P-Aid

Archive for the ‘General health’ Category

Health Care System Needs Reform, Not a Government Takeover 

Believe it or not, America boasts some of the world’s best doctors, the most advanced health care system, and the most technically superior resources in the world, bar none. Those who travel globally and have gotten sick know that their first choice for treatment would be in the U.S. Though heatlh care in America is, more expensive thanany other country, many of the worlds wealthiest come to the U.S for surgical procedures and complex care, because it holds a worldwide reputation for the gold standard in health care.   

To examine the complex health care issue, a small research study was conducted from randomly selected doctors in mdnationwide.org’s best doctors database. We ask 50 top doctors, located in different states and who practice different specialty fields, ” Is a universal health care plan good for America?” Forty-eight of these doctors essentially responded that it was a “bad idea” that would have negative mpacts on the quality of our nation’s health care.   

 
Social Engineering Your Health Care 

One of the greatest mis-conceptions some people have relied on with regard to the health care debate is that, given a universal health care system, every person in the U.S. would receive the highest quality health care – the kind our nation is renowned for and that we currently receive. However, unlike some public amenities, health care is not a collective public service like police and fire protection services, therefore the Government cannot provide the same quality of health care to everyone, because not all physicians are equally good orthopaedic surgeons, internists, neurosurgeons, etc, in the same way that not all individuals in need of health care are equally good patients.  

As an analogy – stay with me – when you design a software program, there are many elements that are coded on the back-end, and used to manipulate certain aspects of the software program, that your average “John Doe” who uses the software(the end user) does not understand or utilize, nor do they care about these elements. Certain aspects of the program are coded, so that when one uses that portion of the program, other elements of the program are manipulated and automatically follow the present or next command.  

]]>

Likewise, once a universal health care plan is implemented in America and its massive infrastructure is shaped, private insurance companies will slowly disappear, and as a result, eventually patients will automatically be forced to utilize the government’s universal health care plan. As part of such a system, patients will be known as numbers rather than patients, because such a massive government program would provide compensation incentive based on care provided, patients would become “numbers,” rather than “patients.”

In addition, for cost savings reasons, every bit of health information, including your own, will be analyzed, and stored by the Government. What are the consequences? If you’re a senior citizen and need a kneereplacement at the age of 70, the government may determine that you’re to old and it’s not worth the investment cost, therefore instead of surgery, you may be given medication for the rest of your life at a substantial cost savings to the government, and at a high quality of life price to you.       

Solutions:   

Fixing the current U.S. health care system might require that we;

1. Encourage prevention and early diagnosis of chronic conditions and management.

2. Completely reform existing government health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid.

3. Forgive medical school debt for those willing to practice primary care in under-served areas.

4. Improve access to care, provide small businesses and the self-employed with tax credits, not penalties for providing health care.

5. Encourage innovation in medical records management to reduce costs. 

6. Require tort reform in medical malpractice judgments to lower the cost of providing care. 

7. Keep what isn’t broken-research shows 80% of Americans are happy with their current insurance, therefore, why completely dismantle it?

8. Reimburse physicians for their services.

9. Innovate a system in which Medicare fraud is dramatically decreased.  

 Devil In the Details 

Socialized medicine means: 

1. Loss of private practice options, reduced pay for physicians, overwhelming numbers of patients, and increasing burn-out may reduce the number of doctors pursuing the profession.  

2. Patient confidentiality will need to be compromised, since centralized health care information will be maintained by the government and it’s databases.

3. Healthy people who take care of themselves will pay for the burden of those with unhealthy lifestyles, such as those who smoke, are obese, etc.

4. Patients lose the incentive to stay healthy or aren’t likely to take efforts to curb their prescription drug costs because health care is free and the system can easily be abused.   

5. The U.S. Government will need to call the shots about important health decisions dictating what procedures are best for you, rather than those decisions being made by your doctor(s), which will result in poor individualized patient care. 

6. Tax rates will rise substantially-universal health care is not free since citizens are required to pay for it in the form of taxes. 

7. Your freedom of choice will be restricted as to which doctor is best for you and your family. 

8. Like all public programs, government bureaucracy, even in the form of health care, does not promote healthy competition that reduces costs based on demand. What’s more, accountability is limited to the budgetary resources available to police such a system. 

9. Medicare is subsidized by private insurers to the tune of billions of dollars, therefore if you take them out of the equation, add a trillion dollars or more to the current trillion dollar- plus cost estimates.

10. Currently, the government loses an estimated $ 30 billion a year due to Medicare fraud. Therefore, what makes anyone think that this same government will be able to run & operate a universal health care system that is resistant to fraud and save money while doing so?.

Having the best Los Angeles insurance makes the experience of living in this vibrant city even better.  People need safety nets in all aspects of life, so choosing the right insurance policies is essential.  Most people have needs of auto, health, home and life insurance although there are many variations within these policies and the many others for those with more specialized needs.  No matter one’s coverage needs, it is important that he or she shops around and looks at as many quotes as possible to find the best insurance products and rates.

California tends to be one of the healthiest states in the country.  This should make it easier for some to find a good health insurance policy.  One may want a conventional policy that covers doctors’ visits, prescription medications and other forms of regular health care.  However, another may decide that he or she does not need regular visits to the doctor and can afford to pay a higher premium for catastrophic health insurance in case of an accident or incident that requires a long term hospital stay or care.

There are other forms of Los Angeles insurance related to those involved with health.  For instance, the fitness and wellness industry is deeply embedded in L.A. culture, so those with stakes in these endeavors need to protect their investments.  For instance, personal trainers and fitness instructors need both professional and personal liability coverage to protect their business and reputations.  Should an injury come to a client, the instructor or trainer needs to have the means to provide restitution for the error as well as protect his or her reputation as a professional.

Even small businesses can benefit from looking into health insurance policies.  Companies that can offer such incentives have a better chance at attracting quality employees as well as retaining them.  Businesses with health coverage can produce happier and more productive employees.  Small businesses can look into group health insurance policies in order to provide an affordable insurance option for their employees and families.  Those who are self-employed can also find other options such as group affiliations that provide discounted health insurance for their members.

Of course, health insurance is not the only Los Angeles insurance one needs.  However, one can see that health insurance is quite varied.  This is why it is important to find ways to narrow down one’s needs when starting one’s search for quality insurance of any kind.  Using online sites, insurance agents and personal recommendations can help the process.  One needs to get as many quotes and as many options as possible in order to find just the right policy as well as the companies that will offer the best rates on a needed policy.

The Truth About Canadian Health Care
Part 1 of a 3-Part Series

First of all, we don’t euthanize our infirm or elderly.  Most Canadians would cringe at the thought.  Yes, Canadians do have universal access to necessary health care, but this benefit has never led to a push for euthanasia, as the two issues are different concepts.

My wife, who works as a broadcast producer, shared a humorous anecdote with me a few days ago.  Her managing editor, just returned from a family vacation in Virginia.  He said that the locals really wanted to talk with him as soon as they heard that he was a Canadian broadcast executive.  And the topic on everyone’s mind was – you guessed it – health care.  Sadly, a lot of the folks he conversed with were sorely off the mark or, worse yet, perhaps purposely misinformed about the reality of the Canadian health care experience.  The fabricated gem about euthanasia is just one example he shared.

It sure does sound plausible, though.  Think about it.  Canadian taxpayers’ dollars directly and indirectly fund a mammoth and complex system of family practitioners, specialists, surgeons, nurses, clinics, hospitals, lab work, assisted care and convalescent care facilities.  It would reason then (given some well-timed propaganda) that the administrators of this mammoth system would authorize cutting the lifeline, quite literally, of those whose care costs the most, have no hope of getting better and have no likelihood of contributing to the very system that pays for their expensive care.  Sounds believable, but it is not reality.

Many well-publicized court cases underscore Canada’s aversion to any form of assisted suicide or euthanasia.  In 1993, a farmer from Saskatchewan named Robert Latimer, carried-out a mercy killing on his twelve-year-old daughter.  She suffered from severe cerebral palsy, could not walk, talk or feed herself and was in chronic, excruciating pain.   A year later, Latimer was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to ten years in prison with no chance of parole.  Further cases have upheld the court’s objection to those who have aided in others’ suicide or active cessation of life.  In other words, Jack Kevorkian could not have gotten away with it in Canada either.

The ‘Canadian Health Care Plan’
So, how does it work?  Canada’s health system is not a federally-administered public health insurance plan.  Instead, what we do have is a fabric of individual provincial plans that mirror a set of national ‘medicare’ principles.  That’s quite different from what is being floated by Washington.

Here’s how it works in a nutshell.  Your average Canadian pays income tax to both the federal and provincial governments, with the federal side taking the lion’s share.  The federal government doles out a portion of total revenue from personal and corporate income taxes, along with other sources of income to fund ‘transfer payments’ back to the ten provinces and three territories.  These transfer payments are earmarked specifically for health care. Each province or territory is individually responsible to administer and deliver health care services.  Some provinces, such as Ontario, levy an additional health care fee on workers’ paychecks to shore-up gaps between available funds and the reality of costs.

]]>

There are differences in the precise ways in which each province or territory administers its own health care system.  However, the federal government has an overall responsibility to set principles and priorities through legislation that each province or territory must mirror.  As such, Canadians living in British Columbia on the west coast, Newfoundland and Labrador on the east coast or anywhere in-between, take advantage of similar coverage and services.

You Never Need to Worry About ‘Coverage’
A friend of mine from Florida got an unsolicited lesson in the limits of health insurance ‘coverage’ about six years ago.  He and his wife, ‘Kate’, never questioned the health insurance that she had through her former employer.  That was until she was diagnosed with a tumor in her neck near the brain stem.  After undergoing many nerve-racking tests, Kate’s health insurance carrier revealed the extent of treatment it would cover and identified the specific hospital in which she would have to receive that treatment.  Fortunately, the couple was able to explore the best options with their own choice of specialist and hospital.  Had it not been for my friend’s persistent badgering and clever negotiation, the carrier’s desired course of action would have prevailed.

My friend’s experience surprised me.  I had made the assumption that personal choice and access were exceptional in a country with the world’s finest medical facilities, practitioners and technology.  The reality of limitation and the decisive power that’s necessary to maintain profitability in a private health care system had not crossed my mind.

Take a look at this scenario.  A Canadian cardiac patient is diagnosed with very severe blockage in at least two aortic arteries.  The cardiologist determines that a stent or angioplasty would solve the problem in the near-term, but recommends a double bypass.  Although far more expensive, it’s most efficacious for that patient’s long-term health.  There is no question that every aspect of the bypass will be covered in full, with no cost to the patient for all necessary tests, consultations, hospital stay, in-hospital medications and the surgery itself.  And it really doesn’t matter whether that same patient is the CEO of a major corporation, a politician, a part-time fast food employee or a stay-at-home parent.  The provincial health plan will cover the bill.

That’s not to say that Canadian patients have access to every type of treatment in every case, such as cutting-edge, experimental or unproven procedures.  However, the average Canadian will not ever be denied generally accepted treatment, surgery or counsel according to his or her medical needs.  That includes organ transplants as necessary and available.

Where you live does matter.  There definitely is a small town – big city gap when it comes to health care options, choice of practitioner and responsiveness to medical treatment.  However, a Canadian patient from ‘Hickville’ can always get subsequent opinions from specialists in a more urban setting.  And when the patient’s condition requires the most advanced technology and prominent specialists such as may be available at a major metropolitan teaching hospital, that patient is routinely transferred in order to receive the required surgery or treatment.

Every story has another side and in this case, it’s not always quite so rosy.  More Canadians live in Ontario than any other province.  Ontario’s Ministry of Health and Long Term Care administers and delivers health care to about 13 million residents.  Ontario has been grappling with a serious doctor shortage; as a result, many Ontarians do not have a family doctor.  In August, 2008 the Ontario College of Family Physicians released results of a poll showing that up to 879,000 Ontarians did not have a family doctor.  Since that time, the province has ramped-up efforts to increase the number of doctors, to implement innovative solutions and to connect those who are without.  Despite the fact that progress has been made, many patients continue to visit clinics or emergency rooms because they still don’t have a family physician.  So, the system is not perfect.

Not perfect, but the benefits of universal health care are immense.  Bottom line – medically necessary consultation, treatment or surgery will never be denied to a Canadian in his or her own province or territory.  A Canadian will never hear the words, “Sorry, but even though there is better treatment available, here’s the extent of what we’ll cover,“  or, “You’ve reached the maximum pay-out for treatment of this condition,” or “Your claim has been denied due to pre-existing conditions.”  That just doesn’t happen here; if you’re Canadian, you’re covered.

In general, we choose our own family physician without having to select from a list of HMO approved physicians.  Canadians never have to worry about having their coverage dropped due to pre-existing health conditions or personal habits.  We never have to ask family or friends for money to pay for a medically necessary operation, because it’s always covered.  Canadians rarely hear or read about fundraisers to help pay for medical treatment, unless it’s to pay for out-of-town lodging expenses for patient’s families or for treatment in the U.S.  Canadians never have to send-in claim forms for doctor visits or hospital stays.  When we lose our jobs, become self-employed or simply can’t become employed, our basic health coverage does not change.  That is what universal health care looks like and most industrialized countries in the world have it.

Time to Receive Treatment is another story and Part 2 of this series, “Real Life Stories About Government-Administered Health Care” will explore that issue.  See more content by Stephen Kristof at http://themorethingschange.weebly.com/

The World Health Organization reports that the United States has the 37th best health care system in the world. America’s health care system is fraught with problems and its patient satisfaction is rated among the worst in the world. Even though the America’s health care system is envied by the world, it ranks at the bottom of many health care indicators. In the developed world, the United States is at the bottom of the list for infant mortality and life expectancy.

Health care is not the same as it was fifty years ago. Many things have improved over the last fifty years, but the personal touch of medicine has been lost in the process. Medical science has made tremendous advances in the treatment of heart disease, cancer, infectious disease and diabetes just to name a few – but these advances have come at a cost.

Health care is expensive. Not only in dollars and cents, but also in time. A patient can call for an appointment, be told they can be squeezed into the doctor’s busy schedule tomorrow at 3 PM, and then not be seen until 5 PM the next day.

This problem is likely to get worse as time passes as fewer and fewer doctors are choosing to go into primary care medicine specialties such as pediatrics, family practice, geriatrics and internal medicine. Instead doctors are opting for more lucrative specialties – and why not when many specialties pay over twice the annual salary of a primary care provider.

]]>

The use of mid-level providers, such as the nurse practitioner or the physician assistant, will help ease the shortage. None-the-less it is critical that patients learn to take care of themselves and know when they should go to the doctor and when a trial over the counter medications or other measures can be helpful.

Health care in America is the most expensive in the world. In 2006, the United States spent ,421 in per capita health expenditures, which is over 50 percent more than any other country. Contributing to high health care cost in the United States are cost of medications, top rate medical technologies, the extensive use of diagnostic tests, salaries of doctors and hospital administrators.

The use of the emergency room as a primary care service not only results in poor health care but it is a costly form of care. Emergency room physicians do not know the patients and are more prone to ordering expensive tests and treatments.

The health care system is overburdened, fragmented and as a whole not concerned about your health as much as you are. Each patient must assume responsibility for his or her own health.

Running to the doctor, urgent clinic or emergency room is not necessarily the best option for every situation. Health care providers often do things to appease the patient instead of doing the right thing.

Doctor appointments, in the eyes of many patients, are sub-par. Health care visits are typically about 15 minutes. The health care provider has a lot of work to do in that short visit. The health care provider needs to review the chart, talk to the patient, examine the patient, write in the chart, answer questions, fill out forms and dispense prescriptions. Time limits placed on office visits do not allow the health care provider to spend adequate time with the patient.

Health care consumers need to maximize this short time with the doctor. This includes being knowledgeable, organized and knowing how to communicate with the health care system. Some doctor’s practice under the assumption that doctor knows best and do not feel it is necessary to share all information with their patients.

Health care consumers are ultimately responsible for their health and need to act accordingly. The health care system is in need of many changes and people need to realize that they need to take responsibility for their health. If you do not take an active role in your health care you will waste a lot of time, money and quality of life.

Get educated about how to improve the quality of your care. With improved knowledge you will be better able to care for yourself.

As a health care consumer you need to:

Understand the health care system Understand doctor visits Improve the quality of your health care visit Improve the quality of your health

Here’s To Your Wealth!  Comparative Costs of Private and Public Health Systems
Part 3 of a 3-Part Series

Everything comes with a cost and health care is no exception.  But which type of health care model costs the most – the universal public type or the for-profit private system?  The answer depends on the source and perhaps what political stripes that source wears.

While President Obama’s camp continues to promote the public option and what they say will be a lower overall cost to consumers, many conservative politicians and talk show hosts have, of course, campaigned hard to make the opposite seem true.  Their take is that industrialized nations with universal public health care pay far more per capita for sub-standard services compared to their US counterpart.

It’s easy to accept without question, this latter position as fact, particularly if you buy-into another popular view that suggests everything and anything the government administers suffers from waste, inefficiency, ineffectiveness and bloated costs.  Let’s face it, you don’t have to look very far to find examples of poor public governance.  (Does anyone remember stories about a certain stars-and-stripes military outfit paying 0 for hammers and hundreds more for toilets?)

Is Public Sector Governance Necessarily Bad?
What some people seem far too eager to ignore is the fact that given proper governance, a publicly administered system providing an essential service has an important advantage.  That advantage is a missing link of sorts.  The ‘chain’ of service provision has many various links that make up the total cost of providing that service.  Consider that the profit link is often one of the biggest links in the chain.  Somewhere along the line, that profit link will necessarily impact the total cost of providing the service as well as the amount of investment that’s diverted back into the system.

Therefore, in operating a for-profit health care system, regardless of whether the gross profit margin is ten or thirty per cent, at some point along the way a markup must occur to generate the extra revenue needed to feed that profit.  A properly managed public health care system need not implement markups.  In theory, then, the taxpayer isn’t overcharged just in order to meet the profit margin goal.  Does it actually work that way?  Just as with other aspects of the public vs. private health care debate, there are both success and horror stories on each side.

Are Canadian Patients Dissatisfied With Their Health Care System?
So much of the chatter we hear today slams the inefficiency and overboard costs of Canada’s health care system.  But consider that for each story from a Canadian patient who experienced mediocre treatment or long delays, there are far more success stories from patients who are sincerely happy with their treatment and who wouldn’t trade their system for the world. 

Take, for instance, the case of a woman from Windsor, Ontario, whose story was revealed this past summer in an article in a Florida newspaper, the St. Petersburg Times.  This Canadian patient was billed a grand total of .95 after having been in hospital for over two months.  Her friend who lives across the river in Michigan spent two or three days in hospital and was billed over ,000.  Those are some real numbers to chew on.

So, what are the rest of the numbers, vis-à-vis the comparative costs of Canadian and American health systems?  More on that in a bit, but first consider the example of education.  Education is one of the untouchables; a cornerstone of most wealthy nations.  It’s one of those essential services.  The quality of a nation’s education determines, to a great extent, that nation’s future prosperity.  Most kids go to public school and most of those parents would never consider scrapping their district’s public system in favor of a for-profit pay-as-you-go private system.

Public Education is in a Shambles, Right?

Education has for long been as politicized as health care has lately become.  Pour the education facts through a political filter and you get a skewed take.  Just as with the health care debate, those on the right champion the superiority of private schools, citing lower costs per student and higher test scores.  They would also have us believe that public education costs are far more expensive per student compared with that of private school.  Both of these ideas are easily challenged.

A widely accepted figure pegs the average cost per student for public education systems nationwide at under ,000.  Comparatively, according to the National Association of Independent Schools, an organization comprised of private schools, the average cost of annual private school tuition per school-aged child is over ,000.  Reports about this seem to be easily overlooked by those wishing to cash-in on the profit potential of the education business.

But isn’t the quality of education better at most of those private schools as compared to the much more heavily attended public schools?  Private schools’ high teacher-to-student ratio and their more selective community are features that are hard to deny.  However we hear little about the fact that public education systems must follow a host of state and federal laws and guidelines; many of which the private schools need not and do not observe.

Further bolstering the argument was a study out of Washington released in October, 2007, confirming that 12th-grade private and parochial school students had matching scores in core academic subjects when compared to their public school counterparts with similar family and income backgrounds.  Other more recent studies by the University of Illinois showed that public school students actually outperformed their private school counterparts in standardized math tests.

]]>

Universal Public Education is a Sacred Cow; Why Isn’t Health Care?

It can therefore be easily argued that a service as essential as education can and is provided both efficiently and effectively by the public sector.  Why, then, are so many opposed to the same idea with health care; another service that’s just as essential?

It’s Not a Free-For-All in Canada
First of all, don’t think that every aspect of health care is included in the package.  The government does not pay for most Canadians’ prescription medicines.  Just like the American experience, most Canadian prescriptions are paid for by way of employment benefits packages or it’s a self-pay deal.  (But the Canadian government does cover prescription costs during in-hospital treatment and for patients in certain income and age brackets.)  Another thing that most Canadians pay for is just about any surgery that is elective and not medically necessary.  So that face-lift, laser scar removal or tummy tuck – well – you’re on your own.  The same applies when it comes to dentistry, orthodontics, optometry and eyewear, chiropractic care, and other medical areas that fall outside traditional physician-provided necessary care; for the most part, Canadian patients or their employer insurance carriers pay for these services and treatments.  These things are generally not coming out of the public purse.

The Canadian medicare system covers, in full and without question, all necessary visits to family physicians and specialists, all necessary medical tests, and all necessary hospital stays.  Quite simply that means no bill and no nasty surprise.

What are the specific costs north of the border?
According a report by the Canadian Institute for Health Spending, in 2008 health care spending in Canada was just over 0 billion.  That covers all aspects of costs and comes out to ,170 per person.  Which nation boasts the highest spending?  Spending in the US is now over ,000 per person annually.  A recent analysis in Memphis Tennessee’s Commercial Appeal newspaper showed that the average American needs to work through the months of January, February and March just to pay for his or her share of the health care bill.

How does the old axiom about statistics go?  Liars figure and figures lie.  Yes, it’s easy to skew the truth with statistics, but it’s hard to argue with bottom-line costs from trusted sources and the real-life experiences of real people.

Regardless of whether you sit on the left, the right or on the fence itself, there’s no denying one more fact.  Since universal medicare was legislated in Canada by Tommy Douglas in 1961, Canadian patients have not had to worry about losing their homes, going bankrupt or plundering their retirement savings as a result of the cost of treating a major illness or disease.

Ask any Canadian and they’ll tell you that knowing they’ll always be covered is peace of mind; which, in itself, is quite therapeutic.

Read Part 1 of this series, The Truth About Canadian Health Care; and Part 2, Real Life Stories About Canadian Health Care.

Visit http://www.themorethingschange.weebly.com for more articles and columns by Stephen J. Kristof.

A top Roman Catholic cardinal told CNSNews.com that there is “no way” Catholic members of Congress can support the Senate health care reform bill as long as it includes a provision that allows tax dollars to go to insurance plans that cover abortion.

At the National Press Club on Nov. 20, CNSNews.com asked Cardinal Justin Rigali, the archbishop of Philadelphia: “The Senate health care bill that Majority Leader Reid released this week permits tax dollars to go to insurance plans which cover abortion.  And my question is: Would it be a mortal sin for a Catholic member of Congress to vote for this bill knowing that this provision is in it?”

“Well, first of all,” Rigali responded, “the Catholic Church and, therefore, individual Catholics, are completely against abortion. So our position is that, first of all, a health care bill can be a great, great blessing to our country. The bishops of the United States have been in favor, for long years, in favor of universal, affordable health care for everyone. So this, this is something that is extremely important.

“But we make a distinction between health care and killing,” Rigali continued. “So abortion is out of the question–as we’ve spoken about the value of human life. And everyone is called upon to do everything possible to see that when we are trying to get laudable health care—and that’s what we hope to get—laudable health care, but certainly abortion will be excluded from that.  So we exhort everyone of good will that this is for the good of our country. This is for the good of individuals. We have to make sure that health care doesn’t end up as killing. So everyone is challenged to make his or her contribution, and we’re counting on legislators to make sure this is not part of what is going to rule the lives of people.”

When asked in a follow-up question whether it would be a mortal or venial sin, or not sinful at all, for a Catholic member of Congress to vote for the health care bill knowing that it would provide tax dollars to health insurance plans that cover abortion, Rigali said that people need to follow a well-formed conscience, and that a well-formed conscience would recognize that abortion is “absolutely wrong” and that there is “no way in the world” a health care bill can be supported if it includes a provision allowing tax dollars to go to abortion coverage.

“People have to follow their conscience, but their conscience has to be well-formed,” said Rigali. “And you have to make sure that when it is a question of doing something that has a provision, if it has a provision in it for abortion, then this is absolutely wrong by every standard and not by the standards of the Catholic Church as you see here today.  It’s the standards of Christian, standards of the natural law.

“Everyone is called. Yes, no, any bill, any bill that has abortion in it is in our opinion to be rejected,” Rigali continued. “But keep in mind that health reform as such is a wonderful, wonderful thing. But a bill that includes it, there’s no way in the world that it can be supported and if it comes down to that.  Once again we have the coming down as we examined in other questions. If it comes down to that, then we would urge, urge, a rejection because health reform is necessary, it has to be reformed, and it can’t be killing.”Rigali, the archbishop of Philadelphia, is also the chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Committee for Pro-life Activities.

Rev. Robert A. Sirico, president of the Action Institute, which seeks to promote Judeo-Christian ideas with free market principles, attended the event at the National Press Club where CNSNews.com asked Cardinal Rigali about the sinfulness of a Catholic member of Congress voting for a health care reform bill that funds abortion. Fr. Sirico offered commentary on the cardinal’s answer.

“When you ask if something is a mortal sin or a venial sin, you’re asking a question with regard to the individual act,” said Fr. Sirico.

Fr. Sirico drew a distinction between the objective moral status of an act and the subjective moral culpability of the person who commits it.

]]>

“When we’re talking about the broad morality of the thing, we’re talking about as it exists in natural law,” he said.  Abortion and funding abortion violate the natural law and are gravely immoral. But for a person to commit a mortal sin, Sirico said, three conditions must be met: the act must be gravely wrong, the person must know it is gravely wrong, and the person must deliberately choose to do it.

“So, the reason the cardinal seemed like he wasn’t answering the question directly is because you can’t judge this along every congressperson, because it depends on their individual knowledge and their individual act of free will,” Sirico said.

“And so, it is grave, and if a person knows that it’s grave, and acts upon it freely, they may have committed a mortal sin,” he said.

The Catholic Catechism says: “For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: ‘Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent. Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: ‘Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother. The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger. Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin. Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man.”

The USCCB, which speaks for approximately 300 active bishops in the United States and is headed by Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, has sent several letters to members of Congress urging lawmakers to bar taxpayer-funding of abortion in health-care reform bills.

On July 17, for example, the USCCB sent a letter to all members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, saying, “We have in the past and we must always insist that health care reform exclude abortion coverage or any other provisions that threaten the sanctity of life… No health care reform plan should compel us or others to pay for the destruction of human life, whether through government funding or mandatory coverage of abortion.”

The letter was signed by Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, New York, chairman of the Domestic Justice Committee.

On August 11, Rigali sent congressional representatives a letter to underscore the USCCB’s July 17 letter to Congress, writing, “Much-needed reform must not become a vehicle for promoting an ‘abortion rights’ agenda or reversing longstanding policies against federal funding and mandated coverage of abortion.”

On Sept. 30, the USCCB called on senators to bar federal funding of abortion in health care reform, saying, “We urge you to … support a fair and just health care reform bill that excludes mandated coverage for abortion and upholds longstanding laws that restrict abortion funding and protect conscience rights.  No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion.  It is essential to clearly include longstanding and widely supported federal restrictions on abortion funding/mandates and protections for rights of conscience.”

The letter continued, “So far, the health reform bills considered in committee, including the new Senate Finance Committee bill, have not met President Obama’s challenge of barring use of federal dollars for abortion and maintaining current conscience laws.  These deficiencies must be corrected.”

The Sept. 30 letter was signed by Murphy, Rigali, and Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City, chairman of the Committee on Migration.

On Oct. 8, the USCCB sent a letter to members of the House of Representatives, saying, “We continue to urge you to … exclude mandated coverage for abortion, and incorporate longstanding policies against abortion funding and in favor of conscience rights.  No one should be required to pay for or participate in an abortion.  It is essential that the legislation clearly apply to this new program longstanding and widely supported federal restrictions on abortion funding and mandates, and protections for rights of conscience.”

The bishops added that they “will have to oppose the health care bill vigorously” if safeguards against federal funding of abortion are not realized. The letter was signed by Murphy, Rigali, and Wester.

On Nov. 6, the USCCB sent an urgent message to House members, imploring lawmakers to “support an amendment to keep in place current federal law on abortion funding and conscience protections and to oppose a closed rule that would prevent the House from voting on

Mr. President:

I know that you are a very busy man so I will try to keep my questions about health care reform and the recently passed legislation as short and simple as possible.

- I could ask you why you think this is a good piece of legislation even though I truly believe that it will be a failure and will come very close to bankrupting the country. The basis for my conclusion has nothing to do with political partisanship (in fact, I have never voted for a Republican for national office in my life.) From my perspective, “Obama Care” never effectively addressed the root causes of our escalating health care costs: Americans eat too much of the wrong kinds of food, they exercise far too little, they are overweight, they smoke too much, and they are getting older. This legislation does not address these causes, it just raises taxes and moves money around within the bureaucracy. I could ask you about this but I will not.

- I could ask you why you have not stepped forward and denounced those in your party that have likened Americans like myself, i.e. those that have legitimate and honest concerns about this health care reform bill, to the racists who fought against the civil rights movement from the 1960s. I thought that we lived in a free country where citizens could freely address their elected representatives without being slurred in the most debasing way possible, just for having a different opinion. Your lack of fortitude to oppose those Democrats who frequently use the term “racist” to malign myself and those Americans expressing their honest opposition, cheapens the bravery and contributions of those from long ago that fought actual racism. I could ask you about this but I will not.

- I could ask you why you felt it necessary to pass this legislation by the back door called reconciliation. This is a major, major issue in the country that will affect every American for decades to come. Sneaking it in the back door, without using the traditional, time honored method of passing laws in his country, belittles the approach and makes it look like it was forced through without the full weight of the democratic process behind it. I could ask you about this but I will not.

Here is what I will ask you about. But first, some background facts:

- Let me reiterate that both my wife and myself have never voted for a Republican for national office in our lives.

- We both spent several decades of our lives working hard for AT&T, retiring several years ago, secure in our thinking that AT&T’s promise of health care benefits and coverage for our long years of service was a good bet.

- We both try to eat well, we exercise at our local YMCA on an almost daily basis, neither of us smoke, and we rarely drink. In other words, we take personal responsibility for our health and our health care.
One reason for our personal responsibility behavior is that we are on a high deductible insurance plan with AT&T. We are each responsible for the first ,200 of our annual health care costs before we get any insurance coverage at all. However, for this personal responsibility, we also pay nothing in annual premiums.

]]>

- During the debate leading up to the passage of health care reform, you reiterated more than once that those of us that currently had health care coverage would be able to keep it. However, in a recent article in Fortune magazine, the CEO of AT&T, Randall Stephenson, was interviewed (several pages of the article are attached). Towards the end of the interview, he was explicitly asked whether AT&T would consider dropping health care insurance coverage for its employees and retirees. His response made it clear that this was a very viable option for two reasons. First, from a business profitability perspective, under the new health care reform law, “you’re better off paying the government a fine and dropping health care coverage for your employees”, improving AT&Ts bottom line. Second, he talks about “economic gravity” which appears to be code words for “if others in his industry do it, AT&T will have no choice but to do it also.”

Thus, a few quick questions for you:

1) Were you just naive when you made the comments that we could all keep our current health care insurance, not realizing the simple fact that companies are in business to make money and if this bill makes it easier for them to make more money by not insuring their workforce, that is what they will do? Or were you being disingenuous, knowing that this would happen and deliberately misinforming the country to help get your health care reform bill passed? Naive or disingenuous, in either case you will be making millions of American voters unhappy in November and in 2012 when we are forced out of our current health care coverage and will blame you for either ignorance or arrogance in this situation.

2) I am 57 years old and my wife is 56 years old and if Mr. Stephenson does decide to terminate AT&T’s health care coverage for employees and retirees, where do you suggest that my wife and I get coverage? What insurance company is going to want to pick us up, and millions of other older Americans who lost their coverage, at our ages even though we are both healthy and taking personal responsibility for our continued good health?

3) If we are forced out onto the market for health care insurance coverage, our new coverage is likely going to be much more expensive. Our annual health care costs will go from a maximum of ,200 each to a minimum of several thousand dollars each. Is this how you planned to reduce health care costs for middle class America? Is so, then you need to explain the math to me. Maximum of ,200 to a minimum of several thousand dollars, does not make sense out here in the real world. How does this reduce the escalating health care costs for the 90% of Americans that already had health care insurance prior to the passage of this bill?

Thus, I am not going to ask you about why you and the rest of Congress did not address the root causes of high health care costs in your legislating process. I am not going to ask why you have sat back and been silent while those Americans with legitimate and honest dissent against this bill have been likened to racists by members of your party. I thought you represented all Americans, not just those that agreed with your policies. I will not ask you about why you did not have the courage and guts to pass this legislation the right way, through the front door like every other piece of legislation, but instead snuck it through the back door of reconciliation.

However, I will ask you or your staff to contact me and explain where and how I can get health care coverage at my age if AT&T and the rest of corporate America decides it is a better economic choice to pay a government fine than to cover their employees and retirees with health insurance. I will ask you to explain whether you were naive or disingenuous when explaining that we would be able to keep our current health insurance coverage. And finally, please explain how paying no more than ,200 a year under my current coverage (with many years paying nothing for coverage during healthy years) is a better deal then finding new coverage at my age and paying several thousand dollars a year for the privilege.

Although I have written to the White House many times, I have never received any answer to my questions on a wide variety of topics even though you promised to have the most open and responsive administration of all time. That has not happened yet. However, in this case I do require, in fact I demand specific answers to my three questions above. For your political sake I hope to receive those answers before early November and certainly before 2012.

Thank you for your time,

Walter “Bruno” Korschek

[Follow up note: a month after sending this to the White House, no answers to the questions have been received or even a simple confirmation that this letter was received has been forthcoming from the Obama adminstration.]

Did you know that even your dog health can suffer from cold? However, he doesn’t get a runny nose like you, but his dog health can get affected by a coughing infection generally known as Kennel cough. Kennel cough (medical term: canine infectious tracheobronchitis) is an infection that causes mild irritation due to the thickening of the trachea lining. Pet health care experts suggest that a dog who suffers from this disease may cough frequently. The frequency of coughing could be every few minutes as well as through the entire day. Pet health care experts have observed that dog cold does affect dog health as it is one of the most common infectious dog diseases, though in most cases the condition doesn’t develop into a serious dog health problem. It’s been observed that Kennel cough goes away on its own with a week or two.

Causes of Kennel Cough

Bordatella bronchiseptica is the most common cause of this cough. This bacteria or virus is airborne and usually invades the dog’s body when he inhales infected air. The pet health care experts are of the opinion that dogs that participate in large canine gatherings such as dog or kennel shows tend to contract the Bordatella virus more.

]]>

Symptoms of Kennel Cough

Some of the symptoms of Kennel cough affect dog health in the following ways:

Dog tries to clears his throat every time it coughs
Dog coughs whenever he is participating in a physical activity such as exercising
Dog develops coughing almost a few weeks after he has been to a dog gathering and taken in virus-infected air
You dog coughs continuously and vomits food or mucus

The color of the mucus indicates the seriousness of the dog health infection. White mucus means the infection is not serious, while green mucus means a very serious infection. If your dog is coughing hard and vomiting green mucus, you must take him to a pet health care expert immediately.

Diagnosing Kennel Cough

A pet health care expert such as a veterinarian will check the dog health by rubbing his larynx. Sometimes, the vet may also ask you to get some tests done to ensure the extent of damage on the dog health.

Home Treatment for Kennel Cough

You can protect the dog health from Kennel cough by ensuring his immune system stays strong. You have a choice of homeopathic as well as allopathic treatments to keep your dog ailment free. A dog cough suppressant can alleviate Kennel cough or dog cold and help your dog and your family sleep well at night.

Remember, not to give your dog antibiotics if his appetite stays normal and the coughing is not frequently. In such cases, letting the disease complete its course is the best recourse. If the coughing lasts over 10 days, take the dog to the vet for a thorough check up to ensure best dog health.

Making your own health care decisions

Yes, you do.  A health care proxy speaks for you if you can’t speak for yourself.  A health care proxy is a legal paper that lets you pick another person to make health care decisions for you, if and only if you are unable to communicate.

Any competent adult over 18 can make a health care proxy.  The health care proxy is written by you, or filled out by you.  The legal documents can be obtained on line, from the hospital, doctor’s office, senior citizen offices, and medical facilities.  The person who speaks for you should have your own interest in mind.  This is used in cases of temporarily unconscious, coma, or any other condition that you can not speak.  A doctor has to put in writing that you lack the ability to make health care decisions at the time.

You pick the person who will speak for you. This person is referred to as a health care agent.  Your agent must be someone you can trust.  A person who knows what you want and will make the correct choice with your interest and only your interest in mind.  The person should convey your wishes, desires and medical treatment when you can not says so for yourself.  You can put specific limits on the authority you give to your agent.

A health care proxy is not a living will.  A living will is not a health care proxy.  They are two very different legal documents.  A living will allows you to leave written instructions that explain your health care wishes, especially about end-of-life care.  A living will is a written statement of your wishes. A health care proxy empowers another person to speak for you.  A living will has no place for you to express your choice of medical treatments.

]]>

Many states have different names for health care proxies.  New York calls the paper Health Care Proxy Law. Florida, California and several states call the paper Health Care Surrogate; Rhode Island calls the paper, Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care. A living will is not legally binding in Massachusetts. The following web site lists the states and the papers they accept.  Check out your laws and the laws of other states that you might be an agent for a loved one residing in that state. http://estate.findlaw.com/estate-planning/living-wills/estate-planning-law-state-living-wills.html

You are not mandated to make a health care proxy.  This is your right. You will receive good health care either with or without an agent.  You can change your health care decisions at any time. If you change your mind, or if your health changes, you and your doctor can discuss options and you can change your proxy.  Make sure you relay any changes in your desires to your health care agent.

Some of the decisions about your medical treatments can include; chemotherapy, surgery and life-sustaining treatments.  It is very important that your agent knows exactly what you want.  It is also important that you understand the terms CPR and life-sustaining treatments.  You have the right to decline to be resuscitated or to limit these types of procedures. You may decide to have a do not resuscitate (DNR) order.  A DNR order is not the same as a health care proxy.  In emergency situations, the ambulance workers or EMT’s are required by law to give CPR and treatment while responding to a call.  Once you are treated by a medical doctor at the hospital or facilities your living will and your health care proxy come into play.
A life-sustaining treatment requires the use of a machine to take the place of bodily functions that no longer work. These machines can be used for long periods of time or can be used while healing takes place.  When they are used to prolong the process of dying, the health care proxy can be extremely important.  Examples of these types of machine and medical situations include:  machines used to breathe for the patient and kidney dialysis machines.  Medications, nutrition and hydration procedures that are given through a tube or machine, also are conditions to be consider by you and your health care agent.

health care proxies are not required.  They are the best way to ensure that your health care treatment wishes are followed.

The many ways Americans already pay for a universal health care — but don’t have it.

Number 1 – Your employer:

Health care insurance is primarily provided by the private sector, generally through a group insurance plans negotiated with an employer, of which the employee pays an average of 27%. Then, of course as any accountant can tell you, those costs are expensed by the employer as a cost of doing business and recouped through pricing on goods and services. Therefore, every time you put out your hard earned dollar for anything, you are paying for someone’s health insurance. In fact, you are paying for many people’s health insurance on all the tiers of costs incurred as any product travels on the journey from raw materials to producer, from producer to middleman, from middleman to provider, from provider to the public. At each level, health insurance costs are part of the total cost.

Problems involved with number 1

Pretend you’re the owner of one of those few U.S. industries still operating in the manufacturing sector. The average cost of insuring each employee is ,580 per year. If you have 100 employees, your prices must be high enough to recoup 8,000 annually, and for 1,000 employees ,580,000 annually and so forth. And don’t forget that buried in the cost of any component of whatever it is you’re making, are the health insurance costs of those that produced it. (Assuming it is American made; which it most likely isn’t, because it’s too expensive to make things here, but let’s pretend.) But out there, in the market place, you are in competition on a global basis with foreign manufacturers who are not held responsible for their employees’ health insurance costs. In order to remain competitive, you must cut your expenses. So Mr. or Ms. Business Owner, what will be your first choice of costs to eliminate? Do you think this might have something to do with the choice to manufacture overseas?

Number 2 — You:

You, the employees are paying an average of 27% of your own health insurance, as well as your deductible, as well as your co-pay portion.

Problems involved with Number 2

This 27% is a major reduction of your take home pay, an amount that doesn’t go very far in this day and age. So, you decide to visit the doctor only when you’re truly ill, and forgo those screening and preventative care visits even though you’re insured because those co-pays add up, and have to come out of your grocery budget, or you’ll have to sacrifice cable TV and the kids will drive you crazy then. So it seems like an intelligent decision at the time. Until you require major critical care for a condition that could have been detected and treated had it been caught earlier, and you’re suddenly responsible for 20% of some staggering costs, plus that deductible. And find yourself uninsurable afterward.

But even if you’re lucky, and stay in good health, the premium costs are continually climbing. Why? Because the cost of health services is continually increasing. Why? Because more and more Americans can no longer afford the premiums, but still get sick and show up at the hospitals, which are morally bound to treat them. After all, we can’t have people dying in the street like abandoned dogs, can we? A civilized society doesn’t do that.

Oh, by the way, the common myth that operating deficits in hospitals are due largely to the illegal aliens showing up for free care can be debunked right here. In the states with highest concentrations of illegal immigrants – Texas and California, non-documented aliens account for no more than 14% of those receiving non-insured care.

Naturally, the hospital has to recoup those costs – the ones they can’t squeeze out of the sick you, or your working wife/husband, or the equity in your home, or all of your savings, or your 401K. And they do that by spreading the cost of treating those who can’t pay but don’t qualify for public assistance, to those that can pay and their insurance carriers.

Then, naturally enough, the insurance carriers charge more for the premiums to cover that increased cost, which means that more Americans can no longer afford to pay for health care insurance. This, I believe is called a vicious circle.

]]>

Of course, they must. They are in business to make a profit, not to pay for medical care and making a profit is a tough thing to do. Isn’t it?

Here is a list of the CEO’s of some of the major health insurance corporations and how much they earn:

* Ron Williams – Aetna – Total Compensation: ,300,112.
* H. Edward Hanway – CIGNA – Total Compensation: ,236,740.
* Angela Braly – WellPoint – Total Compensation: ,844,212.
* Dale Wolf – Coventry Health Care – Total Compensation: ,047,469.
* Michael Neidorff – Centene – Total Compensation: ,774,483.
* James Carlson – AMERIGROUP – Total Compensation: ,292,546.
* Michael McCallister – Humana – Total Compensation: ,764,309.
* Jay Gellert – Health Net – Total Compensation: ,425,355.
* Richard Barasch – Universal American – Total Compensation: ,503,702.
* Stephen Hemsley – UnitedHealth Group – Total Compensation: ,241,042.

Yep, it sure must be hard to make those profits. The trick to these profits? Get rid of any sick people on your list, and get rid of the ones who are at risk for being sick.

Number 3 – The Public Paid Programs

Those 65 or older get Medicare, paid for by taxes. The poor and medically needy, get Medicaid, paid for by taxes. Those at highest risk, the military, get Veteran’s Administration, paid for by taxes. Children of low income families get CHIP, paid for by taxes. Those above the means test for Medicaid but below whatever each state (and sometimes county) elects as a limit, usually 150% of the poverty level, get Country paid discounts for health care, paid for by taxes. And then, those employed by the Governments – Federal, State, County, and City or Town all get health insurance paid for by taxes, (but upon research this writer found those tax dollars go to the private insurance companies.) If you add up all the health care already paid by taxes, research shows that between 50-60% of the population is already covered.

Now add to this COBRA, that vehicle that was supposed to assist the newly unemployed maintain their insurance. Not only did these newly unemployed suddenly find their premiums escalating, the government chose to pay 67% of Cobra fees rather than put these people on Medicare. Now, as most of these people were in the lower risk categories, the cost to the tax payer might have been next to nothing, relatively speaking, but instead the insurance companies are getting hundreds and hundreds of dollars each month, per person out of what can only be called a publicly funded subsidy.

The Inefficiencies that are creating further costs – to you the lowly insured taxpayer

Most of the insurance carriers are publicly own corporations, and one can, if one wishes, call them up and request a copy of their year-end financial statements. Do so, and look for their overhead accounts, in particular, accounting, clerical (all those people busy denying claims), office space, wages and benefits, computers and so forth – millions (many millions) and then multiply it by the number of companies in the health insurance business. (And for all my research skills, I’ve been unable to get an accurate number, and lost count after 155.)

Now add to that 50 states, each administering Medicaid, Medicare, Chip, SSI, SSP, County programs, City programs, none of them managed concurrently and all requiring their private fiefdoms.

Next, add the cost of accounting for all the veterans receiving medical benefits from Veterans Affairs.

All this duplication of administration — this waste — does nothing to assist in anyone’s health care yet, is included in the calculated cost of keeping the American public 42nd in the world for health care and longevity (just behind Chile 35th and Cuba 37th, and 72nd in overall health.

The estimated cost for all this administration of health care coverage in the U.S. is estimated, according to one Harvard study as 9 billion per year, and by another source as 0 billion dollars per year. (It’s probably safe to assume the truth as somewhere in between.)

In order to cope with all this myriad of administrations, doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs and systems to deal with this amazing, mind boggling bureaucracy.

Combine these two, and all this needless administration consumes one-third of America’s health dollars.

Other costs impacting American society and the costs of their health care

Influence peddling

This past year, with the proposed (but failing) overhaul to the American health care industry, the insurers and drug makers have increased their lobbying efforts in order to protect their bottomless rice bowls. The lobbyists flocked to Washington bearing their gifts. Here are some interesting numbers. The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association upped its lobbying expenditures to .8 million dollars; GlaxoSmithKline proffered .3 million; Novartis’ largess was .8 million; MetlifeGroup not to be outdone spread .7 million around the capitol, and Allstate .5 million. Johnson & Johnson had .6 million in their bag of goodies; America’s Health Insurance threw million at your representatives, and Bayer wasn’t far behind. PhRMA spent .6 million in the first half of 2008, and report spending less this year by 0,000.

And the doctors, who one would normally