system, which has been called "Medicare, Part E" (E for everyone) by some advocates in the United States, including Representative Dennis Kucinich, Senator Bernie Sanders, and talk show host Thom Hartmann.
According to author Ian Williams (deadlinepundit), in Taiwan "the premiums at the maximum are less than $20 (U.S.) per month (the annual per capita GDP is $16,500 U.S.). Taiwan has done this for proportionately, less than half the cost of the United States, with costs running at 6.2 percent of gross domestic product in 2005, compared with the following for other countries: United States, 15.2 percent; France, 10.1 percent; Canada, 9.9 percent; United Kingdom, 7.7 percent; Japan, 7.9 percent; South Korea, 5.2 percent (World Health Organization figures for 2003 published in 2006)." In other words, it is medicare for all which does not cost much. Since it is government subsidized, it has been somewhat of an economic strain on Taiwan's government. However, the financing shortfall could be easily made up by increasing government revenue modestly, as changes in recent years have been intended to do.
Australia: According to theAustralian Department of Health and Aging "The aim of the national health care funding system is to give universal access to health care while allowing choice for individuals through a substantial private sector involvement in delivery and financing. The major part of the national health care system is called 'Medicare'. Medicare provides high quality health care which is both affordable and accessible to all Australians, often provided free of charge at the point of care. It is financed largely from general taxation revenue, which includes a Medicare levy based on a person’s taxable income. Commonwealth funding for Medicare is mainly provided as:
subsidies for prescribed medicines (with a safety net providing free medicines for the chronically ill) and free or subsidised treatment by practitioners such as doctors, participating optometrists or dentists (specified services only); substantial grants to State and Territory governments to contribute to the costs of providing access to public hospitals at no cost to patients; and specific purpose grants to State/Territory governments and other bodies. In addition, Commonwealth general-purpose funding grants to State and Territory governments flow partly to health services. State and Territory governments supplement Medicare funding with their own revenues, mainly for funding public hospitals."
Additionally, an overview of the Australian health care system found in Wikipedia (Health Care in Australia) provides the following information: "Health care in Australia is provided by both private and government institutions. The Minister for Health and Ageing, currently the Hon. Nicola Roxon MP, administers national health policy. Primary health care remains the responsibility of the federal government, elements of which (such as the operation of hospitals) are overseen by individual states.
In Australia the current system, known as Medicare, was instituted in 1984. It coexists with a private health system. Medicare is funded partly by a 1.5% income tax levy (with exceptions for low-income earners), but mostly out of general revenue. An additional levy of 1% is imposed on high-income earners without private health insurance. As well as Medicare, there is a separate Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that heavily subsidises prescription medications. In 2005, Australia spent 8.8% of GDP on health care, or US$3,181 per capita. Of that, approximately 67% was government expenditure."
Thus, similar to Taiwan, Australia also seems to have a "Medicare for all" system, combined with supplemental private health care and insurance. Health care costs are paid using several sources including income tax, a levy on high income learners, and private insurance.
Japan: The health care system of Japan (like many aspects of Japanese culture) is quite complex. According to the website Asian Pacific Americans for Progress (APAP), "In the strictest terminology, Japan does not employ a single-payer healthcare system. In fact, Japan has a multi-payer system where the citizens, employers, and the Japanese government all share the costs of healthcare. Private insurance companies are alive and do very well in Japan.
In Japan, like in Obama's proposed plan, employers are mandated to provide coverage. Premiums are set to about 8% of an employee's salary regardless of the amount be it US 30,000 or US 150,000 (Average Income in Japan is US 30,000). The employer pitches in an equal amount. The same goes for seniors and the self-employed, except the government picks up the tab in place of the employer much like in our Medicare program (which, incidentally, is a single-payer system).
The intent of the plans is to cover all grounds of basic healthcare and preventative medicine. And when co-pay amounts are predictable (the maximum a Japanese citizen pays for an operation/procedure is 10% ~ 30% in some cases), the Japanese go get medical check ups much more frequently than Americans. Not only is the co-pay predictable, the price of your total operation/procedure is equally predictable as those prices are set by the Japanese Ministry of Health. Guess what happens then? Life expectancy shoots up to No. 1 in the world."
Japan also has private health care insurance, but these organizations are required to be non-profit organizations. Also, the price of various medical treatments is set by the government, so that it is standard, predictable and relatively inexpensive, and cannot be raised by doctors. There is an effective ceiling on co-payments of approximately 15% of the cost of the health care. Patients in Japan can go to any doctor they want to, since all doctors are part of the same system. Also, every resident of Japan must be enrolled in one of three insurance programs: Employees health insurance (63% of the population), national health insurance (37% of the population), or, for people with chronic health problems, long-term health insurance (a fraction of 1% of the population). Employees health insurance takes an average of 8.5% of the employee's pay for the purpose of health insurance, with the employer also contributing an equal amount. The so-called national health insurance is actually delivered through about 3,400 regional plans. Persons in the national health insurance program have to pay premiums if they are employed, based on income, assests and benefit payments from the previous year. However, unemployed or low-income persons do not have to pay premiums in this system. Basically, it is sponsored by regional governments.
According to the Medhunters Medical Community website (Medhunters), "Year 2000 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) figures show that Japan spends 7.6% of its GDP on health, compared to 9.2%for Canada and 13.1% for the US. In 1998, Japan spent ¥29.8 trillion (US$280 billion) on healthcare, of which 53% was covered by insurance, 32.3% by the government, and 14.8% by patients' co-payments."
Unlike the single-payer, Medicare-type health care systems of Taiwan and Australia, Japan's health care system basically asks all involved parties to pitch in and absorb their share of the burden of health care costs. It is a complex and effective system, which spreads the costs of health care maximally. Nonetheless, it also shares much in common with other socialized or partially socialized health care systems. In particular, health care is viewed as a human right, not a privilege, in Japan's system. Health care is also viewed as a not-for-profit system. Thus, even private insurance is required to be not-for-profit. Of course, governments, which bear much of the costs of health care in such systems, are also non-profit organizations! Given the complexities of the debate going on in Congress over health care, and the complex issues involved, I could see the United States adopting a health care system much like that of Japan, although making Medicare available to everyone seems more straightforward, understandable, and perhaps easier to implement.
The fact is, concerning the United States of America, it is alone in the world in viewing health care as a for profit enterprise, one which is basically a privilege for those who can afford it. In the ill-conceived system that is the United States' health care system, we pay for insurance at inflated rates as we can, pay as we go, and pray we never get sick, for it is a "pay or die" system. As a result, we have the least effective health care system among all the world's industrialized nations.
My Plea for Change
Barack, I am a loyal supporter of you and your administration, who contributed to your campaign. However, I have been concerned at the tone of your administration at times regarding the issue of health care reform. Your party has a commanding majority! Please stop bending over backward to please the conservatives among us. We desperately need health care reform in this nation. Otherwise, we will continue to slide as a nation and as individuals into debt, and unhealthy, third world status as we continue to increasingly become a nation of a few "haves" and a great many "have nots." Health care should be viewed as a basic human right, not a privilege for those who can afford it! It is a fundamental part of the basic welfare of a society. Nothing could be more obvious than that. Without healthy citizens, it is difficult for them to be productive workers, effective parents, or happy people.
Recently, I received a letter (addressed to my wife, Mrs. Zunliang Warden) from your administration. It is addressed "Dear Friend" and goes on to describe a Democratic Party initiative called Organizing for America. It presents a good, progressive agenda, and asks the question: "What can I do to lift America up?" My friends and I who are members of The Thom Hartmann Bloggers Group are doing something to lift America up now. If we pass a good health care insurance plan for all of America, with a public option for everyone, we collectively will have lifted all of America up. For the sake of my 82 year old father, a retired physician and longtime Medical employee here in California, who has generally been healthy throughout his life, but now is in the hospital for around a month with various problems, and for the sake of us all, my friend, do everything in your power to make health care (health care, not health insurance) reform a reality. Thank You, and keep up your diligent work on behalf of the people not only of the United States, but all over the world!
Humbly yours, M. Robert Warden, Jr.
- Blog post
- 11 months ago
- Views: 88
- Not yet rated
-
Health Care-SVMH part3 Health Care-SVMH part3
- From: ramasDgridder
-
Description:style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="font-size: medium;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="font-size: medium;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="font-size: medium;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="font-size: medium;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="font-size: medium;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="font-size: medium;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="font-size: medium;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="font-size: medium;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="font-size: medium;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="font-size: medium;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="font-size: medium;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="font-size: medium;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="font-size: medium;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="font-size: medium;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="font-size: medium;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="font-size: medium;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="font-size: medium;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="font-size: medium;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="font-size: medium;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="font-size: medium;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="font-size: medium;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="font-size: medium;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="font-size: medium;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="font-size: medium;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="font-size: medium;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"style="font-size: medium;"style="margin-bottom: 0in;"
I received correspondence from Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital, dated September 8, 2009 in response to my original email, edited and condensed from my blog posting detailing my experience in the SVMH Emergency Room, where I was billed $6500 to get a prescription for an $18 bottle of anti-nausea pills.
http://community.thomhartmann.com/_Fear-Bogeymen-and-Health-Care/blog/579282/93519.html
Their letter thanked me for my letter, assuring me, “We appreciate you taking the time to express our(sic) concerns about the care you received during your 10/13/08 Emergency Room visit, and regret that you were disappointed.”
Wait a minute. I have no, “...concerns about the care (I) received...” I wasn't disappointed about my medical treatment. I mean the bar wasn't set real high given that all the care I needed was a cheap proscription to combat nausea caused by a mild ear infection. My complaint was that SVMH feels it is ethical to charge $6500 for said care.
Why does Salinas Valley Memorial hear I'm concerned about care when I voice a complaint about charges?
Republican Death Panel fear mongers love to scream that the United States has the greatest minds in the medical arts. Which is gloriously true. God Bless America.
Who questions that? Progressives aren't arguing that American medical science is deficient. It's just not AVAILABLE to all citizens. And a minor ailment can wipe out a working class American.
You know how the Convenience Store on the corner has those tear-jerker donations jars on the counter, featuring a picture of a poor soul suffering from some horrible medical condition, begging for cents and nickels and quarters to save their life.
Usually the pity jar has a tragic medical history, such a private personal issue presented for the world to see. Groveling for pity and a pittance. If enough jars in enough corner stores fill up over and over and over again, then they can get American medicine to treat them. Notice that the collections aren't used to leave this country, it's never about American medicine being substandard.
I know this happens, you look at the picture. If it is an attractive person or an appealing story the jar fills up. If the dying person can move you, if they can act the part, if they can perform the play, if they can entertain you, they live. If a dying person could get a reality show, American medicine would treat them. If medically preventable Death is waiting for someone who looks like me, they're dead.
A death without dignity. Begging strangers for pennies to help save your life and not be pretty enough. That is not a dignified way to die.
The problem isn't that we aren't the medical champions of the world. The problem is that The Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital's of this country charges $6,500 dollars to write an $18 dollar prescription.
To justify the charges, the Hospital writes, “Your chart was reviewed and testing was deemed appropriate for the dizziness with nausea you suffered.”
They took blood and hooked me up to an EKG. They did more than everything that needed to be done.
I believe that the SVMH provides world class care, is a great place to be treated. The problem is an $18 dollar prescription costs $6500 to write.
To justify the charges the Business Office has listed a new diagnoses in the letter I just got. I have sinus bradycardia. The doctor told me I had an inner ear infection. Now, 11 months later, Patient Relations decides to inform me I have bradycardia of the sinus.
What is that? Long ago I was a football player, I've smashed the old snooze a few times. In fact I have ballistically deviated my septum on 3 separate occasions. Is bradycardia doctor speak for a crooked nose? I know that ear infections tend to invade the nose and throat, is this a fee justifying way to describe a nasal infection? Or is an inner ear infection also a sinus bradycardia?
I am uninformed as to my condition because while I was in the SVMH Emergency Room waiting for the 18 dollar prescription no one told me I had a Bradycardia of the Sinus. No, my nasal Bradycardia first raised it's snotty head in a letter to me from the Patient Relations Coordinator, in response to my complaint about being hounded by a collections agency over my $6500 bill.
The iconic problem with American health care; It is not available to tens of millions and devastatingly expensive to most who really need it.
This episode is sadly emblematic of the debate over health care.
The Heath Care industry and their employees in congress always respond to questions about costs by answering that American quality is the best in the world. Right wing media talkers are disgusted with those of us so ignorant that we don't understand, American Science is great.
Ignorance that is exhibited by simple minded souls who question the morality of the American medical approach that approves a huge bill to write a cheap prescription. Because to question the huge sums being sucked out of the US economy for the Health Care Industry proves the questioner lacks the cognitive facilities to understand that complaining about medical costs is really saying that American doctors are stupid who provide lousy treatments because US scientists are dumb.
Also people that complain that they can not afford to be treated for aliments that a Tijuana Pharmacist could competently prescribe a cure for apparently hate America so much they don't understand that they're really saying America should ration medical care.
As an aside, I spent many years in San Diego. When got sick, I would go into a pharmacy, ask the pharmacist what drug they thought I needed and then go to Tijauna and get it. The poor in San Diego may have a better chance of staying healthy because they can go to Mexico for basic health care.
I heard a FOX commentator say that if the 40 million uninsured Americans were offered care, there would have to be rationing of care. This is a commonly expressed warning from the medical establishment and others of Birther ilk. Somehow denying 40 million Americans medical care for ailments that a 3rd world understaffed medical clinic could cheaply and competently treat, like a minor ear infection, isn't rationing.
When you have the Business Office of hospitals making medical diagnosis 11 months after the fact to justify ridiculously outrageous medical bills, there's something wrong with the system.
- Blog post
- 11 months ago
- Views: 81
- Not yet rated
-
Language of Reform Debate Language of Reform Debate
- From: ProgressiveInTexas
-
Description:
I sent this as an e-mail to Thom last week, then yesterday he reminded everyone of his spam filters...
Thom,
Regarding your “Third Hour Live” on Friday September 11 on Chicago’s Progressive Radio, (I stream WCPT), I am sorry to say, but Michael Medved had you on the ropes. You went in expecting a civilized Oxford style debate and he turned it into a common bar brawl; the only kind his audience understands. Thom, you and your listeners are way too smart for Michael and his listeners. He used that against you.
You started quoting fact, figures and examples. These were way beyond their ken. You do realize that facts are irrelevant to the right wing don’t you? When you spout facts to them, they will argue the minutia. They readily tire of facts. Most of Medved’s listeners are those who slept through science and math classes in school. They are the ones who had difficulty obtaining a GED.
Oh, did I just violate a primary rule of polite debate and make an ad-hominem attack? YES. I did it to make my point. They have no knowledge of, grasp the reason for or intend to follow any established rules for debate. As I said, with them it is an argument and not a debate. In their arena, one scores points by making the opponent appear weak and unprepared, not by inundating them with irrefutable information. In the future, you need to follow their rules if you hope to succeed.
Rule Number 1: Always vilify you opponent’s position. We on the left consider direct ad-hominem attacks to be in poor taste so use oblique references.
Rule Number 2: Attack, Attack, Attack. If your opponent makes a valid point don’t ever agree, counter attack on a different flank. We call this changing the subject. Something the right is extremely accomplished doing.
Rule number 3: Facts, they don’t need no stinking facts. Rumor and innuendo work well with the right wing. Have facts as your back up, but do not lead with facts. Facts are to be used only as a defensive weapon and should always be introduced with the statement, “You’re lying to these people, the fact is... “. Under their rules, calling someone a liar is never in bad taste and they consider it macho. May I refer you to Wednesday nights planned outburst?
Rule Number 4: Language is Everything. They will turn your words against you when they get the chance. Use bumper sticker slogans and sound bites when possible. Don’t give them any ammunition.
Applying these rules lets see how you failed to reach Medved’s audience on Friday.
You continually use the term “For Profit Insurance…” Michael quickly turned this to make it appear that you are opposed to doctors and hospital earning a profit. He made you appear to be a communist socialist and you lost any connection of the audience. You then used valuable time to explain what you really meant. He won. In the future, use terms like “Stock Companies are robbing us...”
Look closely at the rhetoric of the following sentence: “I don’t have a problem with Mutual Companies who return profits to their policy holders, but there is something morally wrong with hedge fund managers taking a cut of my premiums…” Do you see the differences it has with the phrase “For-Profit Insurance Companies are the problem”? In the latter, what people hear is “I hate Profits”.
At every opportunity, vilify. Equate the evils with the current heath insurance system to Wall Street and the impact they have had on everybody’s retirement. Use the “Fox Question” to your advantage, “Do you really want investment bankers to do to your health care what they did to your IRA?”
Never, ever, never refer to the Medical Loss Ratio; that’s boring and technical. Call it Skimming. Equate the Insurance industry to Organized Crime without directly saying it. When you led with the details of the compensation package that United Health has given their CEO’s McGuire and now Hemsly, you gave Medved an opening to say you just picking on Stephen Hemsly.
Don’t attack UHC and Hemsly directly. Be oblique. Use statements like, “Insurance Companies are SKIMMING 20-30% off the top so their CEO’s can have multi-million dollar golden parachutes” and “They deny cancer treatment so their executives can jaunt around the county in lavish private jets. Now those are the death panels I want to get rid of.”
I think we need our own version of Frank Luntz’s memo.
- Blog post
- 1 year ago
- Views: 163
- Not yet rated
-
American Owned, American Choic American Owned, American Choice, for Americans
- From: MilesTraneMingus
-
Description:
Here's a health insurance though experiment:
Imagine a scenario where we could instantly turn every employee of the health insurance industry -- from CEO to broom pusher -- into a government employee. Nothing else changes. The structure of the organizations are the same. Employee compensation is the same. Premiums and the yearly rate of premium increases are the same. The number of citizens covered is the same - leaving out 49 million Americans. And policy for seeking ways to reject the claims of those who are "covered" is exactly the same.
Could you imagine the outrage that would be unleashed by liberals and conservatives alike on such an inneficient, incompetent, bloated government bureaucracy?
Why is this bureaucracy sapping 16% of GDP and still failing to cover all of our fellow Americans?
Why are these government bureaucratic heads making many multiples of the President's salary on the taxpayer's dime, and why are there so many of them?
Why is the government trying to make a profit rather than deliver needed services to the American people in the most efficient way possible?
Why are government cronies emptying the coffers of the taxpayer in the form of "dividends"?
Why is this bloated bureaucracy playing God, pulling the plug on the most vulnerable Americans before they've had a chance to receive the full extent of the needed care that our talented and compassionate American physicians and doctors have to offer?
Why aren't we consolidating the efforts of our workers by creating one system, leveraging economies of scale in our technological systems and paperpushing employees?
What we need is one system with the fat trimmed off. We need an American owned, American choice, for Americans. - Blog post
- 1 year ago
- Views: 47
- Not yet rated
-
Mad as Hell Doctors Tour Mad as Hell Doctors Tour
- From: hughfoy
-
Description:
The "Mad as Hell Doctors Tour" is a group of single payer activist doctors from Oregon who are touring the US starting in Seattle on September 8. They will meet at the Langston Hughes Community Center on Jackson Street at 6 PM. A preliminary meeting in Sequim, Washington brought 700 people to the High School Gym to listen, discuss and support the single payer option. For more information or a link to an excellent and informative film "Health, Money and Fear" written and produced by the MAHDT orgainizer Paul Hochfeld go to:
https://madashelldoctorstour.com
Don't let the single payer option die. Get involved!
- Blog post
- 1 year ago
- Views: 28
- Not yet rated
-
FIGHT ASTROTURF WITH REAL GRAS FIGHT ASTROTURF WITH REAL GRASS ROOTS
- From: peterhydaniels
-
Description:
I know it sounds cliche, but here's my answer to all of this fake outrage from the reich over health care: MARCH ON WASHINGTON!!! I should say that I definitely encourage folks to show up at their local town hall meetings...
But in this case it may be the remedy for what ails the health care debate. Fight fake grass roots with REAL grass roots. I'm kind of surprised I haven't seen more buzz about an idea like this.
Surely the netroots, unions, nurses, doctors and the progressive community-at-large could organize a massive gathering that would demonstrate the country's overwhelming desire for a health care system that puts patients before profits. The main hurdle would be focusing on the goal of passing a good bill versus passing a perfect bill (ie. one that contains single-payer or an iron-clad public option).
Think about it... we could get Dr. Dean, Bill Clinton, Michael Moore... the list goes on and on.
Why isn't Organizing for America doing something like this??
We have plenty of time to put it together... the health care debate will be going on through the fall!
What say you Kos community???
- Blog post
- 1 year ago
- Views: 60
- Not yet rated
-
Ron Paul You are Wrong Ron Paul You are Wrong
- From: ProgressiveInTexas
-
Description:
The following is a letter I faxed to Congressman Ron Paul.
The Honorable Ron Paul M.D.
203 Cannon House Office Building
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Web Post of July 20, 2009
“Health Care is a Good Not a Right”
Dear Representative Paul:
I beg to differ with your assessment. You appear to have mixed your analogy. Right is to Privilege as Goods is to Services. That is a basic SAT analogy.
Health care would be a SERVICE. One provided by trained individuals, each with their own reasons for entering the field. Health care is NOT a commodity. Beef and potatoes are commodities. Beef and potatoes are commodities produced and brought to market by individuals with individuals with some degree of college education; but higher education is not specifically required.
For arguments sake, I will address Health Care as a commodity and as a commodity; the way to reduce consumer costs would be to increase supply. If beef costs are too high then flood the market with cattle. Consumer prices drop. It is simple supply-side Economics. You do remember Supply Side Reaganomics from the 1980’s.
If Health Care costs are too high, then increasing the number of Practitioners will reduce the costs. However, the AMA limits enrolment into medical schools. Why? They do it to keep the supply of Practitioners to a premium. This is where I see you as a hypocrite. You call for free-market solutions yet your professional organization institutes monopolistic controls that artificially inflate fees.
In Paragraph 3, you state:
…if healthcare providers were suddenly considered outright slaves to healthcare consumers, our medical schools would quickly empty. As the government continues to convince us that healthcare is a right instead of a good, it also very generously agrees to step in as middleman.
Under the current system we are all indentured servants. Employees are to their employers for fear that they might lose their health care and Providers to the Insurance companies in order to receive a continuing stream of clients. I cannot quote the exact statistic, but it is my understanding that the top 10 Insurers have secured the sole right to represent over 80% of all employees receiving health care. In order to have the right to provide services to these clients, doctors need to sign contracts with the Insurers and the insurers dictate what pay the provider. In effect, the Insurance Companies have become the middleman all the while taking between 20% and 50% for CEO Salaries and stockholder dividends.
At this point, let me tell you about myself.
I am a self-employed Civil Engineer. In 2002, I left a management position with a medium firm to become an entrepreneur; to start my own consulting firm. At that time, I was paying $900/month for Health Coverage ($30 Rx Co-pay and $250 deductible), for my wife and myself. That was a rate I could afford and net more than I did as an employee. However, even at those rates, I struggled to afford additional staff to expand my business. Therefore, after a short attempt to grow the business, I went back to a one-man operation. I had one Large Developer and two small developers as Clients in addition to “overflow” work from larger Engineering Firms. I had sufficient work to earn a comfortable living.
In the fall of 2007, as the recession started to slow development in San Antonio, the over flow work trickled to a halt. By February 2008, my largest client declared bankruptcy and the small developers found it difficult to obtain financing.
At the same time my Insurance premiums, which had been increasing, jumped from $1,200/month to $2,000/month ($5,000 deductible, no Rx). I was subject to the increase even though my total claims were three general Practitioner visits in the five years and one visit per year to an Ophthalmologist.
In 2008, after expenses, my net income was less than the cost of the Health Insurance. I am among the uninsured; one of then NON-Privileged. I work hard every day but, at this time, I do not earn enough to afford health care. You assert that Health care is “something you work for and earn”. How much harder do I have to work?
Continuing on, in Paragraph 4 you state:
Universal Healthcare never quite works out the way the people are led to believe before implementing it. Citizens in countries with nationalized healthcare never would have accepted this system had they known upfront about the rationing of care and the long lines.
If this statement is true, then answer me why have the citizens of Canada, France, Italy et al NOT had a revolution at the ballot box? Why does the Conservative Government in the Canadian Parliament not toss out their system and replace it with an American System. They have the majority.
I ask you in what country currently is there rationing? It is the United States. Health Care is limited to those who can afford to pay high premiums, work for large companies or the Federal Government, that can qualify for lower group rates. Since you do not think Health Care is a right then, by analogy, you must consider it a privilege; available only to the privileged few. How do you compute the wait time for someone who does not ever get to see a Doctor? Those people are in the longest line in the world; longer than any found in Canada or Europe.
Next you continue:
As bureaucrats take over medicine, costs go up and quality goes down because doctors spend more and more of their time on paperwork and less time helping patients
The real bureaucracy that is burdening Medical Practitioners is the Business School Graduates employed by the Insurance Companies.
When I last visited my Ophthalmologist (paying out of pocket), we had a discussion regarding Insurance. He has a small practice and yet has to have a full time employee devoted to “dealing with the Insurance Companies”.
As costs skyrocket, as they always do when inefficient bureaucrats take the reins, government will need to confiscate more and more money from an already foundering economy to somehow pay the bills.
As opposed to Insurance companies taking up to 50% for dividends and pay their CEO Millions, if not in excess of $1 Billion as with United Health Care and Bill McGuire.
The frightening aspect of all this is that cutting costs, which they will inevitably do, could very well mean denying vital services. And since participation will be mandatory, no legal alternatives will be available.
What legal recourse do I have today with insurance companies? Change carriers and be subject to a pre-existing condition exclusions? Recent history shows that this activist Supreme Court rules for big business on every case. If I show up at United Health Care, they can have me thrown in jail. I have no say about the CEO of United Health Care; I can vote for or against candidates for Congress and President.
The government will be paying the bills, forcing doctors and hospitals to dance more and more to the government’s tune. Having to subject our health to this bureaucratic insanity and mismanagement is possibly the biggest danger we face.
Can you really say this with a straight face? Replace the word Government with “Health Insurance Companies” and describe have the current system. Can you deny that the insurance companies do not deny services and control what which procedures Doctors can and cannot perform?
The great irony is that in turning the good of healthcare into a right, your life and liberty are put in jeopardy.
Currently my right to life is in jeopardy. If I cannot get any health care because I cannot afford the Insurance Premiums then the quality of my life and my liberty are at stake. Of course, the only thing I have to fear is a serious illness that would cause me to lose my home.
Instead of further removing healthcare from the market, we should return to a true free market in healthcare one that empowers individuals, not bureaucrats, with control of healthcare dollars.
Yes, I would like to see a truly free market for health care; one where practitioners could charge what the market will bear. I would like a free market where Practitioners must compete legitimately for my business and the supply of Practitioners is not artificially limited.
My bill HR 1495 the Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act provides tax credits and medical savings accounts designed to do just that.
Can you tell me how tax credits and medical savings accounts work if one is not earning enough to pay the premiums in the first place, much less have excess capital to invest in the savings account? Your Bill HR 1495 is only adventitious to the upper middle class and the current Insurance Companies. In fact, it directs even more money and control to the Insurance Companies; Monopolistic Insurance companies that are exempted from anti-trust laws. It benefits those who are not having any trouble getting health care today. Your bill does nothing to help the under-employed or the small business trying to expand.Single payer is not something Corporatists should fear. We have single payer fire protection and that works quite well; as does our Single Payer Police Protection. A Single Payer program takes the basic premises of Insurance and risk management to the perfect state: The larger the pool of insured, the lower the risk. What bigger pool can there be than Everyone. Everyone in; everyone pays.
I have given serious thought to Health Care reform. In my vision for Single Payer, private insurance companies are included. There is a profitable niche for them. The can continue to sell Supplemental Policies. In addition, I would propose that they process claims on a percentage of claims paid. That will be a good incentive to pay the claims quickly and accurately. There can be good profit in that. Health Care Providers have the choice of which company the want to process their claims.
Providers can charge what the want for their services. Clients would pay the difference between the charges and the approved the government reimbursement. In addition, since you believe the Private Insurers have a better handle on reimbursement, initially reimbursement rates will be the average of current Federal Employee Insurance schedule and top five providers as indicated on their January 1, 2008 schedules.
Paying for the program and implementing cost reductions would require a comprehensive rework of our tax structure and modifying the current Medical School model. The system can realize savings over the total of all current expenditures. There is more detail than appropriate for this letter and I have attached an outline as a summary.
- Blog post
- 1 year ago
- Views: 256
- Not yet rated
-
JasonBussell
- Views: 24
- Since: 1 year ago
- Not yet rated
-
Health Care Health Care
- From: winyan
-
Description:
Yesterday on your show, I heard that one of our senators, Kay Hagan would most likely vote against a health care bill that included a public / single payer option: here is the email I sent her through her official website:
Reports are coming in that you will not be supporting the Presidents plan for a public option for health care. This is greatly disappointing since those of us who voted for you were under the impression that you would be different than Senator Dole.
Sen. Dole did NOT represent the people but instead large corporate interests, which over the last 30 years has created a great deal of hardship with the people of North Carolina. Everything from helping to ship our jobs offshore to supporting a war that was not justified on any level. Now, you, are caving to the special insurance and health care barons.
Health care should NEVER be a for-profit business - Health care CEOs should NEVER get multi-million dollar salaries, while encouraging their employees to deny coverage and care .... yes, it happens all the time. The arguments that a government single-payer option will hurt hospitals, doctors, etc. is a great big lie - meant to frighten the sheeple once again. Do the right thing - vote FOR a SINGLE PAYER Government Health Care plan that WILL be affordable for EVERYONE!
The people in this state are hurting - no maybe not in Raleigh - but everywhere else - we have one of the highest number of unemployed citizens in the country - and now you will deny us quality affordable health care? We are aware that several large insurance firms are located in our state - so who do you serve us or them?
We are watching you... and if you don't support the needs of the people - you will NOT get our votes again because you will have proven that you are no different than your predecessor and it will again be time for a change.AND with my overall frustration - I also went to Bernie Sander's site and added my health care story -
Thank you for all the work you do .... be well in the struggle
Brenda
Asheville, NC
- Blog post
- 1 year ago
- Views: 32
- Not yet rated