And they will listen.

I think she is the new messiah. Or she thinks so. Maybe you can get her to come give lectures at the local nursing and medical schools, because this advice is just so easy. I mean, who would have thought that these major issued can be solved with just three words.

So the next time a patient asks about birth control, or AIDS–just tell them the three magic words and then end the conversation. And if need be, then send them to see Christine O’Donnell.

throughout the entire debate on healthcare reform, she has been notoriously silent. I will admit, that I don’t read the news every day, and in fact, try to avoid it, but I did a search and I really can’t find anything about her. Not only with healthcare reform, but giving an opinion on anything.

What is her focus? What is her platform?

The surgeon is supposed to have a bully pulpit, and is supposed to be a vocal advocate of something related to health. But it seems that Dr. Benjamin is of the opinion that her post is meant to be invisible.

Now more than ever, the Obama administration could use some help in advocating for the healthcare reform bill. But I guess that Dr. Benjamin thinks silence is golden. Maybe she thinks that she is supposed to spend her time behind a desk and be neither seen nor heard?

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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.