Yes, I’ve been a little AWOL. I am waaaay behind on blogging. It’s just been busy, with work, getting new projects off the ground, traveling, and doing early spring gardening. I hope I didn’t bite off too much this year with gardening, but I’ve got about 200 little seedlings coming up, and I just planted more onions.

So blogging has fallen a little by the wayside, and will probably be somewhat sporadic until Easter. By then I should be more caught up and back to my regular schedule.

I have been ignoring the healthcare reform debate because I just can’t bear to listen to it anymore. It just drones on and on, and the final product–if it passes–is not really going to change very much.

But has anyone heard a peep from our Surgeon General yet? I mean, in the middle of all this commotion with healthcare reform, has she ever made a statement? Does she support the president, the bill, anyone or anything? The only thing I’ve read about her since she was sworn in is that she thinks that we need more minorities in medicine. And when she threw out her statistics, it was obvious that she was talking about needing more black doctors, and not minorities in general.

The real issue is to get more students interested in careers in science and medicine–students of all stripes, colors, size, shapes, and origins. Our nation needs physicians, scientists, healthcare workers in general–we don’t need more lawyers, stockbrokers, MBAs and politiicians. But that seems to be what we are mass producing, rather than people who produce anything of substance.

And with all of the problems in healthcare, and with this big debate over reform going on, is this what our Surgeon General sees as the most pressing problem? That this topic is what she has devoted her first talk to?

Kind of pathetic. I don’t want to write this woman off completely, but hey lady, let us know you’re alive and kicking.

I hope everyone had a happy new year, and now as we enter both a new year and a new decade, the same issues that we faced a week ago in 2009 are still with us.

I am curious how nurses, as a group, feel about the current form that healthcare reform has taken. I haven’t seen much news about nurses, but then, nurses are rarely interviewed and opinions from nursing groups aren’t usually sought–except for issues that are strictly nursing related.

So if any nurses are reading this, I would love to hear some comments. Personally, I don’t think it will have much of an effect in the workplace, at least not initially. More patients may seek medical care if they gain insurance, but then, it is difficult to say how insurance policies will change. Higher copays? Bigger deductibles? Less coverage? All of these things will affect the number of people seeking care, and the type of care.

Really, I hate to call names, but I have to wonder about the mental stability of those who are occupying Senate seats and trying to reform the nation’s healthcare.

One of the wunderkind had a brilliant idea of taxing people undergoing cosmetic surgery and procedures in order to “pay” for healthcare reform. Not that these people are already paying for these services out of pocket, and they have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand. But I suppose it was the idea that only rich folks get their faces tightened and tweaked, so why not milk them a little more.

Well that didn’t go over well with the plastic surgeons, derms, and others who make money from this. And healthcare reform needs the support of the medical community, so they dropped the “Botax.” Next victim–tanning salons.

Now, we have elected officials, who supposedly have some degree of intelligence, who believe that they are going to solve the money problem by taxing tanning salons. And here’s where the eyes roll round and round and round.

If the bill is passed in its current form, a 10-percent tax would be placed on individuals buying tanning services. Who are paying for these services out of pocket already. But they think that taxing tanning salons are going to raise $2.7 billion over 10 years. Are they totally daft? First, why should someone using a tanning salon, paying out of pocket, be taxed for it?

Second, unlike cosmetic surgery, which can be quite expensive, tanning salons are quite cheap. A session in a tanning bed cost about $10 or $20 dollars. Unless someone is a really heavy duty user, it isn’t gong to add up to much. And with the tax, people may just use it less often. But really, getting a dollar or two here and there is just not going to raise a lot of money.

So here’s a brain twister for them. If they want to raise money and improve health at the same time, slap a tax on McDonald’s, Burger King, Taco Bell, Coke, Pepsi, candy bars, sugary breakfast cereals, pesticides, and all foods that you need an organic chemistry textbook to decipher the ingredients with. Tax commercial agriculture, tax the commercial beef/chicken industry (put a hefty tax on the hormones and antibiotics that they feed to the animals), etc.

Tax all the unhealthy stuff. This way, people can pay in advance for their future diabetes and heart disease care! Or their future cancer.

But these are powerful industries, so they get treated with gentle loving care. Preventing disease in the first place is the single most important thing that real reform needs to look at, but unfortunately, politicians will be politicians.

Anyway, I am so fed up with this. What we need is real reform of the insurance industry, and then real measures to lower healthcare costs. But that would mean stepping on a lot of toes, so no one wants to go there.

I’ve been on a diet–from the news. Giving my brain and emotions a rest from the constant onslaught of hype, sensationalism, and talking heads spinning round and round.

As a result, I have no idea what has happened thus far with healthcare reform, except for the barest of tidbits that people insist on telling me about. I know that the Senate voted to begin the debate, and current polls say that the public isn’t too excited about the state of affairs. And why should they be? There are 1900 pages of verbosity and who knows what it is hidden in them? What does this bill actually say?

Well, no one seems to know. Most people would like some sort of health reform, but do not like the form that this debate has taken. There are too many secrets, too much verbage, and no clarity. How much will it cost? Will any of us get our money’s worth? Why should we be forced to purchase health insurance, and what kind of insurance is going to be available?

And so on. As I said once before, I could have written this up in 5 pages, clear and concise. Regulate health insurance like a public utility. Give the industry a 5 year period to become all non-profit. Change the design so that the primary concern is for patients and not stockholders.

Anyway, I intend on staying on my news diet until the end of the year.

So now its the countdown. The vote on a healthcare bill that spans nearly 2,000 pages and which few, if any, lawmakers have actually read in its entirety.

According to the Seattle Examiner, this is what Americans can expect if it passes:

Health Care Reform Bill Benefits

If President Obama’s Health Care Reform Bill is passed, these are some of the benefits which Americans would receive:

* health insurance companies would not be able to refuse care due to health, age or gender
* aging Americans would have the means to remain in their own homes through funding provided
* fairer health insurance costs for all; health insurance companies would be unable to set higher insurance premiums due to age or gender
* preventive health measures would not be denied through Medicare (currently preventive health services often require co-pay from the patient); this means that routine screenings for illnesses such as cancer have a stronger chance of being caught in the early stages if the test is taken. Many cannot afford preventive medicine at present
* many Americans who currently do not qualify for Medicare would receive help in paying health insurance premiums at a certain level; in addition, other health insurance premium help, for those on a low income, would be available.

The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies to those who otherwise could not afford it. Large companies would have to offer coverage to their employees. Both consumers and companies would be slapped with penalties if they defied the government’s mandates. However, depending on what the penalty actually is, it may be cheaper for a company to pay the penalty rather than insure employees.

Finally, it creates a federally regulated marketplace where consumers could shop for coverage, and also a public option. Although the Congressional Budget Office forecasts that premiums for it would be more expensive than for policies sold by private firms.

Well, it’s a start in the right direction, at least as far as putting more regulations on the insurance industry. But it really does nothing to improve health, to cut health care costs, or to reign in spending on healthcare.

For example, what about Medicare being able to negotiate volume discounts on drugs? Thus far, Medicare is prohibited from doing so. Now isn’t that a bust and a sweetheart deal for drug companies.

What about making medical schools free of charge, so doctors do not complete their schooling $100-$300,000 in debt? Without a huge school debt to pay off, physician fees can justifiably be lowered. Ditto for the reforming our lawsuit culture. Judges should hold lawyers in contempt of court for bringing frivolous malpractice suits to trial, and the people suing should be required to pay court costs.

That’s just a start. Doctors order tests that people don’t need just to cover their ass; care is uncoordinated; very little attention of paid to prevention; there is still way too much pandering to special interest groups, if overall health is going to be improved.

In the meantime, if the healthcare plan does pass, it does mean that a friend of mine will be able to get some sort of insurance, and that she will be able to get a lung transplant. An individual victory, and one that I am happy for, but the overall plan is still a victory for industry and not the consumer.

It may be the heaviest piece of legislature ever to emerge from our nation’s capitol. I’m talking about the health care bill, which is 1,990-pages long, and weighs in at 19.6 pounds–if printed on single sides of paper.

If it passes, it would be among the longest pieces of House legislation ever, congressional historians say.

So my question is why? Obesity is a major problem in this country, and that does not only for people but for bloated bills circling through Congress.

Why is the healthcare bill so long and verbose? I bet I could write one up that would take up about 5 pages, maybe up to 10 if I wanted to get wordy.

Is anyone really going to sit and read this thing? Does anyone know what it says? Could this be why there is so much chatter and pouting about getting it passed–because no one knows exactly what’s in it, and refuse to spend the better part of their life reading it?

They’re supposed to vote tomorrow. The whole idea of healthcare reform has changed from a golden opportunity to a 3 ring circus. Send in the clowns–wait, they’re already here.

The continuing saga of swine flu. I’m planning on staying healthy, and one of the best ways of doing that is to ignore the hysteria and the doomsday prophecies. It’s funny, but I do recall that at once place I worked, people used to come around with a little cart asking who wanted a free flu vaccine. No takers, at least not in the units I worked in, and it wasn’t because everyone had already had one.

Why is it that healthcare workers are so adverse to flu shots? It might be worth discussing, especially hearing why physicians have such low rates.

Anyway, back to swine flu. Seems that someone if finally doing some real journalism and digging beyond sound-bytes. CBS News has asked the question if swine flu cases are overestimated? And then they tell of the experience in trying to get data from the CDC, along with the CDC’s rather abrupt decision last June, to  tell states to stop testing for it. Very odd, considering that this is a new disease and they should be tracking it.

Interesting story and finally, a real journalistic effort to dig for the truth.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Think before Pink, or better yet, don’t waste money buying stuff you don’t want or need because it has the pink touch to it. I know, I am so politically incorrect to be so negative about breast cancer awareness month, but the whole concept of these “awareness” months is also rather distasteful. Like breast cancer should be ignored the rest of the year.

The pink campaign, as this video says, began with good intentions, but it has mushroomed into a mega marketing campaign, with many unscrupulous companies selling pink products to “raise awareness,” and do not donate any money to breast cancer causes. In other words, they’re cashing in on an illness and trying to increase their profit margin for the month of October by “pinkifying” their inventory.

Cool. Thanks but no thanks. I refuse to buy anything pink in October.

Okay, I was in Berlin, Germany at a medical conference and really couldn’t blog because I bought a brand new little netbook for the journey, but neglected to take my blog passwords. And then, its taken me a week to get over jet lag, read my mail, take care of stuff at home, and so on. Blogging has been neglected.

But anyway, October is breast cancer awareness month, and the start of that awful pink campaign. Yes, I know that its not all bad, but just the tone of it makes breast cancer seem like some sweet and frilly little girl’s issue, rather than a life threatening disease.

I’ll post more on this, but I basically advise donating to a particular charity itself, if you want to do something for breast cancer, rather than waste money buying some ridiculous pink item that will end up in the recycling bin. In many cases, virtually none of the money that you spent on the item actually goes for breast cancer. Sometimes not even a penny. So again, donate to a legitimate charity, volunteer, or whatever, but don’t get sideswiped by the pink.

No, this date doesn’t look as cool as 09/09/09, but it is a memorable day in and of itself. For those of us who are self-employed, it is the deadline for quarterly taxes. And I am so proud of myself–I actually got them in the mail yesterday.

And I just can’t bear to read anymore about healthcare reform. Some of the things that I’m reading–I really can’t believe that people in this country are so ignorant, so cruel, so blinded by pseudo-ideology. I really need a break from it.

Let me know when Congress votes, one way or another!

Doesn’t that look so cool? And we don’t have too many more to these “3 in a rows.” December 12, 2012, will be the last once for quite a while. I’m surprised that Google didn’t come up with a drawing. They could have done a lot with this.

Well, the big news is that President Obama is going to give the final talk on healthcare reform later today. I guess in about 2 hours? What will it be? Will he cave in to special interests, be forceful about the need for an alternative to private health insurance, declare massive reform for the insurance industry?

It should be interesting.

Obama’s handling of healthcare reform has been subpar. He is too busy trying to please everyone, while pleasing no one. Johnson faced huge opposition to Medicare back in the early 1960s. But guess what? He said that this is how its going to be, and that’s how its going to be. You don’t like it? Too bad. Ronald Reagan was one of its biggest opponents, but I bet Ronnie was on Medicare and jumped right up on the bandwagon. And all of those who protested back then are probably all getting healthcare through Medicare, if they’re still alive and kicking that is.

Nancy Pelosi is demonstrating more of the Lyndon Johnson resolve, and she is a powerful politician. Whether you agree with the need for healthcare reform or not, the president cannot be vacillating. The plan needs to be laid out, then pushed forward. A few compromises are okay, as long as they are minimal. But this thing has just gotta move, and Pelosi may be the impetus to push it forward.

I wish all politicians could be this cool and well, this frank (nice pun there). There is no reasoning with these people, and I do suspect many of them have been planted at the meetings to spout this nonsense and lies about healthcare reform–in order to disrupt the meeting and get off topic.

At this Barney Frank (Sen. from Mass) town hall meeting in Dartmouth, MA, a constituent asks, “Why are you supporting this Nazi policy?”

Frank responds: “On what planet do you spend most of your time?” He then calls her approach “vile, contemptible nonsense.” He closes by saying: “Trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table.”

Now, I think he did the right thing by refusing to even engage her. Instead, he let her know right off the bat that he wasn’t going to waste time with this garbage, or fall into their ploy of trying to distract the meeting with these absurd accusations. Although, I would be curious to hear her response–her explanation of how trying to improve healthcare, and allowing more Americans to have health insurance and thus be able to pay for expensive medical bills, is akin to Nazi policy. You have to wonder, does she even know what a Nazi is?

The battle for healthcare reform is becoming thorny, to say the least. The sad thing is–we may emerge from the battle unchanged. That is, with no change or real progress made in our healthcare system.

And for those who blather on about the “downside” of having a public option, and the glories of private insurance, here’s some bedtime reading. I know, there are stories galore about people dying from lack of insurance, losing their homes due to medical bills, having their coverage canceled because they developed athlete’s foot (I actually did read that one), and so on.

But the following is a real story from a real person. She is a friend of mine, a person I’ve know for about 10 years. Without a public option, she doesn’t stand much of a chance of survival. This is an email she sent to friends and acquaintances, urging us to contact our reps and demand real change in the healthcare system–which means that the U.S. should join the rest of the industrialized world and provide some sort of universal coverage to its citizens.

“I am one of those 47 million people with no health insurance because I have pre-existing conditions. My health insurance was rescinded by my insurer when I was diagnosed with kidney cancer. And I’m not alone: private insurers have rescinded more than 20,000 other Americans with devastating diseases over the last few years, so don’t think this can’t happen to you too. In fact, the three largest companies testified before Congress recently that they target 1,500 expensive illness and and even pay their employees incentives to mine patient medical records for omissions or reasons to rescind their policies when they one of these conditions.

I may be crossing the dreaded line of political correctness, but who cares? These days, it seems to be the fashion to bash Whole Foods (you know, that big supermarket that doesn’t sell Pepsi or chickens spiked with antibiotics, hormones, heroin, cyanide, or whatever it is that commercial grower use these days).

The CEO of Whole Foods has now become the poster child for everything that is wrong with the world, and single handedly responsible for defeating the singer payer measure for healthcare reform. Really. But if you boycott Whole Foods, that will put immense pressure on Congress, the Senate, President Obama, his dog, his wife Michelle, the insurance industry and all of their lobbyists, the pharma industry, agri-business, Rush Limbaugh, and even Sarah Palin–to turn around and demand a single payer plan.

The demise of the single payer option, and the faltering of getting any kind of healthcare reform accomplished, is solely due to one man–John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods.

In a nutshell, Mackey wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, which he was asked to write, and now an unusually vocal number of people got their knickers in a twist over it. To the point where they are calling for a boycott for the store, as though that is going to solve the problem of healthcare reform.

One person on twitter, who I sparred back and forth with, said that she is now boycotting Whole Foods and feels so good that she is helping the economy and healthcare. I don’t know, does trying to put a store out of business helpful to the economy? Especially one like Whole Foods, which pays their employees well and provides them with excellent benefit, like HEALTH INSURANCE? And how her boycott will help healthcare is out there in the Twilight Zone.

But the comments coming from people who otherwise seem to normal and rational are truly insane. Because Mackey gave his views, and they disagree, they are boycotting a store that they may enjoy shopping in. But let’s get a few facts, straight, shall we?

Whole Foods is a huge organization, employing 50,000 people, and many undoubtedly disagree with Mackey. And that’s okay, I don’t see Mackey sending around a hit squad to get rid of the infidels.

Second important point is that Mackey does not own the company. He is an employee. Shocking fact, isn’t it. Whole Foods is a public company. Mackey is not Whole Foods and he clearly said on his blog (which is on the Whole Foods website), that this was HIS opinion. And that Whole Foods, as a company, does not have a position on healthcare reform.

So in other words, people are boycotting a company which does not have a position on the subject.

I have even seen nonsense spreading that Mackey is the one spearheading a movement to defeat the single payer proposition. You know, the reason that it hasn’t moved in Congress is all due to Mackey. His article is being seen as an organized campaign to defeat a single payer health insurance system.

While I don’t agree with everything that he wrote in his op-ed and blog, I do agree with some of it. Especially his appraisal of the heart of the problem–we’re not going to cut healthcare costs until we improve our own health. One person at a time.

Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.

Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age.

Of course, those comments provoked screeching from the sidelines–especially from those who didn’t really read it. Or those who don’t want to change their habits, and prefer to blame it on someone else.

Personally, I love Whole Foods and have shopped there for 20 years. Since I live about 90 miles from one right now, I do most of my shopping at the Farmer’s Market, local co-op, and trader Joe’s, but go to WF every time I am in Seattle. And no, I do not plan on boycotting the company. While it is a big corporation, WF has done a tremendous service for the organic/natural foods industry. Their popularity was a big impetus for the “regular” supermarkets to start offering healthier food.

So you know, if you want to do something constructive for healthcare reform, get off your butt and email/call/visit your representative. Get involved at the local or state level. Write your own op-ed letters or letters to the editor. Join HCAN, join Move-on, call your neighbors, canvass your neighborhood, call your local radio/TV stations–but just do something. Boycotting a good company is not going to accomplish anything at all.

Mackey’s article is generally consistent with the views many others who have weighed in on the healthcare reform bill. So why is Mackey drawing so much ire? Should people not be allowed to offer opinions? Should he have to apologize for his own views? Do you apologize for your views, even if they are in conflict with the status quo?

How about contributing your own ideas.

Finally, this is part of an excellent post made by someone on the Whole Foods forum. It pretty much sums up the boycott nicely, and how ridiculous it is:

Most people who are boycotting are not doing so because of concerns over actions of the company. I am not aware of the company making contributions to a PAC or a lobbyist on these issues. And while some will say they want better health insurance for the employees, it is unusual that most of these same people were not concerned with this issue a week ago, and the health insurance I have seen described seems quite reasonable.

The folks who are boycotting seem to be boycotting because they do not agree with the political views of the CEO, and the temerity he has shown by expressing those views publicly. Not for his actions as CEO, or the actions of the company.

If I were to use the terminology of some on the left, I would say that those who boycott are punishing a thought-crime.

Obviously, all of us are free to do as we choose. But do you really want to be a person who makes a significant decision such as this based solely on the views of a person? How would you feel about someone who would not purchase products from a store because the CEO was openly homosexual? How would you feel about those on the right that do not purchase from co-ops or stores like Whole Foods because they view them as leftist bastions (then again, these organizations do engage in left-leaning activities all the time, so perhaps they have a basis for their feelings, no?). I know I think of them as being unreasonable.

So I ask you one favor. Briefly step back and observe what you are saying and doing.

Is this who you want to be? Are you ok with being that type of person? Or do you want to be someone different?

Its up to you.

Here’s a comforting note from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health :

Occupational disease research and prevention activities represent a significant portion of the NORA Sectors’ program portfolios. The rate of nonfatal occupational illness across all U.S. private industry decreased from 30.7 per 10,000 in 2003 to 21.8 in 2007. The average rate of nonfatal occupational illnesses in the Manufacturing (NAICS 31–33) sector were 2.4-fold greater than U.S. Private industry averages (65.5/10,000 vs. 26.3/10,000). Two other industry sectors reported rates that exceeded the Private industry 2003–2007 average by 50%; Utilities (NAICS 22) and Health Care and Social Assistance (NAICS 62).

They’ve got a cute little graph that shows you where healthcare falls on the scale of non-fatal occupational illnesses (hint–it’s number #3).

I have been purposely not writing anything about this topic because it is too depressing. All the fear mongering and the lies. Like the system we have now is so perfect, and so wonderful, so its hard to imagine why anyone would want to “fix it.” Never mind if you’re one of those poor slobs with the dreaded pre-existing condition, who can’t get insurance and will be left to die of your pathetic disease.

Anyway, here is a very clear and concise outline of what healthcare reform is about. It is not the ideal system, but certainly a lot better than what we have one now. For starters, it dares to regulate the insurance agency. Imagine that. So Un-American.

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage

1. Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
2. Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
3. Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
4. Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
5. Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
6. Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
7. Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
8. Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won’t be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/

8 common myths about health insurance reform

1. Reform will stop “rationing” – not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a “government takeover” of health care or lead to “rationing.” To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
2. We can’t afford reform: It’s the status quo we can’t afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
3. Reform would encourage “euthanasia”: It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
4. Vets’ health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans’ access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President’s budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
5. Reform will benefit small business – not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
6. Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare “doughnut” hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
7. You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
8. No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.

Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq

8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now

1. Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html
2. Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html
3. Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html
4. Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes
5. Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline
6. The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction
7. Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people – one in every three Americans under the age of 65 – were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html
8. The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance – projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf

NPR has an interesting article/audio about the Japanese Medical system. It is very affordable, extremely high quality, and definitely slanted in favor of the consumer. The downsides are primarily for the physician and hospitals, because payment is too low. However, the article doesn’t specify if there are “cost burdens” for the physician, such as exorbitantly expensive cost of medical school ( a problem here), exorbitantly expensive premiums for malpractice insurance ( a problem here but I doubt it is in Japan), etc.

Coupled with a healthier diet and lifestyle (they are still a lot thinner than Americans and hopefully won’t replace their healthy eating habits with American fast foods), the Japanese healthcare system works–for the most part. No system is perfect, but this one seems to be lot more functional than ours.

So, instead of coming up with a really viable and feasible healthcare reform plan of their own (you know, one that might reform the insurance industry, mandate insurers can’t cancel policies just because, raise rates because the CEO thinks two private jets are insufficient and wants to expand the fleet), they are spending their energy putting together an anti-healthcare reform website. Way to go, guys.

From Politico:

The Republican National Committee launched a website Thursday to harness grassroots opposition to Democratic health reform plans moving through Congress.

The website, BarackObamaExperiment.com, is the first in a series of Republican efforts to reach out to voters and give them ways to contact lawmakers, radio shows and newspaper editorial boards. It paints Obama’s health care
efforts as a risky experiment the country can’t afford.

“The Democrats want a government-run health care system that will control your health care, your treatments, your medicines, even what doctors you see. This grand experiment on America is a risk our country cannot afford to take,” RNC Chairman Michael Steele says in an introductory video on the website.

Are they offering anything as an alternative? Anything in its place? Or is it to “just say no” to the Obama plan.

The article notes that Republican consultant Alex Castellanos feels that healthcare reform is moving way too quickly. Too much, too soon. Well, the Republicans had 8 years to do something, and did nothing. In fact, healthcare is in worse shape than ever. Castellanos is quoted as writing “This is 20 percent of our economy. This is our health care and our future. If we screw this up, it could last for generations.”

Now that sounds familiar. I guess that’s just what they Republican admin was thinking when they squandered the surplus left from Clinton, and put the nation trillions into debt. Did they give pause and think about it? Or how many generations it may take to pay off the debt and get our nation up and coming?

So guys, put some action where your mouth is. Let’s see your healthcare reform plan, and tell us why it is superior to anything that Obama has come up with. Show us how it will work better, save money, and be for the good of all Americans.

I’m waiting….

According to womenshealth.gov, black American women have the highest rates of being overweight or obese compared to other groups in the U.S. About four out of five are overweight or obese.

Well, okay, you’ve probably seen these stats before. Maybe as a nurse or doc, you’ve spent a lot of time counseling patients on weight, or treating them for conditions that stem, at least in part, from excess weight.

Now, one in four black women, 55 years of age or older, has diabetes. That’s type II diabetes, which is directly related to lifestyle, primarily obesity.

The reason I am bringing this up is because of Obama’s pick for Surgeon General. You can read all about her qualifications, and she seems like a devoted family practice physician who would like healthcare for all.

However, at the risk of being exceedingly un-PC, the woman is overweight. Noticeably overweight. And yes, it was the first thing I noticed when I saw her photograph–sorry if I couldn’t look past it and be totally gender, color and weight blind–but what I saw was an overweight black woman.

Some people feel her credentials are weak, given that her career has been largely concentrated in a small rural area serving the poor. But the Surgeon General is less about credentials and more about image. I think her credentials are just fine, and even bordering on the heroic. However, the Surgeon General is a public figure who has little power but who is supposed to set an agenda.

Now I’m not the only one who’s noticed her extra weight, but many defenders of Dr. Benjamin have jumped on the bandwagon, calling detractors racist among other things, or that overweight people can be healthy, or that the woman is simply big boned, or that we place too much emphasis on appearance in our society, or that we should be looking at her qualifications and not her weight, and so on.

But we can blather all we want about it, but the fact remains that this woman will be in the public eye. She will mount the podium and speak on public health issues. Aside from access to healthcare and insurance coverage, the #1 health issue facing this country is overweight and obesity. And if the nation slimmed down, the need for many healthcare services would dramatically decrease. Preventive health will be the most life saving and cost effective proposition, but will people really take an overweight Surgeon General seriously?

Again, it is about image. Public eye. TV appearances. Public talks. Speaking to schoolchildren. No one is going to look at this overweight woman and think, “gee, maybe there’s a genetic reason why she’s fat. Or maybe she works out five days a week and runs 80 miles a day but just can’t shake the weight off.”

Or “she probably really eats healthy, never goes to MickeyD’s, eats broccoli every day, and shuns Frosted Flakes. It’s just a problem with her thyroid.”

And that’s what a lot of the people defending her have zeroed in on, as well as the fact that it’s somehow “normal” to be overweight “at her age.” Or that we should “consider her age, and the average weight of African American women of that age.”

Uh, that’s exactly what we don’t want to do. Black women should not be looking at her as a role model and thinking that “well if the Surgeon General herself is overweight, then nothing wrong with me carrying around all these extra pounds. Surely the doc wouldn’t be tilting the scales if it was such a bad thing.”

It is a big deal, considering the stakes at hand. The job of the Surgeon General is to get an agenda across, and one of our primary health agendas is to reduce preventable diseases. She says herself, that many of her family members died of preventable diseases like diabetes and lung cancer. I can’t imagine her discussing diabetes, and the need for lifestyle changes, if she seems incapable of managing her own weight. And even if she is the picture of health, with normal blood pressure, blood sugar, etc., the public is going to still see a fat woman. There, I said the “f” word, but that’s way it goes. That’s the reality. And I’m being kinder than many of the comments I’ve seen posted about her weight.

There are thousands of physicians out there that Obama could have tapped. It would have been nice for him to have selected a physician who is truly involved in preventive health. And one who looks the part, that can serve as a role model.

So again, I know that this is so un-PC, but the feeling that the pick must be a minority, or a woman, or both, should not supersede common sense.

That’s what Mr. Health Insurance exec says to the following questions–I don’t want a public plan to compete with me, I don’t want any type of insurance reform, and I don’t want to change my wicked ways.

The yes response? That we’ll continue to be unethical and rip off consumers as much as possible.

Now I’m not being unduly harsh towards insurers, but really, they are gritting their teeth at the mere mention of healthcare reform, except if a law is passed requiring people to purchase private insurance. But according to this article in the LA Times, they seem rather offended that anyone would even ask them to cease and desist highly unethical practices.

Executives of three of the nation’s largest health insurers told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick policyholders, despite withering criticism from Republican and Democratic members of Congress who decried the practice as unfair and abusive.

The hearing on the controversial action known as rescission, which has left thousands of Americans burdened with costly medical bills despite paying insurance premiums, began a day after President Obama outlined his proposals for revamping the nation’s healthcare system.

It is amazing to listen to their utter arrogance and defiance. Screwing the public is fair game to them. All they want is to collect premiums, but Lord help you if you actually get sick and need them to pay. Then they find all sorts of ways to get rid of you. Basically, they only want to insure healthy people who will send them a check every month and who will never utilize their services.

An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.

It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.

Ya just gotta love ‘em.