White House's Ties to Health Care Industry Deeper Than Visitor Records ShowBy Daniela Perdomo, AlterNet
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ukraine Flu Outbreak: Virus Is a Mixture of H1N1 and Parainfluenza, Causes Cardiopulmonary Failure - Interview with Dr. Victor Bachinsky By Anna Yashchenko |
|
Global Research, November 15, 2009 |
|
Unian News Agency (Ukraine), Russian original. Infowars Ireland (English translation) - 2009-11-14 |
|
[Translated from Russian, first published in English by Infowars Ireland] |
|
Study: 2,266 Veterans Died Due to Lack of Insurance in 2008
Tuesday 10 November 2009
by: Maya Schenwar, t r u t h o u t | Report
More than 2,200 veterans under the age of 65 died last year due to lack of health insurance, according to a study out of Harvard Medical School released today. This number - 2,266 in one year - is more than 14 times the number of US troops who died in Afghanistan in 2008.
The researchers also found that, in 2008, 1,461,615 veterans between the ages of 18 and 64 lacked insurance.
Steffie Woolhandler, one of the study's authors, pointed out that most uninsured veterans fall into a common coverage gap: they aren't poor enough to qualify for Medicaid or special VA benefits, but earn too little to pay for health care on their own.
"Uninsured veterans have the same problems getting the care they need as do other unsinsured Americans," Woolhandler said in testimony before the House Committee on Veterans Affairs. "Moreover, many uninsured veterans have serious illnesses requiring extensive care."
Many veterans cannot receive care from the VA, even if they've been through combat, according to Woolhandler. Generally, VA facilities only treat medical problems or disabilities specifically acquired during military service.
The Harvard researchers stressed that the health care bill that recently passed the House would do little to address veterans' health care woes, and that the "solution that works for all veterans" would be a single-payer health insurance plan.
Published on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
Still Waiting for Health Care
by Ralph Nader
The House of Representatives debate on the health insurance "reform" is over with the Democrats failing the people and the Republicans disgracing themselves as having left their minds back in the third grade (with apologies to third graders).
House Democrats were determined to pass any bill with a nice sounding name, such as "The Affordable Health Care for America Act". Single payer, full Medicare for all was never on the table even though a majority of citizens, physicians and nurses support that far more efficient, free choice of health care professionals, system.
There are no effective cost containment or prevention measures in the bill. The public option is so weak it will be a receptacle for the sickest of patients among the meager number of people who qualify for its coverage. There are no provisions to reduce the number of people (100,000) who die annually from medical malpractice in hospitals.
Nor is there a major program to reduce the tens of billions of dollars that is stolen yearly out of Medicare from criminals inside and outside the medical profession.
The cover story in the November issue of the AARP Bulletin is on the elaborate but detectable schemes to swindle Medicare with phantom services, phony rentals of equipment, stolen Medicare numbers and the like. The author, Jay Weaver, writes: "So lucrative, and so low-risk, the FBI reports, that a number of cocaine dealers in Florida and California have switched from illicit drugs to Medicare fraud."
Although more money is finally going for prosecutions, there is nowhere near enough for this corporate crime wave. Medicare's office of Inspector General asserts that every dollar of law enforcement will save $17 of theft.
Computerized billing fraud and abuse takes anywhere from $250 billion to double that estimate by the General Accounting Office. (The GAO said ten percent of health care expenditures are going down the drain.) The reason why the estimates cover such a broad range, according to Professor Malcolm Sparrow of Harvard University, is that there are inadequate resources to document the huge hemorrhaging of the nation's health care budget and come up with better data.
Apart from the impoverishment of the debate, there is the actual doing of harm. The bill, if enacted, doesn't take effect until after the presidential elections in 2013, mostly to let the drug and health insurance industries adjust, though they can scarcely believe their good fortune at being delivered all those profitable customers paid for by taxpayers with scarcely any price restraints.
The Journal of Public Health has just published a peer-reviewed study by Harvard physicians-researchers that estimates 45,000 Americans lose their lives yearly because they cannot afford health insurance to receive diagnosis and treatment. Strange how cool the House is to giving these fatalities a four year pass.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), a leading single payer advocate, voted against this legislation for many reasons, most notably the Obama-driven omission of his amendment to clear the way legally for states to pass their own single payer laws. Several states, such as Pennsylvania, are in the process of moving legislation in this direction, but are concerned that the health insurers will claim federal pre-emption.
The victims of medical malpractice - estimated by the Institute of Medicine and the Harvard School of Public Health to be about 100,000 deaths a year - escaped having to overcome more hurdles before they have their full day in court. Helping to beat back the Republicans, who define "medical malpractice reform" as letting the negligent perpetrators get away with their lethal consequences, was Congressman Bruce Braley (D-IA).
Rising on the House floor he delivered a factual plea for patient safety. Hardly had he started to speak with Republicans started shouting "trial lawyer, trial lawyer" referring to his previous profession of representing wrongfully injured people before local juries in Iowa. This rare display of shouting by opponents was punctuated by one of their unleashed members rushing down the aisle shouting "You'll pay for this."
During this overall debate on the bill, Republicans stood up one by one, as prevaricatory dittoheads, to often scream and howl (like coyotes) that this is "a government takeover of one sixth of the economy," "would destroy the economy," "put 5.5 million people out of work," "destroy the doctor-patient relationship," "be a steamroller of socialism," "force millions of seniors to lose their current health coverage" (meaning, Medicare?) and, in a passionate appeal to the Almighty, Congressman John Fleming (R-LA) declared "God help us as the government takes over your day-to-day life."
Never mind that this bill is just an expansion, however misdirected, of government health insurance designed to increase corporate profits and increase the corporate grip over the day-to-day decisions regarding who, when and how people get their health care or get their bills paid.
To top off the madness, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), an ever maturing political hermaphrodite, reneged on his assurance to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and imperiously announced on Fox News Sunday that "if the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote."
For media-centric Joe, his motto seems to be "L'Senat c'est moi."
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book - and first novel - is, Only The Super Wealthy Can Save Us . His most recent work of non-fiction is The Seventeen Traditions .
Published on Monday, November 9, 2009 by Huffington Post
Is the House Health Care Bill Better than Nothing?
by Marcia Angell
Well, the House health reform bill -- known to Republicans as the Government Takeover -- finally passed after one of Congress's longer, less enlightening debates. Two stalwarts of the single-payer movement split their votes; John Conyers voted for it; Dennis Kucinich against. Kucinich was right.
Conservative rhetoric notwithstanding, the House bill is not a "government takeover." I wish it were. Instead, it enshrines and subsidizes the "takeover" by the investor-owned insurance industry that occurred after the failure of the Clinton reform effort in 1994. To be sure, the bill has a few good provisions (expansion of Medicaid, for example), but they are marginal. It also provides for some regulation of the industry (no denial of coverage because of pre-existing conditions, for example), but since it doesn't regulate premiums, the industry can respond to any regulation that threatens its profits by simply raising its rates. The bill also does very little to curb the perverse incentives that lead doctors to over-treat the well-insured. And quite apart from its content, the bill is so complicated and convoluted that it would take a staggering apparatus to administer it and try to enforce its regulations.
What does the insurance industry get out of it? Tens of millions of new customers, courtesy of the mandate and taxpayer subsidies. And not just any kind of customer, but the youngest, healthiest customers -- those least likely to use their insurance. The bill permits insurers to charge twice as much for older people as for younger ones. So older under-65's will be more likely to go without insurance, even if they have to pay fines. That's OK with the industry, since these would be among their sickest customers. (Shouldn't age be considered a pre-existing condition?)
Insurers also won't have to cover those younger people most likely to get sick, because they will tend to use the public option (which is not an "option" at all, but a program projected to cover only 6 million uninsured Americans). So instead of the public option providing competition for the insurance industry, as originally envisioned, it's been turned into a dumping ground for a small number of people whom private insurers would rather not have to cover anyway.
If a similar bill emerges from the Senate and the reconciliation process, and is ultimately passed, what will happen?
First, health costs will continue to skyrocket, even faster than they are now, as taxpayer dollars are pumped into the private sector. The response of payers -- government and employers -- will be to shrink benefits and increase deductibles and co-payments. Yes, more people will have insurance, but it will cover less and less, and be more expensive to use.
But, you say, the Congressional Budget Office has said the House bill will be a little better than budget-neutral over ten years. That may be, although the assumptions are arguable. Note, though, that the CBO is not concerned with total health costs, only with costs to the government. And it is particularly concerned with Medicare, the biggest contributor to federal deficits. The House bill would take money out of Medicare, and divert it to the private sector and, to some extent, to Medicaid. The remaining costs of the legislation would be paid for by taxes on the wealthy. But although the bill might pay for itself, it does nothing to solve the problem of runaway inflation in the system as a whole. It's a shell game in which money is moved from one part of our fragmented system to another.
Here is my program for real reform:
Recommendation #1: Drop the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 55. This should be an expansion of traditional Medicare, not a new program. Gradually, over several years, drop the age decade by decade, until everyone is covered by Medicare. Costs: Obviously, this would increase Medicare costs, but it would help decrease costs to the health system as a whole, because Medicare is so much more efficient (overhead of about 3% vs. 20% for private insurance). And it's a better program, because it ensures that everyone has access to a uniform package of benefits.
Recommendation #2: Increase Medicare fees for primary care doctors and reduce them for procedure-oriented specialists. Specialists such as cardiologists and gastroenterologists are now excessively rewarded for doing tests and procedures, many of which, in the opinion of experts, are not medically indicated. Not surprisingly, we have too many specialists, and they perform too many tests and procedures. Costs: This would greatly reduce costs to Medicare, and the reform would almost certainly be adopted throughout the wider health system.
Recommendation #3: Medicare should monitor doctors' practice patterns for evidence of excess, and gradually reduce fees of doctors who habitually order significantly more tests and procedures than the average for the specialty. Costs: Again, this would greatly reduce costs, and probably be widely adopted.
Recommendation #4: Provide generous subsidies to medical students entering primary care, with higher subsidies for those who practice in underserved areas of the country for at least two years. Costs: This initial, rather modest investment in ending our shortage of primary care doctors would have long-term benefits, in terms of both costs and quality of care.
Recommendation #5: Repeal the provision of the Medicare drug benefit that prohibits Medicare from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices. (The House bill calls for this.) That prohibition has been a bonanza for the pharmaceutical industry. For negotiations to be meaningful, there must be a list (formulary) of drugs deemed cost-effective. This is how the Veterans Affairs System obtains some of the lowest drug prices of any insurer in the country. Costs: If Medicare paid the same prices as the Veterans Affairs System, its expenditures on brand-name drugs would be a small fraction of what they are now.
Is the House bill better than nothing? I don't think so. It simply throws more money into a dysfunctional and unsustainable system, with only a few improvements at the edges, and it augments the central role of the investor-owned insurance industry. The danger is that as costs continue to rise and coverage becomes less comprehensive, people will conclude that we've tried health reform and it didn't work. But the real problem will be that we didn't really try it. I would rather see us do nothing now, and have a better chance of trying again later and then doing it right.
© 2009 Huffington Post
Marcia Angell, M. D., is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School. She stepped down as Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine on June 30, 2000.
Published on Monday, November 9, 2009 by The Nation
Six Smart Progressive Complaints About House Health Bill
by John Nichols
The Affordable Health Care for America Act was approved by the U.S. House Saturday night with overwhelming support from progressive Democrats who serve in the chamber and from a president who was nominated and elected with the enthusiastic support of progressive voters.
But that does not mean that informed and engaged progressives are entirely enthusiastic about the measure.
In fact, some are openly and explicitly opposed to it -- among them former Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and CPC member Eric Massa, D-New York, both of whom broke with the majority of their fellow Democrats to vote "no" when the House approved the measure by a narrow 220-215 vote Saturday.
How can this be?
Isn't this a fight between Democrats and Republicans? Between reforming liberals and tea-party conservatives?
How can there possibly be any subtlety or nuance to this debate?
Well, of course, the debate over this 1,900-page behemoth of a bill is more complicated than the easy spin of political insiders -- and media cheering sections -- would have Americans believe.
Key interest groups, such as the National Organization for Women, and key congressmen who have been long-term supporters of reform, such as single-payer backers Massa and Kucinich, argue that the bill is not the cure for what ails the U.S. health care system.
Indeed, they suggest, the bill as it is currently constructed could make a bad situation worse.
Many sincere progressives in the House, and outside of it, chose to back the bill as the best that could be gotten. Others supported it on the theory that flaws could be fixed in the Senate and in the reconciliation of the House and Senate bills.
But those repairs will only be made if activists are conscious of what ails this bill.
For that reason, even supporters of the House legislation would be wise to consider the criticisms of it by groups that advocate for the rights of women, patient advocates, unions and some of the most progressive members of the House.
Here are six smart progressive complaints about the House bill:
1. FROM CONGRESSMAN ERIC MASSA: "This Bill Will Enshrine in Law the Monopolistic Powers of the Private Health Insurance Industry"
At the highest level, this bill will enshrine in law the monopolistic powers of the private health insurance industry, period. There's really no other way to look at it. I believe the private health insurance industry is part of the problem.
This bill also, I believe, fails to address the fundamental question before the American people, and that is how do we control the costs of health care. It does not address interstate portability, as Medicare does. It does not address real medical malpractice insurance reform. It does not address the incredible waste and fraud that are currently in the system.
2. FROM THE CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION: This Bill Fails to Control Costs
While the current bills will provide limited assistance for some, the inconvenient truth is they fall far short in effective controls on skyrocketing insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital costs, do little to stop insurance companies from denying needed medical care recommended by doctors, and provide little relief for Americans with employer-sponsored insurance worried about health security for themselves and their families.
3. FROM THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN: "This Bill Obliterates Women's Fundamental Right to Choose"
The House of Representatives has dealt the worst blow to women's fundamental right to self-determination in order to buy a few votes for reform of the profit-driven health insurance industry. We must protect the rights we fought for in Roe v. Wade. We cannot and will not support a health care bill that strips millions of women of their existing access to abortion.
Birth control and abortion are integral aspects of women's health care needs. Health care reform should not be a vehicle to obliterate a woman's fundamental right to choose.
The Stupak Amendment (to the House bill, which was approved and attached on Saturday) goes far beyond the abusive Hyde Amendment, which has denied federal funding of abortion since 1976. The Stupak Amendment, if incorporated into the final version of health insurance reform legislation, will:
• Prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;
- Prevent women participating in the public health insurance exchange, administered by private insurance companies, from using 100 percent of their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;
• Prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely, in many cases.
NOW calls on the Senate to pass a health care bill that respects women's constitutionally protected right to abortion and calls on President Obama to refuse to sign any health care bill that restricts women's access to affordable, quality reproductive health care.
4. FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S CECILE RICHARDS: This Bill Embraces Religious-Right Extremes
It is extremely unfortunate that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and anti-choice opponents were able to hijack the health care reform bill in their dedicated attempt to ban all legal abortion In the United States.
Most telling is the fact that the vast majority of members of the House who supported the Stupak/Pitts amendment in today's vote do not support HR 3962, revealing their true motive, which is to kill the health care reform bill.
These single-issue advocates simply used health care reform to advance their extreme, ideological agenda at the expense of tens of millions of women.
5. FROM CONGRESSMAN DENNIS KUCINICH, : This Bill Worries About the Health of Wall Street, Not America
We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.
Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000 percent. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.
But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under a blue cross.
By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress' blog, Think Progress, states, 'since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.' Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that 'money will start flowing in again' to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy.
During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The 'robust public option' which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.
Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks' hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy - in which most Americans live - the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street.
This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care.
Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America's businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals.
6. FROM "SICKO'S" DONNA SMITH: The Bill Does Not Cure What Ails Us
Passing a healthcare reform bill that does not provide me with better access to care or protection from bankruptcy and financial ruin is not what I asked you all to do. Stripping away all reference to a progressively financed, single standard of high quality healthcare for all - also known as single-payer -- is done only to more deeply ensconce the deep pocketed interests in healthcare: the private, for-profit insurance giants, the big pharmaceuticals, the medical equipment companies, the hospital corporations and all the other making huge profits as thousands die needless deaths.
Healthcare is a basic human right. Granting that right is not something to be calculated differently in swing Congressional districts, off-year election strategy or second-Presidential term planning. It is your (members of Congress') duty to me, to my fellow citizens and to your nation.
And (members of Congress) are marching away from reality when you think all the hard-working people who counted on you to make this a better healthcare system will not notice when you deliver insurance purchase mandates and a corporate bail-out that will dwarf the Wall Street trillions you've already justified.
Watch Smith's video: "American Sickos: Will the Current Bills Help? No"
Follow Smith's organizing for real reform at the website of Progressive Democrats of America. She is the national co-chair of PDA's Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign.
© 2009 The Nation
John Nichols is Washington correspondent for The Nation and associate editor of The Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin. A co-founder of the media reform organization Free Press, Nichols is is co-author with Robert W. McChesney of Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy - from The New Press. Nichols' latest book isThe Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism.
Crisis of America's Healthcare System By John Kozy |
Global Research, November 8, 2009 |
That the government of the United States should be in league with corrupt foreign governments should be no surprise. Remember the dictum, birds of a feather flock together? The government of the United States is as corrupt as any of its "allies," which becomes more and more evident every day. The only difference is where the corrupting money comes from. America's allies get it from the United States; America gets it from its corporations. But therein lies a story that has, to my knowledge, never been accurately told. Consider healthcare in America, for example. CBS' 60 Minutes aired an exposé on Sunday October 25 on Medicare fraud, estimating that it now amounts to about $60 billion a year, and I have no reason to dispute that figure. Medicare fraud has increased because criminals have found a way to get substantial amounts of money with little effort and little chance of being detected. According to the FBI, "All you have to do to get into this business is rent a cheap storefront office, find or create a front man to get an occupational license, bribe a doctor or forge a prescription pad, and obtain the names and ID numbers of legitimate Medicare patients you can bill the phony charges to. . . . Once the crooked companies get hold of the patient lists, usually stolen from doctors' offices or hospitals, they begin running up all sorts of outlandish charges and submit them to Medicare for payment, knowing full well that the agency is required by law to pay the claims within 15 to 30 days, and that it has only enough auditors to check a tiny fraction of the charges to see if they are legitimate." Of course, the Congress designed this program. I suspect the requirement to pay claims within 15 to 30 days was inserted at the behest of the medical community whose interest is in getting paid rather than in combating fraud. The doctors who are bribed or have poor security procedures to safeguard patient records are members of this community. The community has an enormous influence over Congress. AARP has an editorial in its November, 2009 issue about the excessive charges to medicare for powered wheelchairs, that states, "Congress has blocked attempts to impose competitive bidding." So a corrupt Congress designs an easily corruptible system. As an ancient Chinese proverb says, officials don’t punish those who send gifts. Maggie Fox writes that the healthcare system wastes up to $800 billion a year. She cites (1) the paper-based system of patient recordkeeping, (2) unnecessary care, (3) fraud, (4) kickbacks and other scams, (5) administrative inefficiency and redundant paperwork, (6) medical mistakes, (7) non prevention of preventable conditions, (8) inefficient hospital and physician billing and administration, and (9) the use of emergency rooms for routine treatments because of a shortage of primary care doctors (and, I suspect, the lack of access many in America have to routine medical care). Unfortunately she quotes Robert Kelley, vice president of healthcare analytics at Thomson Reuters, as having said, "The good news is that by attacking waste we can reduce healthcare costs without adversely affecting the quality of care or access to care." But I doubt it. The America healthcare "system" is a fractured, distributed, hodgepodge of thousands of private companies made up of physicians, clinics, hospitals, pharmacies, pharmaceutical companies, equipment manufacturers, and insurance companies. All of these entities have their own policies, procedures, and practices, and attempts to get these various companies to voluntarily spend the money to bring about an efficient, uniform system are bound to fail, especially since the waste in the system contributes to their incomes, and any attempt by the Congress to impose changes on the industry would certainly fail because the industry would use its influence on the Congress to oppose it. So any claim that the waste will be wrung from the system is delusional. But despite the various and sundry ways the industry operates, it, like all other industries, does a number of common things. In general, businesses sell products and services to generate income to fund overhead, salaries, profits, and marketing. The money for all of these is built into the prices of those products and services. In other words, the money comes from consumers. Consider marketing, for instance. People are led to believe that the "free" television they watch is paid for by the sponsoring companies. But when the money is followed to its source, one realizes that the money comes from the people who buy products and services from the sponsoring companies; the money for advertising is built into the prices of the products and services sold. So although sponsoring companies are said to fund "free" television, in reality, consumers are funding it and it is not free. People pay for it with every purchase they make. So when companies object to recording devices that eliminate commercials, they are obfuscating reality. Since the viewers are the ones who supply the money spent by companies on commercials, why shouldn't the viewers have the ability to watch the sponsored programs without having to watch the commercials? This circumstance, of course, reveals the fallacy in the claim of orthodox economists that competition reduces prices. There is, of course, no empirical evidence to support this claim. In fact, the evidence refutes it. Competition in contemporary society requires marketing. Marketing is expensive. The expense must be added to prices. So competition necessarily increases prices. The argument is irrefutable. The reverse is mathematically impossible. But something even more insidious is involved, and to my knowledge, it has never been pointed out. Companies not only engage in the practices enumerated above—overhead, salaries, profits, and marketing—they also lobby the Congress, contribute to political campaigns, fund ideological institutions, and buy political advertising. And where does the money for all of this corporate spending come from? Why consumers, of course. The insidiousness lies in this circumstance: Corporations use this money to influence the Congress to pay no heed to what the people need or want and even to oppose the enactment of beneficial public programs. But it is the people who supply the money the corporations use to buy the influence, which puts the public in a paradoxical situation that can only be likened to requiring the condemned to purchase their own nooses. That is how corrupt the American government has become. So no, the Congress cannot fix healthcare. For exactly the same reasons cited above, the Congress can't fix anything. It can no more fix America than the Karzai government can fix Afghanistan. Corruption works the same way everywhere, and America can't oppose it abroad while it prevails at home. Jefferson wrote, "The time to guard against corruption and tyranny, is before they shall have gotten hold on us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered." If Jefferson is right, it is far too late to save America by fighting corruption. America is lost! It shall suffer the fate predicted by Amos Bronson Alcott when he wrote, "A government, for protecting business only, is but a carcass, and soon falls by its own corruption and decay." |
Why I voted NO By Rep. Dennis Kucinich |
Global Research, November 9, 2009 |
Planetary Movement - 2009-11-08 |
We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. |
There Is a Way to Help Avoid Heart Disease and Diabetes: You Are What You Eat!
By Kathy Freston, AlterNet
Posted on October 31, 2009, Printed on November 1, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/143633/
"If the truth be known coronary artery disease is a toothless paper tiger that need never, ever exist and if it does exist it need never, ever progress."
So says Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn, who was a researcher and clinician at the Cleveland Clinic for over 35 years. In 1991, Dr. Esselstyn served as the president of the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons, and organized the 1st National Conference on the Elimination and Prevention of Heart Disease. In 2005, he became the 1st recipient of the Benjamin Spock Award for Compassion in Medicine. Dr. Esselstyn is also an Olympic gold medalist in rowing, and he was awarded the Bronze Star as an army surgeon in Vietnam.
In this series of interviews I've conducted with extraordinary nutritional researchers and medical doctors, I've sought to understand the link between diet and the most common and dreaded diseases that are prevalent in our culture. What I'm hearing over and over is that a plant-based diet is both preventative and healing, whereas a diet high in animal protein is destructive to our health - this is the case withcancer, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease.
The great news is that there is very real hope in shifting the course of our health. What is becoming very apparent through various peer reviewed studies is that by changing our diet - eliminating that which causes havoc in the body (animal protein) and adding in plant based proteins and eating lots of vegetables, legumes, beans, and whole grains, we can not only prevent disease, but also heal from it once it is already in motion. Following is a fascinating conversation I had on diet and heart health.
KF: What exactly is coronary heart disease?
CE: Coronary heart disease is the leading killer of women and men in western civilization. It is predicted to become the #1 global disease burden by 2020.
It consists of an inflammatory buildup of blockages in arteries to the heart muscle. These blockages are made of fat, cholesterol, calcium, and inflammatory cells. Blockages can become severe enough to cause symptoms such as shortness of breath or chest pain (angina). When blockages suddenly become complete, the portion of heart muscle fed by that blocked artery is now deprived of oxygen and nutrients, thus it is injured or now dies. This is a heart attack. The patient may survive or succumb if the event is accompanied by a fatal heart rhythm.
KF: Who develops heart disease?
CE: Everyone eating the typical western diet. In autopsy studies of our GI's who died in the Vietnam and Korean wars almost 80% at an average age of 20 years, had disease that could be seen without a microscope. Forty years later in 1999, a study of young persons between the ages of 16-34 years who have died of accidents, homicides and suicides, finds the disease is now ubiquitous.
KF: What is the cause of the disease?
CE: It is the typical western diet of processed oils, dairy, and meat which destroys the lifejacket of our blood vessels known as our endothelial cells. This cell layer is a one cell thick lining of all of our blood vessels. Endothelial cells manufacture a magical protective molecule of gas called nitric oxide, which protects our blood vessels. It keeps our blood flowing smoothly, it is the strongest dilator (widener), of our blood vessels, it inhibits the formation of blockages (plaques), and it inhibits inflammation.
KF: With such natural protection, why do we ever develop heart disease?
CE: Every western meal of processed vegetable oils, dairy products, and meat (including chicken and fish) injures these endothelial cells. As individuals consume theses damaging products throughout their lives, they have fewer functioning endothelial cells remaining and thus less of the protective nitric oxide. Without enough nitric oxide the plaque blockages build up and grow creating eventually heart disease and strokes.
KF: Can it be stopped or even reversed?
CE: Yes. First we must look at the lessons learned from cultures where there is a virtual absence of coronary artery heart disease such as rural China, the Papua Highlands of New Guinea, Central Africa, and the Tarahumara Indians of Northern Mexico. Their nutrition is plant based without oil.
Beginning in 1985 I initiated a study of seriously ill coronary artery disease patients. Their nutrition became plant based without oil. Their cholesterol levels plummeted. Their angina disappeared. Their weight dropped. I have reported this study at 5 years, 12 years, and 16 years, in the peer reviewed scientific literature and again beyond 20 years in my book Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease. In some of the patients we had follow up angiograms (x-rays) of previously blocked arteries demonstrating striking disease reversal, which is a testament to my often quoted statement "The truth be known coronary artery disease is a toothless paper tiger that need never exist and if it does exist it need never progress." The greatest gift to these patients is the increasing recognition that they are the locus of control for their disease - not some pill or procedure. They have made themselves heart attack proof and lose the greatest fear of all heart patients and their families - when will the next heart attack occur?
KF: What about drugs, stents, and heart bypass surgery?
CE: Admittedly in the midst of a heart attack a stent or bypass may be live saving, however, for the remaining 90% studies confirm that they do not prevent future heart attacks or prolong life. They are associated with significant complications such as hemorrhage, heart attack, stroke, cognitive decline, depression, and death. The benefits erode with the passage of time as the stents and bypasses may themselves develop blockage.
Some drugs may decrease blood pressure and the heart workload. Others interfere with clotting which helps a stent remain open. Statin drugs lower cholesterol. None of these drugs or interventions addresses the basic causation of disease and not surprisingly the disease progresses with the need for more drugs, stents, and repeat bypasses.
KF: Why aren't physicians using nutrition therapy?
CE: Most physicians have no training or understanding of the power of nutrition. In a busy practice they would not have the time for it. It is my belief that physicians must accord the plant based lifestyle transition its due. Every patient with cardiovascular disease should be referred to a physician or nurse practitioner with the knowledge and expertise in these counseling skills.
KF: But I understand physicians don't believe patients will make this transition. How come?
CE: Nutrition counseling is a skill which physicians don't possess. Of all the encounters a patient with cardiovascular disease experiences, perhaps the least time and lowest priority is nutritional counseling. I see many patients with heart disease who recount that nutrition was never even mentioned. It is therefore unlikely that the patient feels that nutrition is important.
KF: What is that you do differently?
CE: In an intensive 5 hour counseling session for a group of heart patients, my first priority is to eliminate the mystery of what causes their disease. It has not been stress, or genes. It is their western diet of processed oil, dairy, and meat. Hypertension, diabetes, and smoking must be controlled but food trumps all. I spend at least an hour defining the protective role of endothelial cells and nitric oxide functioning as the ultimate guardians of our blood vessels. They quickly understand that their lifetime of ingesting these harmful products has totally overwhelmed and destroyed their endothelium to an extent where it is unable to protect them. They fully grasp that they must forever eliminate ingesting foods that will further destroy their already compromised endothelium. They understand heart disease is a food borne illness.
KF: Where is the good news?
CE: The patients understand that they can halt their disease. They are presented with my scientific articles demonstrating reversal of disease. They learn that anginal chest pain may diminish or disappear within 10-14 days in some patients while others may take longer. We share our data confirming reversal of carotid artery disease to the brain, coronary artery disease of the heart, peripheral vascular disease in the extremities, and the reversal of erectile dysfunction. They are made to appreciate how rapidly and powerfully the endothelial function may be restored. The most significant message in our counseling is patient awareness that they are empowered to be the locus of control of their disease.
KF: What is your take on the present management of heart disease through drug stents and bypass surgery?
CE: It is expensive, dangerous, and ineffective. None of these approaches addresses the factors that cause the disease. A doctor would never treat poison ivy without advising the patient to avoid exposure to poison ivy plants. Sadly the usual treatment of cardiovascular disease almost never includes hours of patient counseling so they may completely eliminate the foods which are injuring their endothelium. Stents may block, bypass veins shut down, drug doses increase, and blood vessel disease worsens. The present cost of this non-treatment of heart disease is unsustainable even in our wealthy nation.
KF: Dr. Esselstyn, are you a threat to the stenting and bypass industry?
CE: Not really. Stents and bypass surgery in an emergency setting are absolutely lifesaving. However, for non-emergency situations an intensive lifestyle trial of 3-6 months would eliminate the need for most interventions. It is of interest that when physicians and some interventional cardiologists themselves develop the disease they come knocking at my door.
KF: Why do you think this information on diet and heart disease is not more widely known? Is someone or something blocking your message?
CE: The government, drug industry, and some of my own profession. The USDA every five years produces a food triangle which promotes the very foods which guarantee that millions of Americans will perish.
The drug industry has a $21 billion dollar income from statin drugs alone. The stent manufacturers make billions more. Neither of these industries would want this epidemic resolved.
Physicians who perform stents and bypass surgery earn millions and are hardly clamoring for fewer patients.
KF: Any final thoughts?
CE: When people learn to eat plant based to eliminate heart disease it could inaugurate a seismic revolution in health. Other diseases that resolve include obesity, hypertension, stroke, heart attacks, gall stones, diverticulitis, asthma, osteoporosis, allergies, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, and a marked decrease in the common western cancers of breast, prostate, colon, endometrial, ovarian, and pancreatic.
Kathy Freston is a health and wellness expert and a New York Times best-selling author. Her latest book is The Quantum Wellness Cleanse: A 21 Day Essential Guide to Healing Your Body, Mind and Spirit. Freston promotes a body/mind/spirit approach to health and happiness that includes a concentration on healthy diet, emotional introspection, spiritual practice, and loving relationships. Kathy’s recent television appearances include The Oprah Winfrey Show, Ellen, The View and Good Morning America.
Obamacare Targets Entitlements By Stephen Lendman |
Global Research, October 23, 2009 |
Meeting with the Washington Post's editorial staff on January 16, President-elect Obama pledged to reform entitlements saying the process would begin straightaway by convening a "fiscal responsibility summit" before delivering his first budget to Congress. |
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE |
CONTACT: Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) |
Published on Wednesday, October 7, 2009 by MSNBC
Special Comment: Saving American Lives
Keith Olbermann on what really matters when it comes to health reform
by Keith Olbermann
Since August 23rd of this year I have interacted daily with our American Health Care system and often done so to the exclusion of virtually all other business. It is not undercover reporting, and it is not an expert study of the field, but since that day, when my father slid, seemingly benignly, out of his bed and onto the floor of his home, I have experienced with growing amazement and with multiplying anger, the true state of our hospitals, our doctor's offices, our insurance businesses, our pharmacies.
My father's story as a patient and mine as a secondary participant and a primary witness has been eye-opening and jaw-dropping. And we are among the utterly lucky ones, a fact that, by itself, is terrifying and infuriating.
And thus tonight, for all those who we have met along the way, those with whom we have shared the last two months inside the belly of the beast, and for everyone in this country who will be here and right soon tonight, Countdown will be devoted entirely to a Special Comment on the subject of health care reform in this country.
I do not want to yell. I feel like screaming but everybody is screaming, everybody is screaming that this is about rights or freedom or socialism or the president or the future or the past or a political failure or a political success. We have all been screaming, I have been screaming.
And we have all been screaming because we do not want to face, we cannot face, what is at the heart of all of this, what is the unspoken essence of every moment of this debate; what, about which, we are truly driven to such intense ineffable inchoate emotions. Because ultimately, in screaming about health care reform, pro or con, we are screaming about death.
This, ultimately, is about death.
About preventing it. About fighting it. About resisting it. About grabbing hold of anything and everything to forestall it and postpone it, even though we know that the force will overcome us all - always will, always has. Health care is, at its core, about improving the odds of life in its struggle against death. Of extending that game which we will all lose, each and every one of us unto eternity, extending it another year or month or second.
This is the primary directive of life, the essence of our will as human beings, all perhaps that is measurable of our souls, the will to live. And when we go to a doctor's office or a hospital or a storefront clinic in a ghetto we are expressing this fundamental cry of humanity: I want to live! I want my child to live! I want my wife to live! I want my father to live! I want my neighbor to live! I want this stranger I do not know and never will know to live! This is elemental stuff - our atoms in action, our survival mode in charge. Tamper with this and you are tampering with us.
And so we yell and scream and try to put it all in a political context or expand it to some great issue of societal freedom or dress it up in something that would be otherwise farcical, like a death panel. But this issue needs no expansion and no dressing up. The Democrats need draw no line in the sand, and the Republicans need calculate no seats to be gained, and the Blue Dogs need anticipate no campaign contributions lost. This issue is big enough as it is. This is already life and death. Of all the politicians of the previous century, none fought harder to prevent an administration that promised to involve itself in health care, from ever gaining power, than did England's Winston Churchill.
He equated his opponents, the party that sought to introduce "The National Health," to the Gestapo of the Germans that he and we had just beaten just as those opposing reform now have invoked Nazis as frequently and falsely as if they were invoking Zombies. Churchill cost himself the election because he didn't realize he was overplaying an issue that people were already damned serious about. Irony - this.
Because, a decade earlier, Churchill had made the greatest argument ever for government intervention in health care only he did not realize it. He was debating in Parliament the notion that the British government could not increase expenditures on military defense unless the voters specifically authorized it, just as today's opponents of reform are now claiming they speak for the voters of today, even though those voters spoke for themselves eleven months ago.
Churchill's argument was this - "I have heard it said that the government had no mandate such a doctrine is wholly inadmissible. The responsibility for the public safety is absolute and requires no mandate!"
And there is the essence of what this is. What, on the eternal list of priorities, precedes health? What more obvious role could government have than the defense of the life, of each citizen? We cannot stop every germ that seeks to harm us any more than we can stop every person who seeks to harm us. But we can try dammit and government's essential role in that effort facilitate it, reduce its cost, broaden its availability, improve my health and yours, seems, ultimately, self-explanatory.
We want to live. What is government for if not to help us do so? Indeed Mr. Churchill, the responsibility for the public safety is absolute and requires no mandate! And yet today, at this hour, somebody somewhere in this country is arguing against, or protesting against, or yelling against health care reform, because the subject is really life and death, and they're scared, and they have been scared, and they have been mis-led by the overly-simple words of one side, and misinformed by the overly-complex words of the other side.
And that one person, at least that one person, who is tonight so scared that somehow sickness and pain and death will come sooner to them because of reform they do not understand - that one person, if his or her argument is successful and reform is again quoshed, that one person arguing against health care reform will die sooner, because they argued against health care reform.
Just as you and I have largely failed to understand the terror, the fear of death, that underlies this debate in the minds of so many, the leadership of the reform effort has also failed to understand it, and failed to lead not just in practical terms, but in rhetorical ones. If you did not know what something called "The Public Option" was, you might instinctively oppose it.
Option? My health care is now optional? Doesn't that mean it can go away somehow? Doesn't that mean that when I need it, it won't be there? Doesn't that mean somebody is trying to take it away from me? And this insurance that might go away is public? I'm giving control to the government somehow? No "private?" Just "public?"
And so, in seconds, with mental reflexes as acute and natural as any mechanism of "fight-or-flight", something that will expand health care and reduce its cost, something that will help fight death and pain becomes misunderstood as exactly the opposite. You can blame the one doing the misunderstanding all you want. But the essence of communication is reducing the chance of misunderstanding. And the term "The Public Option" has been as useless and as full of holes and as self-defeating as has been the term "Global Warming." It is political-speak. It is legalese. It is designed not for the recipient but for the speaker. It is the ego of the informed, strutting down the street and saying "look at me, I talk smart."
Just as "global warming" is really "bad climate change," "The Public Option" is in broad essence "Medicare For Everybody." Frame it that way, sell it that way, and suddenly it doesn't sound like a threat, turning the seemingly solid insurance which people have now, into something "optional" and turning anything "private" into everything "public."
Once you said "Medicare For Everybody," there would be just as much to explain. If you were under 65 you'd be paying for it. You wouldn't have to buy it. You wouldn't have to change from whatever you have now. There are just as many caveats.
Still, the intent of all this would be clearer. Much of the criticism of health care reform is coming from those who have or are about to get Medicare and, in confusion, in fear, in the kind of indescribable realization that we are far closer to the end than to the beginning, they are suddenly mortally afraid that health care reform will take it away from them. "Medicare For Everybody," might not be literally true, but instead of terrifying, it would be reassuring. And the explanations and the caveats would be listened to, and not shouted down, as anger and fear -- fear, remember, of death - swell up inside.
This rhetorical ship, of course, has sailed, and frankly, those leading the effort to reform health care have been so out-flanked, out-argued, out-terrorized by its opponents, that their reflexes seem shot. They are, to use Mr. Lincoln's words about General Rosecrans, frozen in place, "like a duck hit on the head."
And yet even from the most insurrectionary of the infamous Town Halls of August, there came report after report of proponents of Health Care reform, responding to the tea-baggers and the genuinely confused, in voices calm, with genuine empathy and honest inquiry, by asking "what are you afraid of? What do you think we can do to improve health care?"
Setting aside the professional protestors, the shameless mercenaries of the equation, the LaRouchebags and the hired guns, the results were uniform and productive. Dialogue. Conversation. Admission of fear. Admission that we are indeed talking about pain and sickness, and life and death. Admission that we are seeking the same things and that this should not be left to the politicians who almost to a man reek of the corruption of campaign contributions from the very monopolies they are supposedly trying to control.
And something else would come up. Something that you never hear included in the debate over reform, in the debate about insurance and bankruptcy and even in the debate over the remorseless rapaciousness of companies that are forever increasing premiums and deductibles while reducing what they give back to the person who is sick. What you never hear about is the person who is sick.
Have you ever stayed overnight in a hospital? All data suggests that in a given year, only about one in ten of us do so it's not a universal experience. Could you sleep in a hospital? With constant noise, with sharing a room with strangers, with contemplating mortality and more immediately the fog of germs in the place? With staph infections and MRSA and nursing staffs cut to the minimum, and overworked doctors, and medical record-keeping so primitive it might as well be done on blackboards?
And the bills? What about the person who is sick and the bills? How are they supposed to get better, while they are sitting there inside a giant cash register? How do you heal, how do you kill a cancer, when the meter is running so loudly you can hear it?
When a system of health care has been so refined, so perfected, as to find a way to charge for almost everything, and to reimburse for almost nothing, how does the person who is sick, not worry, always, always, about where he is going to get the money?
And how is somebody worrying always about where he is going to get the money, supposed to also get better? Yet our neighbor, in that hospital bed, hoping half for health and half for the money to pay for it, is still in better shape than at least 122 Americans who might be watching this right now, and who will not be with us tomorrow, because they will die, because they do not have insurance. I will pick it up there and then move on to the question of whether, if health care is not reformed, we should force the issue, by bailing out of this stylized blackmail that is insurance.
Some time around one o'clock in the morning on Saturday the 22nd of August of this year, my father, struggling with knee problems, some generalized weakness, lack of appetite, and lethargy, tried to use the portable urinal he kept by his bed to limit those middle-of-the-night trips to the toilet. Sounds a little gross, but certainly not when the alternative is a 20-minute ordeal of struggling to the bathroom and wondering what in the hell you're going to do if you don't make it there in time.
But that night there was an additional problem. He was having trouble going. He tried to adjust his position sitting on the edge of the bed. Suddenly the mattress shifted underneath him and deposited him gently on the floor. He might have been in nothing more threatening than a seated position there, but with his knees as bad as they are, there was almost no chance he was going to get out of it without help. For reasons that would later become apparent, my father would pretend to himself that that wasn't true. He decided to believe that soon he'd feel better and be able to get up, on his own.
He thinks he dozed much of the night. As it got light, he realized his cell phone was within grasp and he called me, not to say he was in trouble, but only about the move we were planning for him, to his own place closer to me. He never mentioned the precariousness of his position. He had now been stuck on the floor around seven hours.
Some time in the afternoon, between the dehydration and the exhaustion, the hallucinations started. He heard my sister and her family in the hallway outside his bedroom. He could feel the vibration of the footsteps of his grand-kids running up and down. In a startling tribute to the imagination's ability to make a hallucination like this one completely self-contained and impervious, he heard his daughter say "don't bother Grandpa, he's resting." He thinks he smelled cooking. My sister and her kids were, in fact, in Rochester, New York at the time.
My Dad found himself increasingly angry and finally, sometime after midnight on the morning of Sunday August 23rd, he phoned her and demanded to know why she had been in the house without so much as giving him the courtesy of peeking her head in to see if he was all right. Only after her repeated insistences that she was 330 miles away and had been, all day, did reality regain control. My father apologized. My sister called his neighbor. The neighbor called the cops.
There was never an official diagnosis of just the one incident that night, but I have gone into such excruciating detail because of what I was told that night by the doctors at the ER at which I joined my father, and what I've been told by other health professionals since. The hallucinations almost certainly were provoked by dehydration and if not renal failure per se, then certainly a kind of temporary shut down. By the time he got there, it had been more than 24 hours since he had triggered this cascade of problems by trying to adjust the position of his body so he could urinate. And he still had not done so.
My father's kidneys were in trouble. Considering kidney disease was what killed his father, this was very bad news. We heard just yesterday about kidneys and insurance. The Waddington brothers, Travis of New York; Michael of Santa Fe. As the New York Times reported, their Dad, David, needed a kidney transplant because of a congenital renal disease.
Each of his sons was ready to donate. But they were warned not even to get tested to see if they matched. For if they did transplant or no they would conceivably be denied insurance for the rest of their lives, because they might test positive for that same congenital renal disease that threatened their father. And thus would they have a pre-existing condition.
And still the Waddingtons and their Dad and my Dad were all luckier than at least 45,000 Americans. Because as discovered in a new study conducted by Harvard University and the Cambridge Health Alliance, that's how many of us are dying, each year, because we don't have insurance.
The number is horrible. But when it is contrasted to what faced my father that night, it is unforgivable. Because as Cambridge's summary of the findings put it: "Deaths associated with lack of health insurance now exceed those caused by many common killers such as kidney disease." My father had less to fear that night from bad kidneys than he would have if he hadn't had insurance!
And yet we let this continue. You and I. This society. Our country. Democrats and Republicans.
This is the study Congressman Grayson of Florida quoted, about which the Republicans demanded an apology when they should have been standing there shrieking, demanding we fix this. "Uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts."
People, in short, are dying for the lack... of money. Dying as surely as they did when Charles Dickens wrote about the exact same problem. Of a boy who couldn't get sufficient medical care for his affliction. Of the underprivileged, suffering not just privation but death, as the comfortable, moved silently and unseeingly through the streets of London.
The book was called "A Christmas Carol" and the boy Dickens imagined was called "Tiny Tim" and it was published on the 19th of December, 1843, and it is 166 years later and the problem is not only still with us, it is getting worse. The mortality rate among Americans under the age of 65 who are uninsured, is 40 percent higher than among those with insurance. In 1993 a similar study found the difference was only 25 percent.
We are moving backwards! We are letting people die because they do not have insurance.
What's worse is that barring meaningful health care reform, this will only grow. The difference between the surveys from 1993 and now suggest this fatal insurance gap is growing by about one percent, per year. Your chances of dying because you don't have insurance are now 40 percent higher than those who have it.
By extrapolation, three years from now your chances will be 43 percent higher. Your chances of dying because you used to smoke, compared to those who never smoked, only 42 percent higher. You heard that right. At the current rate, in 2012, you will be more fortunate, more secure, more long-lived, if you used to smoke, than if you don't have insurance. It is mind-boggling, and mind-less. This is the country you want? This is the country you will accept?
Do those other people in this country have meaning to you, or are they just extras in your movie, backgrounds in your painting, choruses in your solo? Without access to insurance for all of us and the only way we get it is with the government supplying the gaps, just like it does in flood insurance for God's sake that fatal gap will just keep growing.
A 45 percent higher likelihood of death for the uninsured compared to the insured by 2014.
By 2022, the figure will be 53 percent higher. Fifty-three percent! In the 1840s, as Dickens wrote a "Christmas Carol" - in a time at which we now look back with horror, the city of Manchester in England commissioned a crude study of mortality among its residents. A Doctor P.N. Holland categorized the sanitary conditions of the houses and streets of Manchester into three classes.
And when he compared the death rate in the First Class Houses in the First Class Streets, to the death rate in the Second Class Houses in the Third Class Streets, he found mortality in those worst locations was 53 percent higher. If we do not reverse this trend, in fourteen years' time we will not be living in the America of 2022. The shadows of the things that may be, tell us, that we will instead be living in an insurance-driven version, of the Dickensian England of 1843!
God Bless Us, everyone.
I told my father the other night that the insurance I really want to get for him and me is called Corporate-Owned-Life-Insurance. "COLI" - like in E. Coli. How fitting. With or without your consent, your employer is permitted by law to take out life insurance on you. It can, in fact, take out life insurance on everybody who works for it. Who gets the money when you die? Your employer does.
Dad pointed out that theoretically this would give them motivation to kill you. That, of course, would be for the same reason, as Michael Moore points out in his new movie "Capitalism: A Love Story," that you can't buy fire insurance on the house of the guy who lives next door to you. Golly gee, that's right, suddenly you'd have a motive to burn down his house and the world is already too much like that symbolically to make it like that in reality.
No, it's really unlikely that even the most evil corporation would think of killing you to get a payout from the COLI insurance plan. This exists for a much more mundane and passive reason. You're going to die anyway, and the tax laws of this country are such that if your company has a hundred thousand employees, it can take out small whole-life policies on everybody and just let the actuarial tables do the work for it. Ten thousand dollars here, $20,000 there, maybe $50,000 back here and all of it tax-exempt.
Oh and your employer can borrow the money to pay the premiums on the secret insurance it has on you. And the interest on that loan is tax-deductible. And your employer can, in essence, over-pay the premium it has on you and your fellow drones, and the extra money in the kitty is called "Cash Value," and it can be stuck into a pension-benefit plan or other product of the mad world of accounting. And "Cash Value" is also tax-deferred. It can be returned to your employer as a tax-free loan. And if your employer goes bankrupt, the Cash Value of those insurance policies is protected by the tax-laws - from creditors!
In short, your employer can get a tax-deductible loan to buy insurance on you that until this past June he didn't even have to tell you about, and the money is first tax-deferred and then tax-free, and when you die, the payoff it gets is tax-exempt, and when the company dies, the boss still gets to keep the money away from the creditors even if somehow you, the guy on whom your boss has surreptitiously taken an insurance policy - happen to be one of the creditors.
And even though it's based on insurance on your health and your life, all of that tax-free, tax-exempt, tax-deferred money not only doesn't go to you, it also doesn't go to the government. And so if we really are ever going to do anything about federally-supported health care as an alternative to these private insurers, there's that much less tax money to do it with.
And some of the money that isn't going to you, and isn't going to the government, is going to strengthen the already monolithic insurance companies!
And just in case this isn't a sweet enough deal, the government is almost silent about telling that employer of yours about what kind of health insurance it must give you. And year after year, the companies get smarter and more audacious about either cutting what your health insurance covers, or cutting the number of employees the health insurance covers, or both.
And if that still isn't enough, there is something called the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors. And it has a Political Action Committee, IFAPAC, and last year IFAPAC had one million, $492,000 worth of campaign money with which to buy politicians.
And you'd be amazed how many of them you can buy with even one million, $492,000.
And these are the same people who are not only influencing the health care debate, spending more than a million dollars a day to defeat reform, they are also the same people, who by raising your premiums and cutting your reimbursements, who by manipulating prices at hospitals and doctor's offices for everything from tongue depressors to enemas, who by influencing health care in this country more effectively and more selfishly than a dictator could ever do these are the people who decide what kind of health care you get, how much you pay for it, and whether or not they'd rather not see you get it.
It is your skin. Literally. And it is in the hands of people, insurance companies, who can still make money by betting against your good health. There is only one comfort here and it is cold indeed. Profit while you can, insurers. Sickness and death wait not just for your customer. They also wait for you. And they are double-parked. The doctor who treats you and the pharmacist who makes you pay through your nose are not your enemies in this. It proves they are as much victims as you and I are. And the time has come to realign the battle here, so that it is not just us versus the entire medical and health care establishment, it is us, and the doctors, and the nurses, and the pharmacists, and maybe even some of the hospitals, against the real enemy: The insurance companies... the Insurance companies who are right now at war against America! That's where I'll pick it up when this Special Comment continues.
Dr. Albert Sabin was by his own description, pretty full of himself when he managed to temporarily stop the testing of the Salk Polio Vaccine after a bad batch sickened and killed some children early in the first tests in the 1950s. Sabin recounted this in a television interview in the '80s. He was weeping. He had believed he was doing right. He had convinced himself that the fact that Salk's vaccine, the so-called "inactivated polio vaccine," had been chosen for use instead of Sabin's own "live polio vaccine," was irrelevant to his efforts.
He was weeping as he recounted this, too. Ultimately there proved nothing wrong with Salk's vaccine, the one batch had been improperly handled and manufactured. But Sabin and others, delayed all further testing for weeks. Sabin was weeping as he remembered. In 1983, Sabin had contracted a rare disease of his own. Surgeons operated, relieved the intense pain and muscle weakness, and then ten days later it came back, ten times worse, enough for him to be yelling and crying, virtually all the time.
The pain, he said, "made me want to die." And Dr. Albert Sabin suddenly remembered that the stopping of the Salk Vaccine experiments had led to death. Death of children. More immediately, it had led to pain, physical and emotional, for the children, and the parents.
He said it had not occurred to him that the first thing doctors must do, the first thing a health care system must do, is stop pain. He vowed to spend the rest of his life relieving pain.
His own searing agony, and paralysis, gradually, inexplicably, faded. They moved my father this afternoon. I don't mean they moved him to another hospital. They moved him. In his bed. Into a different position. It was agony for him. Agony enough that he could barely see us.
Agony enough that they had to give him all the pain-killer he could handle. Then he couldn't talk any more. Another moment when somebody like me wonders about what it would be like if he was going through that, and I was watching it, worrying about whether we could afford the pain-killers.
Or the doctors. Or that hospital. Or any treatment at all. And what kind of society we live in, where millions of us face questions like that, and politicians glibly talk about incremental improvements while they slowly re-shape new laws that are supposed to reduce the number of us faced with pain untreated due to money, into laws that take more money out of our pockets and give it to the corporations who are profiting off health care without contributing one second to the relief of pain or the curing of disease, the pimps of the equation, taking their 20 percent off the top the health insurance cartels.
How would our politicians react if there were millions Americans in pain, getting insufficient care to relieve that pain, because of interference from insurance corporations and those millions had just been injured in a natural disaster, or an attack on this country? How fast would they rush their portable podiums to the driveways outside the emergency rooms?
How quickly would the money come?
You know the answer. And you know what the answer has been about rushing to help those millions of Americans in pain tonight attacked not by another country or a terrorist or even a flood but attacked merely by life. Half of the politicians are dedicated to protecting the corporations against having to help our relatives and neighbors in pain.
The other half are calculating how far they can anger our Insurance Over-lords before our Insurance Over-lords stop contributing to their campaigns. Might all their CEOs, might all the wavering political frauds, get ten minutes of Dr. Sabin's pain. Or my father's. That's another part of this story I just haven't seen. The doctors.
For all the jokes over all the years, these guys really are on our side in this, especially the ones in the hospitals, especially the ones without whose skills you'd heal up just as fast in a bowling alley as in the best of the medical centers. The man who took my appendix out two years ago, a messy, dangerous job that took more than two hours, from which I recovered fast enough that I only missed four days of work, and who left three little scars one of which I can't find any more, I wrote all the checks. I know how much he got out of the whole price. About ten percent.
A very good friend of mine is a doctor in California. He wrote me the other day. "You can see why doctors, who want to make a living or cover increasing costs, labor, overhead, etc., have only one choice: see more patients, spend less time, answer fewer calls, because there is no other way to increase revenue.
"Plus," he wrote, "if you order tests, patients think they are getting better care (and) doctors thinking that testing, saves them time in thinking or talking with people. 'You have chest pain?' Instead of asking you questions, why don't we go ahead and do this stress test - that I get paid much more than some little office visit to do - and make sure it's not your heart.'"
And so like us the doctors are slaves to insurance. And that's not even talking about malpractice. We have to help them on that. Maybe we do need to cap damages. But do it where everybody benefits. Set the cap wherever it works out to be now, then lower it each year by exactly how much the entire cost of a patient's health care is lowered in this country. Incentivize doctors to help make health care available to everybody.
We patients and the doctors have to be on the same side again to stop pain, to heal disease, not to be customers and salesmen. And to help, thinking long-term. "People do want to discuss their end-of-life preferences prospectively," my friend the doc says, "and doctors should be paid to have these discussions." And then he wrote something that hadn't occurred to me. "We spend a lot of money on doing things that people would not have wanted us... to do to them."
Oh, that hit home. My mother died in the spring. Bless her, she lived without symptoms till nearly two weeks before she went. And we had all talked about what to do, and when to do it, and what not to do. And so when they said there's breast cancer, and there's five lesions in her brain, and there's nothing we can do that will wake her, but we can do a lot to lessen her pain or we can do things that might extend her life but also won't cure her and also won't wake her, but might be hurting her, we can't tell.
It took five seconds to decide. And then I thought of all the people who never had that discussion with their mother or father, who don't know that those are the choices they might face. And how it might help to have a doctor who says, here it all is. And you say: Doc thanks, I've decided I still want you to keep me alive forever even if I'm suffering and comatose, and he says, you got it.
Only now he could send you a bill and you could have insurance pay you back for it, so your mother and you will know, when the time comes, exactly what each choice would bring.
And some buffoon decided to call that a "death panel." On the list of preventable deaths diabetes, stroke, ulcers, appendix, pneumonia we are 19th. Canada is 6th, England 16th, we're 19th. Portugal is 18th. You're better off in Portugal.
Death panels? We have them now. They're called WellPoint and Cigna and United Health Care and all the rest. Ask not for whom the insurance company's cash register bell tolls. It tolls for thee. What you and I might able to do about all this, when my Special Comment continues.
So far we've covered our collective unwillingness to admit that this isn't a health care debate. We are talking, ultimately, about pain, and life and death. I've recapped my own father's trip through our health care system. And we've looked at the horrible statistics that this country is 19th world-wide in preventable deaths, worse than Portugal. And how, if the current gap between the insured and the uninsured continues to grow, at this pace, by the year 2020, the uninsured will be 53 percent more likely to die than will the insured, a number that matches exactly, the increased mortality rate for the poor in the England of Charles Dickens.
What do we do?
I do not know who the two women were, yet they are indelibly burned into my memory.
They stood outside, on a crisp New York morning last week, middle-aged, short, looking more than a little weary. They were wearing lab coats, and they were leaning against what those coats told me was their place of employment, the Mortimer B. Zuckerman Research Center at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.
The women in the cancer researcher's lab coats were smoking cigarettes. I have seen a lot of startling things in my more-than-40 days and 40 nights alongside my ailing father inside this nation's fractured health care system, but nothing seemed to better symbolize the futility, the ram-your-head-against-a-wall futility, of this gigantic medical entity that we have created, that seems to have not only broken free from human control, but has, to some great measure, enslaved us.
Twenty-three stories tall, built partly with a 100-million dollar gift from the publisher of the New York Daily News, and U-S News Magazine, and two of the cancer researchers are standing in front smoking. That isn't the only picture that haunts my dreams.
A man walking out of another hospital, casual, purposeful, in control. The red stitches on the left side of his shaved head outlining a space as big as a large potato and at least an inch higher than the rest of his skull. I don't know if he was getting better or he was getting worse. I don't know if he had gotten good news or bad. I don't know if tonight he's healthy, or he's dead.
Months ago I got in a line at a drug store here. A woman ahead of me, obviously a familiar figure to the young pharmacist behind the counter, trying with mixed success to take in the gentle explanation. "You've maxed out your prescriptions on that insurance," the professional said slowly, "I can't give it to you." The customer shook her head in resignation.
It was like the Medieval Courts of Chancery, where if you were poor, you could take your lawsuit against the rich or the government, and hope when they picked the handful of cases to be heard, they'd somehow pick yours. If they didn't, you could try again next year, or, in some cases, every year for twenty next years.
The woman who needed the prescription spoke even more slowly than the pharmacist had. She had almost no hope in her voice. "Try the Cigna. Please." Another drug store, late at night. The pharmacist was a friend of mine. "You have to do something about this," he said as he handed me my refill and then reached for somebody else's prescription. "You see this? Anti-fungal cream. I just filled this. You know what this costs wholesale? Four dollars. You know what I have to sell it for? Two hundred and sixty-three dollars. I sell it for less and I get fired and maybe we lose our license."
And last Saturday, I leave my father, 24 hours after serious surgery that probably saved his life, serious enough that he's still under sedation and it'd be another 24 hours before he knew where he was or who I was, and yet I know he's okay because I've gotten him the best care in the world.
Literally, his surgeon is considered one of the top five guys in his field alive today and even I can tell he absolutely nailed the operation. And I know that after my father wakes up, when post-operative fluids get into his lungs, and he has trouble breathing, and he has to inhale after every word, they have a drug called Lasix that will start to drain the fluids and within five minutes he'll be breathing easier and within fifteen it'll be like nothing was ever wrong and this is just one of twenty drugs they can use on him not just to make him better long-term, but just as importantly and twice as imperatively, to stop his pain short-term.
And I marvel that we have come so far that you can barely take care of your health, like he has for 80 years, you can even be as dumb as those two women outside the cancer research center, smoking away and there is still a kaleidoscope of drugs and therapies and nurses and diagnosticians and psychiatrists and x-ray techs and surgeons, and all of them are capable of undoing the pain and curing the sickness and forestalling death.
And as I walk down the hallway from my Dad's room I allow myself a brief moment of selfishness. I'm sorry. I'm sorry I'm happy that I can spend whatever it takes to help my Dad get better, to keep him around, but maybe I can atone for that selfishness by making this case, tonight, to you, to whoever sees this, that we have to make these wonders of life and health and peace of mind and the control of pain available to everybody. And this is boiling in my brain and I take the shortcut out to the street, through the Emergency Room, and that's when I hear my name called.
And it's a man, roughly my age, and he looks worried to death. And I haven't seen him in 32 years. He was the nephew of the two brothers from Brooklyn who used to run the baseball card shows when we were both kids, and his uncles were the businessmen but he, like me, collected mostly for the fun of it, and it's amazing to see him again, joyous almost, for the sake of the continuity that the accident of us running into each other provides to us both. And he asks what I'm doing there and I tell him and he smiles because my father used to go to those card shows with me and Mike remembers him. And then I ask Mike why he's there.
"My daughter's in ICU," he says. "Three weeks now." The worried look returns to his face. "Lyme Disease. It's one thing, they knock it down, then it's another." There's a brief pause.
"Tomorrow I have to sell my farm. Did you know I had a farm?" I don't have to ask him why he's selling it. He then goes the next step. "Hey, you wanna buy my card collection? I've got some great stuff."
We must reform a system that lets my father get better care than yours does, or better care than Mike's daughter does, because by the accident of life, I make more money than he does, or my checkbook can hold out longer than his does, or yours does, as the bills come endlessly like some evil version of the enchanted water buckets in Fantasia.
The resources exist for your father and mine to get the same treatment to have the same chance and to both not have to lie there worried about whether or not they can afford to live!
Afford to live? Are we at that point? Are we so heartless that we let the rich live and the poor die and everybody in between become wracked with fear - fear not of disease but of Deductibles? Right now, right now, somebody's father is dying because they don't have that dollar to spend. And the means by which the playing field is leveled, and the costs that are just as inflated to me as they are to you are reduced, and the money that I don't have to spend any more on saving my father can go instead to saving your father that's called health care reform!
Death is the issue! How can we not be unified against death? I want my government helping my father to fight death! I want my government to spend taxpayer money to help my father fight to live and I want my government to spend taxpayer money to help your father fight to live! I want it to spend my money first on fighting death. Not on war! Not on banks! Not on high speed rail!
Spend our money, spend my money, first: on the chance to live!
And we must be unanimous in this, not to achieve some political triumph for one side against the other, but to save the man or the woman or the child who will be dead by morning, in this country, in this century, on our watch, because we are not spending that money tonight. I will not settle for a compromise bill and I will extend my hand to those who are scared of the inevitability of death but have been told they are scared of reform, those who have been exploited by the others, paid, or forced, to defend the status quo.
And we must recognize the enemy here: an enemy capable of perverting reform meant for you and me, into its own ATM that mandates only that more of us become the slaves to the insurance companies. The monied interests that have bled their customers white, and used their customers' money to buy the system, to buy the politicians, to buy the press, cannot now even be checked by the government.
Ordinarily the solution would be obvious: we would have to do it for the government. We would have to bring the insurance companies to their knees to organize, to pick a date, to say enough to, at a given hour, on a given day, to stop paying the premiums. An insurance strike.
But the insurance companies' stranglehold on us is so complete that lives would be risked, lives would be lost by the very act of protest. What parent could risk the cancellation of their child's insurance? What adult could risk giving his insurer the chance to claim that everything wrong with him on the day of an Insurance Strike was suddenly a pre-existing condition?
Even as the pay-outs move inexorably downwards, to being less than what you have paid in over the years, we are such serfs to the insurance companies that just to invoke the true spirit of the founding of this nation, is to give them more power, not less.
So I propose tonight one act with two purposes. I propose we, all of us, embrace the selfless individuals at the National Association of Free Clinics. You know them, they conducted the mass health care free clinic in Houston that served 1,500 people. I want a mass health care free clinic every week in the principle cities of the states of the six senators key to defeating a filibuster against health care reform in the Senate.
I want Sens. Lincoln and Pryor to see what health care poverty is really like in Little Rock. I want Sen. Baucus to see it in Butte. I want Sen. Ben Nelson to see it in Lincoln. I want Sen. Landro to see it in Baton Rouge. I want Sen. Reid to see it in Las Vegas.
I'll donate. How much will you donate? We enable thousands of our neighbors to have just a portion of the bounty of good health, and we make a statement to the politicians, forgive me, William Jennings Bryan, "you shall not press down upon the brow of America this crown of insurance, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of blue."
We think these events will be firmed up presently. You will be able to link from our website.
Trust me, I'll remind you. Because in one party, in one demographic, in one protest movement, we are all brothers and sisters. We are united in membership in the party that insists that every chance at life be afforded to every American seeking that chance.
We are united in membership in the party that insists on the right of everyone to the startling, transcendent blessings of the technological advance of medical science. We are united in membership in the party that is for life, that is against death, that is for lower premiums, that is against higher deductibles, that is for the peace of mind that can be provided only by the elimination of the fear that cost will decide whether we live or we die!
Because that's the point, isn't it? It is hard enough to recover, to fight past pain and to stave off death, if just for a season or a week or a day. It is so hard, that eventually for you, for me, for this president, for these blue dogs, for these protestors it is so hard to recover, that for all of us there will come a time when we will not recover. So, why are we making it harder?
A Solution For Diabetes: A Vegan Diet
By Kathy Freston, AlterNet
Posted on October 8, 2009, Printed on October 8, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/143149/
I've been researching the most common and devastating diseases Americans are dealing with, with the aim of finding a common thread running throughout both cause and reversal. As it is now, one out of every two of us will get cancer or heart disease, and one out of every three children born after the year 2000 will be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. These are devastating diseases, certainly to those who are burdened by them, but also to a health care system that is struggling to keep up.
The extraordinary doctors and nutritional scientists I've spoken with seem to be saying - and saying fervently - the same thing: a diet high in animal protein is disastrous to our health, while a plant-based (vegan) diet prevents disease and is restorative to our health. And they say this with peer-reviewed (the gold standard of studies) science to back them up. Even the very conservative ADA (American Dietetic Association) says: "Vegetarian diets are often associated with a number of health advantages, including lower blood cholesterol levels, lower risk of heart disease, lower blood pressure levels, and lower risk of hypertension and type 2 diabetes. Vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index (BMI) and lower overall cancer rates."
Diabetes does not just mean you take a pill or injection every day. It means you can lose a decade of life. And you while you inch toward that uncomfortable end, you deal with an increased risk of heart attack, blindness, amputation, and loss of kidney function. It's a very serious disease. The good news is that diabetes can be halted and reversed in a very short time through some diet modifications.
To understand diabetes better, and to learn how to reverse it, I've talked with Dr. Neal Barnard, president of The Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine. He is an adjunct associate professor of medicine at the George Washington University School of Medicine, and the author of numerous scientific articles in leading peer-reviewed journals, and a frequent lecturer at the American Diabetes Association's scientific sessions. His diabetes research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Government's research branch. He is also the author of Dr. Neal Barnard's Program for Reversing Diabetes.
KF: Why is type 2 diabetes suddenly so prevalent?
NB: Diets are changing, not just in the U.S., but worldwide. Diabetes seems to follow the spread of meaty, high-fat, high-calorie diets. In Japan, for example, the traditional rice-based diet kept the population generally healthy and thin for many centuries. Up until 1980, only 1-5% of Japanese adults over age 40 had diabetes. Starting around that time, however, the rapid westernization of the diet meant that meat, milk, cheese, and sodas became fashionable. Waistlines expanded, and, by 1990, diabetes prevalence in Japan had climbed to 11-12%.
The same sort of trend has occurred in the U.S. Over the last century, per capita meat consumption increased from about 150 pounds per year (which was already very high, compared with other countries) in the early 1900s to over 200 pounds today. In other words, the average American now eats 50 pounds more meat every year, compared with a century ago. In the same interval, cheese intake soared from less than 4 pounds per person per year to about 32 pounds today. Sugar intake has gone up, too, by about 30 pounds per person per year. Where are we putting all that extra meat, cheese, and sugar? It contributes to body fat, of course, and diabetes follows. Today, about 13% of the U.S. adult population has type 2 diabetes, although many of them are not yet aware they have it.
KF: What causes diabetes?
NB: Normally, the cells of the body use the simple sugar glucose as fuel, the way a car uses gasoline. Glucose comes from starchy or sweet foods we eat, and the hormone insulin escorts it into the muscle cells to power our movements. Glucose also passes into our brain cells to power our thoughts. In type 2 diabetes, the cells resist insulin's action, so glucose has trouble getting into the cells.
KF: What happens to the body when one develops diabetes? What's the fallout?
NB: If glucose can't get into the cells, it builds up in the blood. It is as if gasoline coming out of a gas pump somehow can't get into your gas tank, and it ends up spilling over the side of your car, coming in through your car windows, and dribbling all over the pavement. It is a dangerous situation. The abnormally high levels of glucose circulating in the bloodstream are toxic to the blood vessels, especially the tiny blood vessels of the eyes, the kidneys, the extremities, and the heart.
KF: Is it really that serious, or can we just take a drug for it?
NB: A person with diabetes loses more than a decade of life, on average; about three-quarters will die prematurely of a heart attack. It is also a leading cause of blindness, amputations, and loss of kidney function. Many drugs are available, from insulin to oral medications and an ever-increasing variety of other medications. In order to protect the heart, many patients are also put on medications to lower cholesterol and blood pressure. A person with diabetes who walks into my office is typically using $3,000 to $5,000 worth of medications each year. And yet these medications only slow the progression of the disease; many people have serious complications despite being on medications.
Let me emphasize that this grim scenario does not have to occur. If an unhealthy diet is the cause, a better diet can provide the answer to this problem.
KF: How can we avoid it?
NB: The key is to help our body's insulin to work normally. So long as your body's insulin can escort glucose into the cells normally, diabetes will not occur. The resistance to insulin that leads to diabetes appears to be caused by a build-up of fat inside the muscle cells and also inside the liver. Let me draw an analogy: I arrive home from work one day, and put my key in my front door lock. But I notice the key does not turn properly, and the door does not open. Peering inside the lock, I see that someone has jammed chewing gum into the lock. Now, if the insulin "key" cannot open up the cell to glucose, there is something interfering with it. It's not chewing gum, of course. The problem is fat. In the same way that chewing gum in a lock makes it hard to open your front door, fat particles inside muscle cells interfere with insulin's efforts to open the cell to glucose. This fat comes from beef, chicken, fish, cooking oils, dairy products, etc. The answer is to avoid these fatty foods. People who avoid all animal products obviously get no animal fat at all, they appear to have much less fat build-up inside their cells, and their risk of diabetes is extremely low. Minimizing vegetable oils helps, too.
And we can go beyond prevention. When people who already have diabetes adopt a low-fat vegan diet, their condition often improves dramatically. In our research, funded by the U.S. Government, we found that a vegan diet is more effective than a traditional current diabetes diet, and is much safer than a low-carb diet.
KF: What about the claim that a vegetarian diet has too many starches, which raises blood sugar?
NB: Starchy foods, such as whole grains, beans, and vegetables, are healthful foods, and the body is designed to use the glucose that they hold. In type 2 diabetes, the body has lost some of this ability. But the answer is not to avoid starches, but to restore the body's ability to use them. After all, cultures whose diets are traditionally high in carbohydrate--Japan, China, Latin America, etc.--have had very low diabetes rates until meat, cheese, and other fatty foods displace their healthy carbohydrate-rich diets; only then does diabetes becomes more common.
The Atkins fad unfortunately left many people imagining that carbohydrate (that is, starch) is somehow risky. That notion is as unscientific as suggesting that water or oxygen is dangerous. The body needs all these things for good health.
A similarly persistent but misguided idea is the blood-type diet approach. A popular book on this subject said that people with type A blood should follow a vegetarian diet but that people with type O blood should not. Unfortunately many readers with type O blood followed this advice, which turned out to be quite wrong. The fact is, people with type O blood do as well as everyone else on a plant-based diet. A vegan diet is helpful and effective, regardless of blood type.
KF: Can diabetes be reversed?
NB: Yes. When people begin a healthful diet, most see big improvements in weight, cholesterol, and their blood sugar. Their need for medications diminishes, and some may not need medications at all. In some cases, you would never know they had had diabetes. However, I caution people not to simply throw their medications away. They need to speak with their doctors so they can alter their medication regimens only when and if it is appropriate.
Let me describe a case: A man named Vance joined our study. His father was dead by age 30, and Vance was 31 when he was diagnosed with diabetes. As our study began, he started a low-fat, vegan diet and gradually lost about 60 pounds over a year's time. His blood sugar control returned to normal, and his doctor discontinued his medications. Imagine what it feels like to see family members assaulted by this disease, but then to realize that you have effectively tackled it by making healthful adjustments to your diet.
Vance also encouraged me to mention that it is not only blood sugar that gets better, his erectile dysfunction also improved dramatically, too--in case anyone needs an extra motivator.
Published on Thursday, October 8, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
Letter to Obama From the Mad As Hell Doctors
by Paul Hochfeld
As one of the Mad As Hell Doctors from Oregon, I had the surprising good fortune of being an uninvited, but welcomed, guest to the President Obama's recent meeting in the Rose Garden with "physicians from around the country." I hand-delivered the following letter to one of President Obama's aides. I wonder. Has he read it?
October 5, 2009
Dear President Obama,
Although I would dearly appreciate being invited to speak with you and the other invited physicians this morning, I understand this is problematic and unlikely. I must, therefore, settle for a letter in which I hope to express a great deal of compassion for the difficulty of your predicament. You are caught between those on the right, some of whom want you to fail and accuse you of going "too far", and those on the left, like myself, who, passionately, want you to succeed and, equally passionately, want a real solution to our health care crisis.
As you may know, in September, the Mad As Hell Doctors from Oregon wended our way to Washington, visiting twenty-six cities in twenty-two days, telling uncomfortable Truths about our health care system, none of which is news to you, but I state clearly for those who might be eavesdropping.
• We spend more than twice as much per capita as most of the rest of the industrialized world.
• By the standard measures of performance, the United States ranks 37th, internationally, in health care outcomes. Not exactly anything to be proud of.
• Forty-five thousand people die every year in our country because of barriers to obtaining appropriate medical care in a timely manner.
• And, finally, we are the only developed country in which people often go bankrupt because of health care costs and three fourths of them had health insurance at the time they became ill.
We spoke to people about the moral imperative of true Universal Access and the main barrier to accomplishing this: cost. We explained why it cost us so much. Undeniably, we waste 20% of all our health care money servicing an Insurance industry that adds nothing to the health and complicates the lives of our providers. As you know, the other drivers on excessive cost, include, among others
• the primary care crisis
• the chaos of medical records,
• the fear of liability,
• the mass marketing of prescription drugs,
• the pressure for profits,
• "our" unrealistic expectations, especially at the end of life, and
• the perverse incentive incentives that are created by the fee for service reimbursement mechanism that encourages physicians to do more and more and more without regard of "just enough".
Bypassing the insurance industry with a Single Payer Solution is NOT just about saving 20%, immediately, so we can afford Universal Access. It's about having a system with which to deal with the other drivers on cost, as does every other developed country in the world. More accurately, today, instead of a health care system, we have a "for-profit private insurance-based sick-care non-system." You know what I am talking about.
In the course of our trip, we learned as much we taught. Enthusiastic supporters of our message told us a multitude of stories that deepened our understanding that our system is broken and corrupt beyond most people's wildest dreams. Our neighbors suffer in unimaginable ways, like the gentleman who lost his job after his wife was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. His employer simply couldn't afford to keep him on the payroll. His insurance carrier would have increased the cost of premiums for the rest of his employees. As if having a wife with MS isn't painful enough, he might lose everything. Only in America. Shame on us.
In the meantime, Senator Max Baucus is proposing legislation that was literally authored by a health insurance insider. Indeed, our legislators seem to be partnering with The Industry, whose financial well-being seems to trump the needs of our people. It would appear that our Representative and Senators, on both sides of the aisle, think they need Industry money for campaign financing more than they need to show some courage to make the difficult decisions necessary to give us a sustainable health care system.
I believe you understand that none of the health reform bills that are being seriously considered by either side of Congress will accomplish true Universal Access without breaking the bank. Could it be that fixing health care is less about health care than our political process in which the Industry manipulates public policy so that it reflects profits more than public good? Neither we, nor the American people, nor the families of the 45,000 people who died last year find this tolerable. Neither does the gentleman who lost his job for merely having the misfortune of a wife with MS.
Mr. President, tell us the truth about the failed health care reform debate that has been manipulated by The Industry. It's a tough spot but we call on you and Congress to show some courage by delaying the passage of health care reform legislation until public health authorities, health care providers, patient advocates, economists, and health system administrators participate in a public process to determine how we can get the most health for our precious health care dollars. They should start the discussion with a clear understanding that access to essential health care is a basic human right. The health insurance and pharmaceutical industry have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are only interested in profits. They should be kept out of the room.
We think this is fair. We think this is democratic. And as physicians who have sworn an oath of care, we believe it is the only socially, morally and ethically responsible course of action.
Best regards and best wishes for a successful administration.
Paul Hochfeld M.D.
(representing the Mad As Hell Doctors from Oregon)
Published on Wednesday, October 7, 2009 by the Wall Street Journal
Health Care and the 'Predator State'
by the Wall Street Journal
It is corporate power, not the government, that we need to worry about.
by Thomas Frank
In June 2008, I used this space to call on then-Sen. Barack Obama to add economist James K. Galbraith's book, "The Predator State," to his reading list. As an account of the capture of government by private interests, I thought it would make a far more useful guide to contemporary political economy than the market-glorifying texts that were still in fashion in those days.
I don't know if Mr. Obama ever took my advice.
But Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley apparently did. During a debate last week over two Democratic proposals for a health-care bill featuring a "public option"—a government-run alternative to private health insurance—the senator announced he opposed the idea because, as he put it, "Government is not a fair competitor. . . . It's a predator."
The word "predator" seems to have become something of a Republican talking point. Mr. Grassley's colleague from South Dakota, John Thune, went on the record in July to warn that, when government goes into business, it "becomes not a competitor but a predator."
Have these two august men of the right secretly become fans of Mr. Galbraith, one of our leading liberal economists?
If so, they need to go back over "The Predator State" a second time. Although they have snapped up Mr. Galbraith's catchy title, they have misunderstood his message.
What makes government predatory, Mr. Grassley seems to believe, is its public-mindedness. Were government to offer health insurance to everybody without the industry's many devices for excluding risky individuals, some seem to fear, it might be able to offer consumers a price too fair for the profit-minded sector to match.
This is a curious reversal for a movement that ordinarily celebrates Darwinian struggle and the destruction of the weak by the strong. Just think of the conservative caricatures that must be inverted for this argument to work: All those soft liberal bureaucrats? Ferocious man-eaters. The welfare state? Law of the jungle.
And the actuarial-minded hardliners of the insurance biz, the ones who deny your claim or cancel your policy? A gentle but endangered species that needs our nurturing, sort of like panda bears.
Mr. Galbraith's point was the opposite: That government becomes a "predator" when it adopts the agenda of the private sector, when it comes under the control of business interests. According to Mr. Galbraith's book, these interests seek to "control the state partly in order to prevent the assertion of public purpose and partly to poach on the lines of activity that past public purpose has established."
A good example of this predatory "poaching" is the 2003 expansion of Medicare to include a prescription-drug benefit. "[T]he program was done in such a way as to make payments to drug companies as large as possible," Mr. Galbraith wrote, mainly by denying itself the power to negotiate discounts. Thus it "helped to ensure that a monopoly price on pharmaceuticals would be paid, while shifting the burden of paying it, in part, to the general taxpayer."
I emailed Mr. Galbraith to get his thoughts on Mr. Grassley's novel use of his idea. "[T]he concept of the 'Predator State' is not quite as Senator Grassley describes," the economist replied. "Social Security isn't predatory. . . . Back before they were privatized, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren't predatory. Ginnie Mae still isn't. And a public option for health insurance isn't predatory either."
"The 'predator state' describes what happens when chicken coops are given over to foxes," Mr. Galbraith continued. "When consumer protection, worker protection, environmental protection, and policing against fraud are handed over to lobbyists. And when health care is run for the benefit of private insurance companies, whose business model . . . is to target coverage on the healthy and delay payments to the sick."
That is predation. Public service is its opposite. And thus we come to the subtle part about Mr. Galbraith's theory, the catch that seems to have confused his potential admirers on the right: Government isn't simply "a predator" by definition, as Mr. Grassley would have it. Yes, it has been predatory in recent years, but for much of the last century it wasn't.
However, it is easy to see how a "public option" might be transformed into another opportunity for predation. With a little George W. Bush-era ingenuity, some future administration might decide to install insurance lobbyists at its helm. Future Congresses might require that its duties should be contracted out to existing insurance companies and then sign away their own power to supervise those companies' behavior.
I am happy to report, though, that a solution to such a problem is incredibly simple, and it is largely within the power of Mr. Grassley and his colleagues to deliver it: Don't let insurance industry lobbyists give you advice. Don't take their money. Just say no.
Published on Friday, September 18, 2009 by TruthDig.com
Selective Deficit Disorder
by David Sirota
Watching the health care debate unfold these days is a little like watching scenes from “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”—the ones showing a collage of strung-out, deranged or otherwise incapacitated patients rotting away in a squalid psychiatric ward.
As the insurance industry’s Nurse Ratched lurks in the background, congressional Democrats cower in the corner, fearing the phantom menace of their own shadows. Standing next to the window, suicidal Republican leaders rant about “death panels” and threaten to splatter their electoral prospects onto the pavement below. Nearby, White House officials struggle with multiple-personality ailments as they mumble contradictory statements about the public option. Meanwhile, tea party protesters lie on the floor in the fetal position, soiling their hospital diapers as they throw incoherent tantrums about everything from socialism to communism to czarism to Nazism. And, not surprisingly, Washington reporters just stare off into the distance, having been long ago lobotomized in the wake of their Watergate heyday.
Clearly, the inmates in America’s political sanitarium are each struggling with a different malady. However, they are all suffering from Selective Deficit Disorder—an illness whose symptoms can be particularly difficult to detect.
When we see tea party activists bemoan deficit spending or watch rank-and-file senators like Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., say, “I’m not going to vote for a [health care] bill that’s not deficit-neutral,” it is easy to think these poor souls are perfectly healthy. When President Barack Obama promises to “not sign a [health] plan that adds one dime to our deficit” and then New York Times writers such as David Brooks praise this “dime standard” as the epitome of “pragmatism” and “fiscal sanity,” these victims seem absolutely sane.
Yet, Selective Deficit Disorder is a sickness of omission. Attacking the neural synapses that maintain rudimentary logic, it presents itself not in what its carriers say and do, but in what they refuse to say and do.
Where, for instance, were the conservative protest marchers when President George W. Bush vastly expanded the deficit with his massive tax cuts for the wealthy? Where was Sen. Lincoln’s concern for “deficit neutrality” when she voted to give $700 billion to the thieves on Wall Street? Where was Obama’s “dime standard” when he proposed a budget that spends far more on maintaining bloated Pentagon budgets than on any universal health care proposal being considered in Congress? Where were demands for “fiscal sanity” by Brooks and other right-wing pundits when they cheered on the budget-busting war in Iraq? Where were the calls from these supposed “deficit hawks” to raise taxes when they backed all this profligate spending? And where were the journalists asking such painfully simple questions?
They were nowhere to be seen or heard, because those plagued by Selective Deficit Disorder (as the name suggests) are only selectively worried about deficits.
When it comes to spending on priorities like health care reform that would help ordinary Americans, the illness’ victims scream about deficits and overspending. But when it comes to handing over trillions of dollars to financial firms, defense contractors and other corporate interests, deficits suddenly don’t matter to the disease-addled politicians, protesters and journalists underwritten by those interests.
Luckily, while almost every significant voice in politics is stricken with Selective Deficit Disorder, the majority of the country’s citizens are not. That doesn’t mean Americans love unbalanced budgets, of course. It just means we know there is something very wrong with those who decry deficit spending on health care for millions of people, but ignore far bigger deficit expenditures on giveaways to a tiny handful of fat cats.
Now, all we have to do is stop flying over the cuckoo’s nest and start breaking into the asylum...
Harvard Study Finds Nearly 45,000 Excess Deaths Annually Linked to Lack of Health Coverage
Lack of health insurance now more lethal
WASHINGTON - September 17 - A study published online today] estimates nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.
The new study, "Health Insurance and Mortality in U.S. Adults," appears in today's online edition of the American Journal of Public Health.
The Harvard-based researchers found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993.
Lead author Dr. Andrew Wilper, who worked at Harvard Medical School when the study was done and who now teaches at the University of Washington Medical School, said, "The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately insured, even after taking into account socioeconomics, health behaviors and baseline health. We doctors have many new ways to prevent deaths from hypertension, diabetes and heart disease - but only if patients can get into our offices and afford their medications."
The study, which analyzed data from national surveys carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), assessed death rates after taking education, income and many other factors including smoking, drinking and obesity into account. It estimated that lack of health insurance causes 44,789 excess deaths annually.
Previous estimates from the IOM and others had put that figure near 18,000. The methods used in the current study were similar to those employed by the IOM in 2002, which in turn were based on a pioneering 1993 study of health insurance and mortality.
Deaths associated with lack of health insurance now exceed those caused by many common killers such as kidney disease.
An increase in the number of uninsured and an eroding medical safety net for the disadvantaged likely explain the substantial increase in the number of deaths associated with lack of insurance. The uninsured are more likely to go without needed care.
Another factor contributing to the widening gap in the risk of death between those who have insurance and those who don't is the improved quality of care for those who can get it.
The research, carried out at the Cambridge Health Alliance and Harvard Medical School, analyzed U.S. adults under age 65 who participated in the annual National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) between 1986 and 1994. Respondents first answered detailed questions about their socioeconomic status and health and were then examined by physicians. The CDC tracked study participants to see who died by 2000.
The study found a 40 percent increased risk of death among the uninsured. As expected, death rates were also higher for males (37 percent increase), current or former smokers (102 percent and 42 percent increases), people who said that their health was fair or poor (126 percent increase), and those that examining physicians said were in fair or poor health (222 percent increase).
Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard and a primary care physician in Cambridge, Mass., noted: "Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives."
Dr. David Himmelstein, study co-author and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, remarked, "The Institute of Medicine, using older studies, estimated that one American dies every 30 minutes from lack of health insurance. Even this grim figure is an underestimate - now one dies every 12 minutes."
"Health Insurance and Mortality in U.S. Adults," Andrew P. Wilper, M.D., M.P.H., Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H., Karen E. Lasser, M.D., M.P.H., Danny McCormick, M.D., M.P.H., David H. Bor, M.D., and David U. Himmelstein, M.D. American Journal of Public Health, Sept. 17, 2009 (online); print edition Vol. 99, Issue 12, December 2009.
Most U.S. doctors want public-private mix: poll
Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:10pm EDT
By Gene Emery
BOSTON (Reuters) - Most U.S. doctors favor having both public and private options in a reformed healthcare system, a survey published on Monday said.
The possible inclusion of a public option -- a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers -- is one of the most divisive parts of the reform that is President Barack Obama's top domestic legislative priority.
When given a three-way choice among private plans that use tax credits or subsidies to help the poor buy private insurance; a new public health insurance plan such as Medicare; or a mix of the two; 63 percent of doctors supported a mix, 27 percent said they only wanted private options, and just 10 percent said they exclusively wanted public options.
The survey of 2,130 U.S. doctors, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, also found that more 55 percent, regardless of their medical specialty, would favor expanding Medicare so it covered people aged 55 and older.
Medicare is the federal health insurance plan for people aged over 65 and some disabled people.
"The result shows that physicians see this system is broken and needs to be fixed," Dr. John Lumpkin, senior vice president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which sponsored the survey, said in a telephone interview.
About half of doctors supported trying to save money by restricting care to treatments proven to be cost-effective, a separate survey of 991 doctors in the same journal said.
PAYMENTS
The polls have been published less than a week after Obama addressed Congress to outline the plan he says will overhaul the $2.5 trillion industry to cut costs, improve care and expand coverage to many of the 46 million Americans without any healthcare insurance.
The concept of a public option has drawn much controversy and the American Medical Association, which represents about 250,000 U.S. doctors, has opposed it.
Drs. Salomeh Keyhani and Alex Federman of Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, authors of the larger study, found broad physician support for a combination of private and public insurance, regardless of their region, medical specialty, how they earned their income, or how many hours they spent treating patients.
Similar results were seen when doctors were asked about extending Medicare to those aged 55 and above. Fifty-eight percent supported the idea, 23 percent were opposed and 19 percent were unsure.
In the smaller survey, 73 percent said every doctor ought to care for the uninsured and underinsured and 67 percent said they were willing to accept limits on payments for expensive drugs and procedures as a way to save money and make basic care available to more people.
"By contrast, physicians were divided almost equally about cost-effectiveness analysis; just over half (54 percent) reported having a moral objection to using such data 'to determine which treatments will be offered to patients,'" said the survey team, led by Ryan Antiel of the Mayo Medical School in Rochester, Minnesota.
Family doctors were more likely to favor reform than surgeons and other specialists.
Published on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 by Salon.com
How Corporate PR Works to Kill Healthcare Reform
Health insurers have become expert at using P.R. to get what they want. I got out before the latest round
by Wendell Potter
Salon Editor's note: Wendell Potter, formerly a communications officer for the private health insurer Cigna, is now the Senior Fellow on Health Care for the Center for Media and Democracy. He delivered the remarks below at the Center for American Progress.
It is easy to think of efforts to influence lawmakers as the exclusive domain of K Street lobbyists. Much has been said and written about the millions of dollars the special interests are spending on lobbying activities and the hundreds of lobbyists who are at work as we speak trying to shape healthcare reform legislation. Very little by comparison has been written about the millions of dollars that special interests are spending on P.R. activities to accomplish the same goal and that are vital to successful lobbying efforts.
One of the reasons I left my job at CIGNA, where I headed corporate communications and was part of the Legal & Public Affairs division, was because I did not want to be involved in yet another P.R. and lobbying campaign to kill or gut reform. I finally came to question the ethics of what I had done and been a part of for nearly two decades to influence decision making and bill writing on Capitol Hill.
When I testified before the Senate Commerce Committee in late June, I told the senators how the industry has conducted duplicitous and well-financed P.R. and lobbying campaigns every time Congress has tried to reform our healthcare system, and how its current behind-the-scenes efforts may well shape reform in a way that benefits Wall Street far more than average Americans. I noted that, just as they did 15 years ago when the insurance industry led the effort to kill the Clinton reform plan, it is using shills and front groups to spread lies and disinformation to scare Americans away from the very reform that would benefit them most. The industry, despite its public assurances to be good-faith partners with the president and Congress, has been at work for years laying the groundwork for devious and often sinister campaigns to manipulate public opinion.
The industry goes to great lengths to keep its involvement in these campaigns hidden from public view. I know from having served on numerous trade group committees and industry-funded front groups, however, that industry leaders are always full partners in developing strategies to derail any reform that might interfere with insurers' ability to increase profits. My involvement in these groups goes back to the early '90s when insurers joined with other special interests to finance the activities of the Healthcare Leadership Council, which led a coordinated effort to scare Americans and members of Congress away from the Clinton plan.
A few years after that victory, the insurers formed a front group called the Health Benefits Coalition to kill efforts to pass a Patients Bill of Rights. While it was billed as a broad-based business coalition that was led by the National Federation of Independent Business and included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Health Benefits Coalition in reality got the lion's share of its funding and guidance from the big insurance companies and their trade associations.
Like most front groups, the Health Benefits Coalition was set up and run out of one of Washington's biggest P.R. firms. The P.R. firm provided all the staff work for the Coalition while an executive with the NFIB, which has long been a close ally of the insurance industry, served as a frontman.
One of the key strategies of the Health Benefits Coalition as it was gearing up for battle in late 1998 was to stir up support among conservative talk radio and other media. Among the tactics the P.R. firm implemented for the Coalition was to form alliances with important conservative groups, such as the Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council, to get them to send letters to Congress or appear at HBC press conferences. The Health Benefits Coalition also launched an advertising campaign in conservative media outlets. The message was that President Clinton owed a debt to the liberal base of the "Democrat" Party and would try to pay back that debt by advancing the type of big government agenda on healthcare that he failed to get in 1994. The tactics worked. Industry allies in Congress made sure the Patients' Bill of Rights would not become law.
The insurance industry has funded several other front groups since then whenever the industry was under attack. It formed the Coalition for Affordable Quality Healthcare to try to improve the image of managed care in response to a constant stream of negative stories that appeared in the media in the late ‘90s and the first years of this decade. It funded another group with a different name about the same time when lawyers began filing class-action lawsuits on behalf of doctors and patients. Like the Health Benefits Coalition, this one, called America's Health Insurers, was created by and run out of a powerful Washington-based P.R. firm.
The insurance industry called on that same firm again in 2007 to help blunt the impact of Michael Moore's movie "Sicko." The P.R. firm created and staffed a front group called Health Care America specifically to discredit Moore and to demonize the healthcare systems featured in the movie. The media contact for Health Care America was a vice president at the firm who had served previously in P.R. roles at the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and in the Bush administration.
The P.R. firm also activated conservative allies and enlisted the support of conservative talk show hosts, writers and editorial page editors to warn against a "government takeover" of the U.S. care system. That is a term the industry uses often to scare people away from any additional involvement of the government in healthcare. Health Care America also placed ads in newspapers. One such ad, which appeared in Capitol Hill newspapers, carried this message, "In America, you wait in line to see a movie. In government-run health care systems, you wait to see a doctor."
The P.R. firm's work on behalf of the industry included feeding talking points to conservatives in the media and in Congress and placing columns and Op-Eds written for the industry's friends in conservative and free-market think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage, CATO, the Manhattan Institute and the Galen Institute.
With this history, you can rest assured that the insurance industry is up to the same dirty tricks, using the same devious P.R. practices it has used for many years, to kill reform this year, or even better, to shape it so that it benefits insurance companies and their Wall Street investors far more than average Americans.
The creation and funding of front groups and the use of shills on Capitol Hill and in the media are not the only tactics P.R. people use to support and enhance lobbying efforts. Other activities include, of course, the implementation of grass-roots and grass-tops campaigns. But a much more subtle tactic is to provide supposedly accurate and objective information to "educate" members of Congress and their staffs.
Business Week recently described how health insurers, United Health Group in particular, have been hard at work behind the scenes providing a treasure trove of data to key senators. If lawmakers believe the information and date the insurers are feeding them is comprehensive and objective, they are mistaken. Corporate representatives, especially the P.R. people who work with the media and who write talking points, are masters at the selective use of data and disclosing only the information their employers want to be disclosed.
What does this all mean for our country and our democracy?
During my 20 years in corporate communications and public affairs, I participated in the steady growth and influence of largely invisible persuasion -- and at a time when newsrooms are shrinking and investigative journalism seems to be vanishing. The number of P.R. people long ago surpassed the number of working journalists in this country. And that ratio of P.R. people to reporters will continue to grow. The clear winners as this shift occurs are big, rich corporations and other special interests. The losers are average Americans, most of whom are completely unaware how their thoughts and actions are being manipulated to achieve corporate goals on Capitol Hill.
Study Finds Illness, Medical Bills Root Cause of Majority Of U.S. Bankruptcies
by S. L. Baker, features writer
(NaturalNews) Unemployment is high and retirement accounts have virtually disappeared for many folks in the wake of the current recession. Housing prices have plummeted, too. So it comes as no surprise that data just released by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts shows the total number of U.S. bankruptcies filed during the first three months of 2009 increased 34.5 percent over the same period in 2008. But what is surprising is a new Harvard study published in the August 2009 issue of The American Journal of Medicine which reveals financial woes starting hitting Americans even before the officially recognized economic downturn -- and the main culprit was illness and medical bills.
The results of the first-ever national random-sample survey of bankruptcy filers, conducted by researchers at Cambridge Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Harvard Law School and Ohio University, show that in 2007, 60% of all bankruptcies in the United States were driven by sickness and related medical bills. Moreover, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical woes over the past few years has been on the upswing.
The investigators surveyed a random national sample of 2,314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, studied their court records and then interviewed 1,032 of these financially strapped people. Bankruptcies were designated as "medical" based on the stated reasons a person had for filing, income loss due to sickness and the amount of their medical bills they owed. By relying on identical definitions in both 2001 and 2007, the researchers concluded that the share of bankruptcies caused by medical problems had soared by almost 50 percent during those years. In fact, the chances a bankruptcy had a medical cause were 2.38 fold higher in 2007 than in 2001.
The results of the research revealed that a variety of circumstances pushed many middle-class Americans over the edge into bankruptcy, even when they had health insurance. For example, 92 percent of the medically bankrupt ended up in that financial state due to high medical bills. And countless families who had health insurance were under-insured, leaving them responsible for thousands of dollars in medical bills they couldn't pay. In fact, out-of-pocket medical charges averaged just under $18,000 for those who had private insurance and yet went bankrupt due to medical expenses. Uninsured patients were faced with $26,971 in out-of-pocket expenses.
The study's authors point out that almost all insurance is linked to employment, so a medical illness can trigger both loss of a job and loss of health insurance coverage. Nationally, about a fourth of all companies cancel insurance coverage immediately when an employee suffers a disabling illness and another 25 percent cancel insurance within a year. Of course, losing a job due to the recession also usually means losing health insurance coverage.
"The US health care financing system is broken, and not only for the poor and uninsured. Middle class families frequently collapse under the strain of a health care system that treats physical wounds, but often inflicts fiscal ones," researcher David U.Himmelstein, M.D., wrote in The American Journal of Medicine article.
Despite the gloom and doom financial news related to medical illness, there is reason to take heart. Bottom line: a change of attitude and a healthier lifestyle can lead to less disease and fewer medical bills -- or no medical bills at all. In fact, an editorial previously published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that unhealthy eating habits and sedentary lifestyles represent the most common source of unnecessary death and disease among Americans. Bottom line: most disease is preventable by taking charge of the way you live and how you treat your own body, including what nutrients you put into it.
Unfortunately, according to another study published in the June edition of The American Journal of Medicine, Americans are not following a healthy lifestyle, despite the fact it can save their money and their life. What's more, the research reveals that there's actually a decline in healthy living, especially among people of middle age.
Investigators from the Department of Family Medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston compared the results of two large studies of Americans conducted between the years of 1988 and 1994 and between 2001 and 2006. They found that during the intervening years, there was a substantial increase in the percentage of adults between the ages of 40 and 74 who decreased their physical activity level and also gained weight. The research subjects were drinking far more alcohol and eating fewer fruits and vegetables, too, as the years rolled by.
Overall, the number of people practicing healthy lifestyle habits had slipped from 15 percent to only eight percent. And the researchers also found that even having cardiovascular disease, diabetes, high blood pressure or high cholesterol, or risk factors for those conditions didn't spur people to make healthy lifestyle choices.
"The potential public health benefits from promoting a healthier lifestyle at all ages, and especially ages 40 and 74 years, are substantial. Regular physical activity and a prudent diet can reduce the risk of premature death and disability from a variety of conditions including coronary heart disease, and are strongly related to the incidence of obesity," study author Dana E. King, MD, MS, stated in the article. "In the US, medical costs due to physical inactivity and its consequences are estimated at $76 billion in 2000 dollars. Research indicates that individuals are capable of adopting healthy habits in middle age, and making an impact on cardiovascular risk."
For those who want to make the effort, pursuing a healthy, natural, active lifestyle can reduce the risk of virtually all serious disease. As reported inNatural News(http://www.naturalnews.com/024315_h...), for instance, a previous Harvard study found that following a healthy lifestyle lowers the risk of coronary heart disease by 80 percent and the risk of diabetes by 90 percent. It may also prevent more than half of ischemic strokes.
September 2, 2009
Who's Blocking Health Care Reform Now? Blue Dogs? Senate Dems? House Progressives? Or the White House Itself?
By Bruce Dixon
source article
In less than a year, Democrats have transformed themselves from the party of change to the party of excuses. Republican birthers and teabaggers, blue dog Democrats, rogue donkey and elephant senators, and even progressives favoring single payer or the shadowy “public option” have all been blamed by the White House for holding up health care --- or is it health insurance --- reform. But with the end of the August recess, the ring is closing and the clock is ticking...
By the summer of 2008, Democrats had stopped pretending there was much difference between them and Republicans on foreign policy. Their candidates were younger and smarter, but they weren't going to stop the wars or bring more than a few of the troops home anytime soon or lift the Cuban blockade. Forget about that stuff, leading Democrats said. Where the Party of Change would deliver for sure, they told voters, would be health care. Voters listened, and delivered Democrats the White House, a crushing majority in the House and a filibuster-proof Senate.
The president's timetable called for passage of a health care bill in the summer of 2009, but it didn't happen. The White House blames almost everybody --- blue dog Democrats, a handful of right wing Democratic senators, Republican birthers and teabaggers, even the large number of Democrats who want single payer health care or its shadowy stand-in, the public option. But the games are wearing thin. Democrats are running out of time, room and excuses.
Anyone who can add knows Republicans are not blocking universal health care. The performances of Republican teabaggers at a few town halls notwithstanding, there are just not enough Republicans in the House and Senate to block anything. The president and his party can roll over Republican opposition any time they want to.
Blue dog Democrats aren't to blame for blocking the White House health care bills either. The political careers of many House blue dogs are the creation of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee dispensed them bags of corporate cash to win primary elections against left leaning Democrats. The interests that owned Rahm, and still do, own his successor at DCCC, so the blue dogs are White House puppies it can rein it any time it chooses.
Senator Baucus and a handful of right wing senators are not to blame either. Some are Republicans, who simply don't matter. They don't have the votes. And the Senate Democrats with their hands on the bill are all choices of the White House, and all dependent on the good will of that same White House for a percentage of their corporate campaign contributions. Senate Democrats are keenly aware that a sitting president of their own party has literally hundreds of ways to exert pressure on any single legislator. None of them is crossing the White House either.
The only obstacle to passage of the president's health care --- or health insurance legislation is the White House itself. Barack Obama knows better than any of us the difference between what he promised and what is about to be delivered. The undeniable difference is dawning on much of the public too, and is reflected in sagging poll numbers for Democrats and the president. The dozens of Democrats who have declared they will vote against any health care --- or health insurance --- bill that does not contain what they call a “public option,” are only trying to insulate themselves and protect President Obama from the worst consequences of his own treachery in selling out the vision of universal health care to big pharma and the insurance companies. They aren't blocking the president's bill. They're trying to ensure that there is something in the bill they can defend to the outraged public who elected them to pass health care reform.
From the beginning the president hamstrung his own grassroots supporters and made much of his vaunted email and phone list of 13 million volunteers useless by coming down hard against Medicare For All and any forms of single payer, which were among the prime motivations for their energy and devotion. So the people whose boundless enthusiasm swept Obama into the White House were not available to pack many of the town meetings. Some Democrats, like Dick Durbin of Illinois canceled their public meetings for fear of left leaning hostile, and likely pro-single payer crowds which even corporate media would find it hard to ignore.
Running away from single payer and all its eminently rational supporting arguments deprived corporate funded Democrats of most of the best answers to Republican charges that real reform was “socialized medicine” that would result in “rationed care.” It robbed President Obama and Democrats of the most potent leadoff arguments against the present untenable system --- that health insurance companies who produce no care at all account for one third of every health care dollar in the US, and that two thirds of all family bankruptcies are from unpayable medical bills. Democrats now can't make that argument because the Obama bill is a bailout for those same vampire insurance companies.
It made them unable to present a health care reform package as a job creating economic stimulus more real than anything the president has yet proposed. Adopting a single payer system, as the National Nurses Organization pointed out at the beginning of the year, would create 3.3 million new jobs. Subtracting out the 550,000 in the insurance industry who would have to find other livelihoods, a single payer health care plan would create a net surplus of 2.6 million new jobs, as many as the economy lost in all of 2007, and provide tens of billions in taxes that support the budgets of local governments. So with millions unemployed and underemployed Democrats cannot argue that their health care bill will put Americans back to work, or help fund local and state governments.
Progressives in the House, many of whom supported single payer when Bush was president, have switched to a shadowy something they call the public option. But although many of them know by now that the White House has gutted the public option from an original 120 million strong, large enough to actually force health care prices downward, to a mere 10 million, not nearly enough to compete with private insurance, congressional democrats continue to cling to this scrap of a fig leaf. It's not single payer, it's not even universal health care of any kind, they admit, but it's a big first step. They are contradicted by Obama's own HHS Secretary who declares that absolutely nothing in the public option or in the president's health insurance reform package will ever, under any circumstances lead to single payer.
Even Maryland's Rep. Donna Edwards could be seen on C-SPAN last weekend before a substantially pro-single payer crowd in her own district, claiming that although she preferred single payer, the public option would be the best they could get through the Congress this year. It was, “a uniquely American solution,” she said, echoing the right wing argument that single payer Medicare For All which she professed to support a few breaths before, was somehow un-American.
If progressives like Donna Edwards can be blamed for blocking health care reform, it's only because they are choosing to follow the White House lead and settle for “health insurance reform” instead. The White House itself, and our First Black President are the biggest political obstacles to achieving health care for every American, along with the corporate media which controls the public debate.
The fact that Lyndon Johnson fired up Medicare, enrolling and providing care to millions of seniors in only eleven months back in the pre-computer era of 1965-66 would be a potent pro-reform argument against those who argue about “socialized medicine” or a go-slow approach to health care reform. The barrier to delivering health care to additional millions has never been technical. It's always been political. But this too is an argument the White House and Congressional Democrats cannot throw against their opponents. The Obama plan's health insurance exchanges won't begin gearing up to cover the uninsured till 2013, three and a half years away. Oh, well.
It's not Republicans, it's not blocking blue dogs, or die-hard progressives who form the biggest political obstacle to enacting universal health care this year. It's Democrats, following the lead of the chief Democrat in the White House. In less than a year, the Democrats have gone from the party of Change to the party of Excuses.
The U.S. Health Care System - Values and Priorities By Brian McAfee |
Global Research, September 6, 2009 |
The current battles over the American health-care system are indicative of a wider philosophical and social divide. What is at stake and what is the desired outcome of each side? To answer such an enquiry, we must first look at the current health-care system as it exists in the United States. The World Health Organization ranks U.S. healthcare well below most of Europe, Canada and Japan. France and Italy rank at number one and two while the U.S. is in the thirty-seventh slot. Most of the countries that rank above the U.S. have some form of socialized medicine. Japan, which ranks tenth on the WHO list, is at number one in life expectancy with 74.5 years being the average while the U.S. is twenty-fourth in life expectancy, again well below much of Europe, Canada and Australia as well. An oft repeated declaration is that the U.S. has the best healthcare in the world. It is, also, stated that people across the globe come to the U.S. for medical treatments, such as the King of Jordan, who recently went to the Mayo Clinic for surgery. This outcomes happens when people can afford the high costs for travel and care. Likewise, U.S. citizens do the same, but in a reverse sort of fashion. For example, Richard DeVos, co-founder of AMWAY and a staunch Republican, went to Great Britain for a heart transplant and talk show host Charlie Rose went to France for heart surgery. These sorts of options, of course, do not exist for most Americans and, certainly, very few choices exist at all for the U.S. citizens who cannot afford healthcare coverage altogether. This in mind, the disturbances and displays of "righteous indignation" at town hall meetings need a closer look. News reports indicate that many of the people disrupting the gatherings of specific Democratic Congressional representatives were largely staged by combinations of HMO employees bussed to the town halls for the purpose of creating distortion of the truth and troubled "FOX NEWS" zealots who believe capitalism and business interests should come before people's health. On account, this entire bunch delivered much misinformation and lies about Obama's health-care plans, swayed lots of opinion polls, as well as showed a lack of knowledge about the benefits of universal health care delivery. Indeed, the right-wingers repeatedly compared Obama's proposed changes to Nazism, which was especially ridiculous. The Nazi comparisons are generally a bad idea for public discourse. However, there is an area that somewhat fits. During the Nazi era, particular businesses were given greater privilege and leeway over the well being of people and their rights with the most well known of these being I. G. Farben and Krupp. It was a clear cut idea and system where profit (and, of course, power) took precedence over people's needs. Like a boomerang, the Nazi comparison notion comes home to roost, but not quite in the way intended by the neocon crowd... Well, you get the idea. About Obama's potential health care plans, Dr Jackson, further, said that it has some problems. Specifically he mentioned that "if it does not include single payer, it will continue the same problems that we currently have". At the following links are located data concerning the World Health Organization's assessment of many nations' health care systems and life expectancies: The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health ... (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html) and Healthy Life Expectancy By Country (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthy_life_table2.html). When the U.S. is compared with and contrasted to other countries, its relative greatness in the broader scheme certainly comes into question. For this reason, American priorities must be carefully evaluated and, without screaming matches at town meetings, reset. |
Published on Saturday, September 5, 2009 by Rolling Stone
How Washington is Screwing Up Health Care Reform – and Why It May Take a Revolt to Fix It
by Rolling Stone
by Matt Taibbi
Let's start with the obvious: America has not only the worst but the dumbest health care system in the developed world. It's become a black leprosy eating away at the American experiment - a bureaucracy so insipid and mean and illogical that even our darkest criminal minds wouldn't be equal to dreaming it up on purpose.
The system doesn't work for anyone. It cheats patients and leaves them to die, denies insurance to 47 million Americans, forces hospitals to spend billions haggling over claims, and systematically bleeds and harasses doctors with the specter of catastrophic litigation. Even as a mechanism for delivering bonuses to insurance-company fat cats, it's a miserable failure: Greedy insurance bosses who spent a generation denying preventive care to patients now see their profits sapped by millions of customers who enter the system only when they're sick with incurably expensive illnesses.
The cost of all of this to society, in illness and death and lost productivity and a soaring federal deficit and plain old anxiety and anger, is incalculable - and that's the good news. The bad news is our failed health care system won't get fixed, because it exists entirely within the confines of yet another failed system: the political entity known as the United States of America.
Just as we have a medical system that is not really designed to care for the sick, we have a government that is not equipped to fix actual crises. What our government is good at is something else entirely: effecting the appearance of action, while leaving the actual reform behind in a diabolical labyrinth of ingenious legislative maneuvers.
Over the course of this summer, those two failed systems have collided in a spectacular crossroads moment in American history. We have an urgent national emergency on the one hand, and on the other, a comfortable majority of ostensibly simpatico Democrats who were elected by an angry population, in large part, specifically to reform health care. When they all sat down in Washington to tackle the problem, it amounted to a referendum on whether or not we actually have a functioning government.
It's a situation that one would have thought would be sobering enough to snap Congress into real action for once. Instead, they did the exact opposite, doubling down on the same-old, same-old and laboring day and night in the halls of the Capitol to deliver us a tour de force of old thinking and legislative trickery, as if that's what we really wanted. Almost every single one of the main players - from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Blue Dog turncoat Max Baucus - found some unforeseeable, unique-to-them way to fuck this thing up. Even Ted Kennedy, for whom successful health care reform was to be the great vindicating achievement of his career, and Barack Obama, whose entire presidency will likely be judged by this bill, managed to come up small when the lights came on.
We might look back on this summer someday and think of it as the moment when our government lost us for good. It was that bad.
Here's where we are right now: Before Congress recessed in August, four of the five committees working to reform health care had produced draft bills. On the House side, bills were developed by the commerce, ways and means, and labor committees. On the Senate side, a bill was completed by the HELP committee (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, chaired by Ted Kennedy). The only committee that didn't finish a bill is the one that's likely to matter most: the Senate Finance Committee, chaired by the infamous obfuscating dick Max Baucus, a right-leaning Democrat from Montana who has received $2,880,631 in campaign contributions from the health care industry.
The game in health care reform has mostly come down to whether or not the final bill that is hammered out from the work of these five committees will contain a public option - i.e., an option for citizens to buy in to a government-run health care plan. Because the plan wouldn't have any profit motive - and wouldn't have to waste money on executive bonuses and corporate marketing - it would automatically cost less than private insurance. Once such a public plan is on the market, it would also drive down prices offered by for-profit insurers - a move essential to offset the added cost of covering millions of uninsured Americans. Without a public option, any effort at health care reform will be as meaningful as a manicure for a gunshot victim. "The public option is the main thing on the table," says Michael Behan, an aide to Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. "It's really coming down to that."
The House versions all contain a public option, as does the HELP committee's version in the Senate. So whether or not there will be a public option in the end will likely come down to Baucus, one of the biggest whores for insurance-company money in the history of the United States. The early indications are that there is no public option in the Baucus version; the chairman hinted he favors the creation of nonprofit insurance cooperatives, a lame-ass alternative that even a total hack like Sen. Chuck Schumer has called a "fig leaf."
Even worse, Baucus has set things up so that the final Senate bill will be drawn up by six senators from his committee: a gang of three Republicans (Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Mike Enzi of Wyoming) and three Democrats (Baucus, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico) known by the weirdly Maoist sobriquet "Group of Six." The setup senselessly submarines the committee's Democratic majority, effectively preventing members who advocate a public option, like Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Robert Menendez of New Jersey, from seriously influencing the bill. Getting movement on a public option - or any other meaningful reform - will now require the support of one of the three Republicans in the group: Grassley (who has received $2,034,000 from the health sector), Snowe ($756,000) or Enzi ($627,000).
This is what the prospects for real health care reform come down to - whether one of three Republicans from tiny states with no major urban populations decides, out of the goodness of his or her cash-fattened heart, to forsake forever any contributions from the health-insurance industry (and, probably, aid for their re-election efforts from the Republican National Committee).
This, of course, is the hugest of long shots. But just to hedge its bets even further and ensure that no real reforms pass, Congress has made sure to cover itself, sabotaging the bill long before it even got to Baucus' committee. To do this, they used a five-step system of subtle feints and legislative tricks to gut the measure until there was nothing left.
STEP ONE: AIM LOW
Heading into the health care debate, there was only ever one genuinely dangerous idea out there, and that was a single-payer system. Used by every single developed country outside the United States (with the partial exceptions of Holland and Switzerland, which offer limited and highly regulated private-insurance options), single-payer allows doctors and hospitals to bill and be reimbursed by a single government entity. In America, the system would eliminate private insurance, while allowing doctors to continue operating privately.
In the real world, nothing except a single-payer system makes any sense. There are currently more than 1,300 private insurers in this country, forcing doctors to fill out different forms and follow different reimbursement procedures for each and every one. This drowns medical facilities in idiotic paperwork and jacks up prices: Nearly a third of all health care costs in America are associated with wasteful administration. Fully $350 billion a year could be saved on paperwork alone if the U.S. went to a single-payer system - more than enough to pay for the whole goddamned thing, if anyone had the balls to stand up and say so.
Everyone knows this, including the president. Last spring, when he met with Rep. Lynn Woolsey, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Obama openly said so. "He said if he were starting from scratch, he would have a single-payer system," says Woolsey. "But he thought it wasn't possible, because it would disrupt the health care industry."
Huh? This isn't a small point: The president and the Democrats decided not to press for the only plan that makes sense for everyone, in order to preserve an industry that is not only cruel and stupid and dysfunctional, but through its rank inefficiency has necessitated the very reforms now being debated. Even though the Democrats enjoy a political monopoly and could have started from a very strong bargaining position, they chose instead to concede at least half the battle before it even began.
Obama wasn't the only big Democrat to mysteriously abandon his position on single-payer. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Henry Waxman, the influential chair of the House commerce committee, have both backed away from their longtime support of single-payer. Hell, even Max-freaking-Baucus once conceded the logic of single-payer, saying only that it isn't feasible politically. "There may come a time when we can push for single-payer," he said in February. "At this time, it's not going to get to first base in Congress."
And helping it not get to first base was ... Max Baucus. It was Baucus' own committee that held the first round-table discussions on reform. In three days of hearings last May, he invited no fewer than 41 people to speak. The list featured all the usual industry hacks, including big insurers like America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), Blue Cross and Aetna. It's worth noting that several of the organizations invited - including AHIP and Amgen - employ several former Baucus staffers as lobbyists, including two of his ex-chiefs of staff.
Not one of the 41 witnesses, however, was in favor of single-payer - even though eliminating the insurance companies enjoys broad public support. Leading advocates of single-payer, including doctors from the Physicians for a National Health Program, implored Baucus to allow them to testify. When he refused, a group of eight single-payer activists, including three doctors, stood up during the hearings and asked to be included in the discussion. One of the all-time classic moments in the health care reform movement came when the second protester to stand up, Katie Robbins of Health Care Now, declared, "We need single-payer health care!"
To which Baucus, who looked genuinely frightened, replied, "We need more police!"
The eight protesters were led away in handcuffs and spent about seven hours in jail. "It's funny, the policemen were all telling us their horror stories about health care," recalls Dr. Margaret Flowers, one of the physicians who was jailed. "One was telling us about his mother who was 62 and lost her job and was uninsured, waiting to get Medicare when she was 65." The protesters were sentenced to six months' probation. Baucus later met with them and conceded that not including single-payer advocates in the discussion had been a mistake, although it was "too late" to change that.
Single-payer advocates have had an equally tough time getting a hearing with the president. In March, the White House refused to allow Rep. John Conyers to invite two physicians who support single-payer to the health care summit that Obama was holding to kick off the reform effort. Three months later, a single-payer advocate named David Scheiner, who served as Obama's physician for 22 years, was mysteriously bumped from a prime-time forum on health care, where he had been invited to ask the president a question.
Many of the health care advisers in Obama's inner circle, meanwhile, are industry hacks - people like Nancy-Ann DeParle, the president's health care czar, who has served on the boards of for-profit companies like Medco Health Solutions and Triad Hospitals. DeParle is so unthreatening to the status quo that Karen Ignagni, the insurance industry's leading lobbyist-gorgon, praised her "extensive experience" and "strong track record."
Behind closed doors, Obama also moved to cut a deal with the drug industry. "It's a dirty deal," says Russell Mokhiber, one of the protesters whom Baucus had arrested. "The administration told them, 'Single-payer is off the table. In exchange, we want you on board.'" In August, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America announced that the industry would contribute an estimated $150 million to campaign for Obamacare.
Even the Congressional Progressive Caucus, whose 80-plus members have overwhelmingly supported single-payer legislation in the past, decided not to draw a line in the sand. They agreed to back down on single-payer, seemingly with the understanding that Pelosi would push for a strong public option - a sort of miniversion of single-payer, a modest, government-run insurance plan that would serve as a test model for the real thing. But one of the immutable laws of politics in the U.S. Congress is that progressives will always be screwed by their own leaders, as soon as the opportunity presents itself. And with a bill the size and scope of health care, there was plenty of opportunity.
STEP TWO: GUT THE PUBLIC OPTION
Once single-payer was off the table, the Democrats lost their best bargaining chip. Rather than being in a position to use the fear of radical legislation to extract concessions from the right - a position Obama seemingly gave away at the outset, by punting on single-payer - Republicans and conservative Blue Dog Democrats suddenly realized that they had the upper hand. Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would now give away just about anything to avoid having to walk away without a real health care bill.
The situation was made worse as the flagging economy ate away at Obama's political capital. Polls showed the percentage of "highly engaged" Democrats plummeting, while the percentage of "highly engaged" Republicans - inspired by idiotic scare stories from Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin about socialized medicine and euthanasia - rose rapidly. By late summer, "the depth of Republican support was starting to rival the breadth of Democratic support," said noted statistician Nate Silver. The more the Republicans and Blue Dogs fidgeted and fucked around, the easier it would be for them to kill the public option. Democrats, who on the morning after Election Day could have passed a single-payer system without opposition, were now in a desperate hurry to make a deal.
The public option is hardly a cure-all: Among other things, it does nothing to reduce the $350 billion a year in unnecessary paperwork and administrative overhead that makes the current system so expensive and maddening. "That's one of the big issues," says an aide to a member of the progressive caucus. "None of this addresses the paperwork issue. It might even make it worse." But the basic idea of the public option is sound enough: create a government health plan that citizens could buy through regulated marketplaces called insurance "exchanges" run at the state level. Simply by removing the profit motive, the government plan would be cheaper than private insurance. "The goal here was to offer the rock-bottom price, the Walmart price, so that people could buy insurance practically at cost," says one Senate aide.
The logic behind the idea was so unassailable that its opponents often inadvertently found themselves arguing for it. "Assurances that the government plan would play by the rules that private insurers play by are implausible," groused right-wing douchebag George Will. "Competition from the public option must be unfair, because government does not need to make a profit and has enormous pricing and negotiating powers." In other words, if you offer a public plan that doesn't systematically fuck every single person in the country by selling health care at inflated prices and raking in monster profits, private insurers just won't be able to compete.
Will wasn't the only prominent opponent of reform openly arguing in favor of the insurance industry's right to continue doing business inefficiently. Sen. Ben Nelson, who together with Baucus are the Laverne and Shirley of turncoat Democrats, complained that the public option "would win the game." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell admitted that "private insurance will not be able to compete with a government option." This is a little like complaining that Keanu Reeves was robbed of an Oscar just because he can't act.
For a while, the public option looked like it might have a real chance at passing. In the House, both the ways and means committee and the labor committee passed draft bills that contained a genuine public option. But then conservative opponents of the plan, the so-called Blue Dog Democrats, mounted their counterattack. A powerful bloc composed primarily of drawling Southerners in ill-fitting suits, the Blue Dogs - a gang of puffed-up political mulattos hired by the DNC to pass as almost-Republicans in red-state battlegrounds - present themselves as a quasi-religious order, worshipping at the sacred altar of "fiscal responsibility" and "deficit reduction." On July 9th, in a harmless-sounding letter to Pelosi, 40 Blue Dogs expressed concern that doctors in the public option "must be fairly reimbursed at negotiated rates, and their participation must be voluntary." Paying doctors "using Medicare's below-market rates," they added, "would seriously weaken the financial stability of our local hospitals."
The letter was an amazing end run around the political problem posed by the public option - i.e., its unassailable status as a more efficient and cheaper health care alternative. The Blue Dogs were demanding that the very thing that makes the public option work - curbing costs to taxpayers by reimbursing doctors at Medicare rates plus five percent - be scrapped. Instead, the Blue Dogs wanted compensation rates for doctors to be jacked up, on the government's tab. The very Democrats who make a point of boasting about their unwavering commitment to fiscal conservatism were lobbying, in essence, for a big fat piece of government pork for doctors. "Cost should be the number-one concern to the Blue Dogs," grouses Rep. Woolsey. "That's why they're Blue Dogs."
In the end, the Blue Dogs won. When the House commerce committee passed its bill, the public option no longer paid Medicare-plus-five-percent. Instead, it required the government to negotiate rates with providers, ensuring that costs would be dramatically higher. According to one Democratic aide, the concession would bump the price of the public option by $1,800 a year for the average family of four.
In one fell swoop, the public plan went from being significantly cheaper than private insurance to costing, well, "about the same as what we have now," as one Senate aide puts it. This was the worst of both worlds, the kind of take-the-fork-in-the-road nonsolution that has been the peculiar specialty of Democrats ever since Bill Clinton invented a new way to smoke weed. The party could now sell voters on the idea that it was offering a "public option" without technically lying, while at the same time reassuring health care providers that the public option it was passing would not imperil the industry's market share.
Even more revolting, when Pelosi was asked on July 31st if she worried that progressives in the House would yank their support of the bill because of the sellout to conservatives, she literally laughed out loud. "Are the progressives going to take down universal, quality, affordable health care for all Americans?" she said, chuckling heartily to reporters. "I don't think so."
The laugh said everything about what the mainstream Democratic Party is all about. It finds the notion that it has to pay anything more than lip service to its professed values funny. "It's a joke," complains one Democratic aide. "This is all a game to these people - and they're good at it."
The concession to the Blue Dogs comes at a potentially disastrous price: Without a public option that drives down prices, the cost of other health care reforms being considered by Congress will almost certainly skyrocket. The trade-off with conservatives might be understandable, if those other reforms were actually useful. But this is Congress we're talking about.
STEP THREE: PACK IT WITH LOOPHOLES
Even seasoned congressional aides, who are accustomed to sitting through long and boring committee meetings, have found the debate over health care reform uniquely torturous. Unlike other congressional matters, where there is at least a feeling that the process might at some point be completed, the endless sessions over health care have led many staffers to fear that they will be locked in hearing rooms for the rest of their lives, listening to words like "target" and "mandate" and "doughnut hole" being repeated ad nauseam by weary, gray-faced, saggy-necked legislators - who begin, after weeks of self-inflated posturing, to look like the ugliest people in the universe. "You come out of these hearings," says Behan, the aide to Sen. Sanders, "and the number of interconnected, moving pieces going in and out of these bills is insane - the case for single-payer health insurance makes itself."
For those looking to fuck up health care reform - or to load it up with goodies for their rich pals - the tedium actually serves a broader purpose. Given that five different committees are weighing five different and often competing paths to reform, it's not surprising that all sorts of bizarre crap winds up buried in their bills, stuff no one could possibly have expected to be in there. The most glaring example, passed by Ted Kennedy's HELP committee, would allow the makers of complex drugs known as "biologics" to keep their formulas from being copied by rivals for 12 years - twice as long as the protection for ordinary pharmaceuticals. The notion that an effort ostensibly aimed at curbing health care costs would grant the pharmaceutical industry lucrative new protections against generic drugs is even weirder when you consider that earlier proposals, including one supported by Obama, would have protected brand-name drugs for only seven years.
Another favor to industry buried in the bills involves the issue of choice. From the outset, Democrats have been careful to make sure that a revamped system would not in any way force citizens to give up their existing health care plans. As Obama told the American Medical Association in June, "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."
That sounds great, particularly in conjunction with the new set of standards for employer-provided insurance outlined in the House version of reform. Under the bill - known as HR 3200 - employers must provide "essential benefits" to workers or face a stiff penalty. "Essential benefits" includes elements often missing in the fly-by-night plans offered by big employers: drug benefits, outpatient care, hospitalization, mental health, the works. If your employer does not offer acceptable coverage, you then have the right to go into one of the state-run insurance "exchanges," where you can select from a number of insurance plans, including the public option.
There's a flip side, though: If your employer offers you acceptable care and you reject it, you are barred from buying insurance in the insurance "exchange." In other words, you must take the insurance offered to you at work. And that might have made sense if, as decreed in the House version, employers actually had to offer good care. But in the Senate version passed by the HELP committee, there is no real requirement for employers to provide any kind of minimal level of care. On the contrary, employers who currently offer sub-par coverage will have their shitty plans protected by a grandfather clause. Which means ...
"If you have coverage you like, you can keep it," says Sen. Sanders. "But if you have coverage you don't like, you gotta keep it."
This grandfather clause has potentially wide-ranging consequences. One of the biggest health care problems we have in this country is the technique used by large employers - Walmart is the most notorious example - of offering dogshit, bare-bones health insurance that forces employees to take on steep co-pays and other massive charges. Low-wage workers currently offered these plans often reject them and join Medicaid, effectively shifting the health care burden for Walmart employees on to the taxpayer. If the HELP committee's grandfather clause survives to the final bill, those workers who did the sensible thing in rejecting Walmart's crap employer plan and taking the comparatively awesome insurance offered via Medicaid will now be rebuffed by the state and forced to take the dogshit Walmart offering.
This works out well for the states, who will get to purge all those Walmart workers from their Medicaid rolls. It also works great for Walmart, since any new competitors who appear on the horizon will be forced to offer genuine and more expensive health insurance - giving Walmart a clear competitive advantage. This little "glitch" is the essence of the health care reform effort: It changes things in a way that works for everyone except actual sick people.
Veteran legislators speak of this horrific loophole as if it were an accident - something that just sort of happened, while no one was looking. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon was looking at an early version of the bill several months ago, when he suddenly realized that it was going to leave people stuck with their employer insurance. "I woke up one morning and was like, 'Whoa, people aren't going to have choices,'" he recalls.
As a means of correcting the problem, Wyden wrote up a thing called the Free Choice Act, which like many of the prematurely sidelined ideas in this health care mess is actually quite sensible. The bill would open up the insurance "exchanges" to all consumers, regardless of who is offered employer-based insurance and who isn't. But Wyden has little hope of having his proposal included in later versions of the bill. Like Sanders, who hopes to correct the committee's giveaway to drugmakers, Wyden won't get a real shot at having an impact until the House and Senate meet to hammer out differences between their final bills. In a legislative sense, the bad ideas are already in the barn, and the solutions are fenced off in the fields, hoping to get in.
STEP FOUR: PROVIDE NO LEADERSHIP
One of the reasons for this chaos was the bizarre decision by the administration to provide absolutely no real oversight of the reform effort. From the start, Obama acted like a man still running for president, not someone already sitting in the White House, armed with 60 seats in the Senate. He spoke in generalities, offering as "guiding principles" the kind of I'm-for-puppies-and-sunshine platitudes we got used to on the campaign trail - investment in prevention and wellness, affordable health care for all, guaranteed choice of doctor. At no time has he come out and said what he wants Congress to do, in concrete terms. Even in June, when congressional leaders desperate for guidance met with chief of staff (and former legislative change-squelcher) Rahm Emanuel, they got no signal at all about what the White House wanted. On the question of a public option, Emanuel was agonizingly noncommittal, reportedly telling Senate Democrats that the president was still "open to alternatives."
On the same day Emanuel was passing the buck to senators, Obama was telling reporters that it's "still too early" to have a "strong opinion" on a public option. This was startling news indeed: Eight months after being elected president of the United States is too early to have an opinion on an issue that Obama himself made a central plank of his campaign? The president conceded only that a "public option makes sense."
This White House makes a serial vacillator like Bill Clinton look like Patton crossing the Rhine. Veterans from the Clinton White House, in fact, jumped on Obama. "The president may have overlearned the lesson of the Clinton health care plan fiasco, which was: Don't deliver a package to the Hill, let the Hill take ownership," said Robert Reich, who served as labor secretary under Clinton. There were now so many competing ideas about how to pay for the plan and what kind of mandates to include that even after the five bills are completed, Congress will not be much closer to reform than it was at the beginning. "The president has got to go in there and give it coherence," Reich concluded.
But Reich's comment assumes that Obama wants to give the bill coherence. In many ways, the lily-livered method that Obama chose to push health care into being is a crystal-clear example of how the Democratic Party likes to act - showering a real problem with a blizzard of ineffectual decisions and verbose nonsense, then stepping aside at the last minute to reveal the true plan that all along was being forged off-camera in the furnace of moneyed interests and insider inertia. While the White House publicly eschewed any concrete "guiding principles," the People Who Mattered, it appeared, had already long ago settled on theirs. Those principles seem to have been: no single-payer system, no meaningful public option, no meaningful employer mandates and a very meaningful mandate for individual consumers. In other words, the only major reform with teeth would be the one forcing everyone to buy some form of private insurance, no matter how crappy, or suffer a tax penalty. If the public option is the sine qua non for progressives, then the "individual mandate" is the counterpart must-have requirement for the insurance industry.
"That was their major policy 'ask,' and it looks like they're going to get it," says Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a Boston physician who is a prominent single-payer advocate.
The so-called "individual mandate" is currently included in four of the five bills before Congress. The most likely version to survive into the final measure resembles the system in Massachusetts designed by Mormon glambot Mitt Romney, who imposed tax penalties on citizens who did not buy insurance. Several of Romney's former advisers are involved in the writing of Obamacare, including a key aide to Ted Kennedy who was instrumental in designing the HELP committee legislation. The federal version of the Massachusetts plan would slap the uninsured with a hefty tax penalty - making the HELP committee clause barring people from opting out of their employer-provided plan that much more outrageous.
If things go the way it looks like they will, health care reform will simply force great numbers of new people to buy or keep insurance of a type that has already been proved not to work. "The IRS and the government will force people to buy a defective product," says Woolhandler. "We know it's defective because three-quarters of all people who file for bankruptcy because of medical reasons have insurance when they get sick - and they're bankrupted anyway."
STEP FIVE: BLOW THE MATH
Health care is a beast - a monster. The House 3200 bill alone is 1,017 pages long and contains countless inscrutable references to other pieces of legislation, meaning that in order to fully comprehend even those thousand pages one really has to read upward of 9,000 or 10,000 pages. There are five different versions of this creature, each with its own nuances and shades, and solving a highly complex mathematical challenge like reconciling the costs of each of the five plans would be beyond even minds who were (a) expert at such things and (b) motivated to get it right. Imagine the same problem in the hands of a bunch of second-rate country lawyers and mall owners, and you about get the idea of what the congressional picture looks like.
For instance: All five of the bills envision a significant expansion of Medicaid. As it stands, the LBJ-era program, which celebrated its 44th birthday on the day before Nancy Pelosi laughed at the progressives, awards benefits according to a jumbled series of state-by-state criteria. Some states, like Vermont, offer Medicaid to citizens whose income is as high as 300 percent of the federal poverty level, while others, like Georgia, only offer Medicaid to those closer to or below the poverty level.
The House plan would expand Medicaid eligibility to automatically include every American whose income is 133 percent of the poverty level or less. For those earning somewhat more - up to 400 percent of the poverty level - federal subsidies would help pay for the cost of a public or private plan purchased via the insurance "exchanges." That worries state governments, which currently pay for almost half of Medicaid - and which are already seeing their Medicaid rolls swelled by the economic meltdown. A massive surge in new Medicaid members - as many as 11 million Americans under the current proposals, according to the Congressional Budget Office - might literally render many big states insolvent overnight.
Democrats pointed out that under the House plan, the federal government would pay the costs of any "newly eligible" members of Medicaid. But that phrasing, it turns out, was a semantic trick designed to undersell the cost to the states. When Massachusetts imposed a similar mandate under Romney, thousands of people who were already eligible for Medicaid, but had not enrolled, immediately joined the program in order to avoid the tax penalty for being uninsured. So while the House plan would pay for "newly eligible" patients, it won't cover the "oldly eligible."
Congress in this instance is behaving like corporations in the Enron age, orphaning hidden costs and complications through clever wording and accounting. Another neat trick involves the federal subsidies for low-income people who make up to 400 percent of the poverty level. The Congressional Budget Office projects that under the House bill, the subsidies will cost upward of $773 billion by 2019. But some aides think that number could end up being much higher. "Without a real public option to drive down costs, the federal support to make sure everyone gets coverage is going to get very expensive very fast," says Behan, the aide to Sen. Sanders.
Here's the other thing. By blowing off single-payer and cutting the heart out of the public option, the Obama administration robbed itself of its biggest argument - that health care reform is going to save a lot of money. That has left the Democrats vulnerable to charges that the plan is going to blow a mile-wide hole in the budget, one we'll be paying debt service on through the year 3000. It also left them scrambling to find other ways to pay for the plan, making it almost inevitable that they would step in political shit with seniors everywhere by trying surreptitiously to whittle down Medicare. As a result, the Democrats have become so oversensitive to charges of fiscal irresponsibility that they're taking their frustrations out on people who don't deserve it. Witness Nancy Pelosi's bizarre freakout over the Congressional Budget Office. When the CBO questioned Obama's projected cost savings, Pelosi blasted them for "always giving you the worst-case scenario" - which, of course, is exactly what the budget office is supposed to do. When you start asking your accountant to look on the bright side, you know you're not dealing from a position of strength.
To recap, here's what ended up happening with health care. First, they gave away single-payer before a single gavel had fallen, apparently as a bargaining chip to the very insurers mostly responsible for creating the crisis in the first place. Then they watered down the public option so as to make it almost meaningless, while simultaneously beefing up the individual mandate, which would force millions of people now uninsured to buy a product that is no longer certain to be either cheaper or more likely to prevent them from going bankrupt. The bill won't make drugs cheaper, and it might make paperwork for doctors even more unwieldy and complex than it is now. In fact, the various reform measures suck so badly that PhRMA, the notorious mouthpiece for the pharmaceutical industry which last year spent more than $20 million lobbying against health care reform, is now gratefully spending more than seven times that much on a marketing campaign to help the president get what he wants.
So what's left? Well, the bills do keep alive the so-called employer mandate, requiring companies to provide insurance to their employees. A good idea - except that the Blue Dogs managed to exempt employers with annual payrolls below $500,000, meaning that 87 percent of all businesses will be allowed to opt out of the best and toughest reform measure left. Thanks to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, we can now be assured that the 19 or 20 employers in America with payrolls above $500,000 who do not already provide insurance will be required to offer good solid health coverage. Hurray!
Or will they? At the end of July, word leaked out that the Senate Finance Committee, in addition to likely spiking the public option, had also decided to ditch the employer mandate. It was hard to be certain, because even Democrats on the committee don't know what's going on in the Group of Six selected by Baucus to craft the bill. Things got so bad that some Democrats on the committee - including John Kerry, Chuck Schumer and Robert Menendez - were reduced to holding what amounts to shadow hearings on health care several times a week, while Baucus and his crew conducted their meetings in relative secrecy. The chairman did not even bother to keep his fellow Democrats informed of the bill's developments, let alone what he has promised Republicans in return for their support of the bill. "The Group of Six has hijacked the process," says an aide to one of the left-out senators.
This leaves Democrats on the committee in the strange position of seriously considering pulling their support for a bill that will emerge from a panel on which they hold a clear majority. Other Democrats are also weighing an end run around their own leadership, hoping to sneak meaningful reforms back into the process. In the House, Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York refused to support the bill passed by the commerce committee unless he was allowed to attach an amendment that will enable Congress to vote on replacing the entire reform bill with a single-payer plan (Bernie Sanders is working on a similar measure in the Senate). On the labor committee, Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio took a more nuanced tack, offering an amendment that would free up states to switch to a single-payer system of their own.
It's highly unlikely, though, that the party's leaders will agree to include such measures when the five competing reform bills are eventually combined. On the House side, "Pelosi has unfettered discretion to combine the bills as she pleases," observes one Democratic aide. Which leaves us where we are today, as Congress enjoys its vacation, and the various sides have taken to the airwaves in an advertising blitz to make sure the population is saturated with idiotic misconceptions before the bill is actually voted on in the fall.
The much-ballyhooed right-wing scare campaign, with its teabagger holdovers ridiculously disrupting town-hall meetings with their belligerent protests and their stoneheaded memes (the sign raised at a town hall held by Rep. Rick Larson of Washington - keep the guvmint out of my medicare - is destined to become a classic of conservative propaganda), has proved to be almost totally irrelevant to the entire enterprise. Aside from lowering even further the general level of civility (teabaggers urged Sen. Chris Dodd to off himself with painkillers; Rep. Brad Miller had his life threatened), the Limbaugh minions have accomplished nothing at all, except to look like morons for protesting as creeping socialism a reform effort designed specifically to change as little as possible and to preserve at all costs our malfunctioning system of private health care.
All that's left of health care reform is a collection of piece-of-shit, weakling proposals that are preposterously expensive and contain almost nothing meaningful - and that set of proposals, meanwhile, is being negotiated down even further by the endlessly negating Group of Six. It is a fight to the finish now between Really Bad and Even Worse. And it's virtually guaranteed to sour the public on reform efforts for years to come.
"They'll pass some weak, mediocre plan that breaks the bank and even in the best analysis leaves 37 million people uninsured," says Mokhiber, one of the single-payer activists arrested by Baucus. "It's going to give universal health care a bad name."
It's a joke, the whole thing, a parody of Solomonic governance. By the time all the various bills are combined, health care will be a baby not split in half but in fourths and eighths and fractions of eighths. It's what happens when a government accustomed to dealing on the level of perception tries to take on a profound emergency that exists in reality. No matter how hard Congress may try, though, it simply is not possible to paper over a crisis this vast.
Then again, some of the blame has to go to all of us. It's more than a little conspicuous that the same electorate that poured its heart out last year for the Hallmark-card story line of the Obama campaign has not been seen much in this health care debate. The handful of legislators - the Weiners, Kuciniches, Wydens and Sanderses - who are fighting for something real should be doing so with armies at their back. Instead, all the noise is being made on the other side. Not so stupid after all - they, at least, understand that politics is a fight that does not end with the wearing of a T-shirt in November.
Milk May Endanger Your Health, and the Dairy Industry Knows It
By Ari LeVaux, AlterNet
Posted on September 7, 2009, Printed on September 7, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/142377/
A mutant protein has invaded the world's dairy supply, including, most likely, the milk in your fridge.
The protein, called A1 beta-casein, is well known in the scientific community. While most dairy companies, trade groups and government agencies consider it harmless, a growing body of research implicates A1 beta-casein in diabetes, heart disease, autism and schizophrenia.
The original mutation occurred several thousand years ago, causing cow zero and its offspring to produce milk in which the amino acid histidine occupies the 67th position of the beta-casein protein found in milk solids.
The amino acid proline occupies that position in the nonmutant, original form of the A2 protein. Today, the average vessel of milk contains milk from many cows, with a mixture of both A1 and A2 beta-casein.
Keith Woodford, a professor of farm management and agribusiness at Lincoln University in Christchurch, New Zealand, is spreading the word about what he believes to be the dangers of milk containing A1 beta-casein.
His book, Devil in the Milk, builds on more than 100 peer-reviewed studies to present a compelling case that A1 milk poses substantial health risks.
The book is a technical read, and conspiracy theorists will find it gripping, as Woodford details the extent to which corporations and government bodies with entrenched interests in maintaining A1 milk's reputation have disputed, ignored and silenced evidence suggesting there might be a problem.
If Woodford is right, those fighting to sweep this research under the rug are endangering the health of millions, if not billions, and for little in the way of return. He says it would be a simple matter to remove A1 beta-casein from the word's milk supply.
A New Zealand company, A2 Corp., has patented means of testing cattle for the A1 mutation. The company assists dairies in switching their herds to A2 production, which takes about two generations, or 10 years. A2 Corp. also certifies dairies that produce pure A2 milk and helps market it.
While Woodford makes it clear neither he nor his family have any financial interest in A2 Corp., it's clear he hopes the company succeeds.
Countries with the highest levels of A1 in their milk also have the greatest incidence of Type 1 diabetes and heart disease, Woodford explains. This observation inspired a study on rodents, in which one group of rats was fed A1 beta-casein and the other was fed A2. None of the A2 group developed diabetes, while half the A1 group did. Other animal studies implicate A1 in heart disease.
The evidence linking A1 milk to autism and schizophrenia follows similar lines: Correlations in population studies and support from animal studies, but scarce research on human subjects.
Direct research on humans, Woodford explains, is fraught with ethical and practical difficulties:
The subjects of the trial would need to be identified as babies and then put on either A1 or A2 formula milk once breastfeeding ceased. The trials would probably need to go on for many years, and the children prevented from eating any "ordinary" dairy products. The parents of each child would need to give permission and be actively involved, but could not be permitted to know whether their beautiful and initially healthy baby was getting the A1 or A2 formula.
The theories for how these maladies might manifest from A1 milk and not A2 center on a protein fragment known as BCM-7, which is released when A1 beta-casein is digested. BCM-7 is found in high concentrations in the urine of autistics and schizophrenics.
As for the connection to diabetes, Woodford suggests that since BCM-7 is similar to an amino acid sequence in the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas, the body might mistakenly attack these cells in an effort to get rid of BCM-7.
The lack of direct proof of a link between A1 milk and any diseases -- which only human trials could produce -- has been latched onto by the A1 defenders.
There's "not sufficient evidence for the claims being made by the marketers of A2 milk," I was told, via e-mail, by the National Dairy Council's Stacey Stevens. "Reviews of the science to date confirm there's no reason to think A2 milk might have health benefits beyond those of regular milk."
This statement seems to dodge the fact that the issue I had asked her about isn't the supposed health benefits of A2 milk, but the possible health risks of A1 milk.
Stevens responded to my initial query promptly, but I received no response when I asked her to clarify the Dairy Council's position by agreeing to the statement, "There is no reason to think that A1 milk might have health risks."
Stevens' response is typical from the dairy industry. Woodford thinks it's a result of fear that the public will get scared off all milk.
"We're comfortable that all milk -- A1 milk, A2 milk -- is really good for you, and you should keep drinking it," said Carole Inkster of the New Zealand Food Safety Authority in a New Zealand television report on A2 milk. Fred Brenmuhl, of New Zealand Federated Farmers responded to the potential dangers of A1 milk by saying, "Stopping the consumption of milk products is probably more dangerous than anything else."
In May 2007, A2 Corp. began marketing A2 milk in the U.S. produced by Prairieland Dairy in Nebraska. But in December 2008, the company temporarily discontinued its U.S. marketing efforts in order to rebrand and relaunch A2 milk products more broadly.
In the meantime, if you wish to avoid A1 beta-casein, you have a few options: Milk from goats and sheep doesn't contain A1 beta-casein.
Dairy products made from milk fat, like butter, don't contain A1 beta-casein, even if the milk they were made from did. The jury is still out on the A1 content of cheese and yogurt.
Beyond the one-time expense and inconvenience of switching their herds, Woodford says there is little for the dairy industry to fear in the possibility that A2 milk is safer, and he regrets the industry continues to view the issue as more of a risk than opportunity.
Although frustrated, he isn't completely surprised, even at resistance from within the scientific community. He cites many examples of slow acceptance of new medical ideas, including Robin Warren's 1979 discovery that stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria.
Warren received the Nobel Prize in 2005, Woodford writes, but in 2000 "the work was still being described as 'controversial.' "
Ari LeVaux writes a syndicated weekly food column.
“DNA can be faked”: Authentication of forensic DNA samples By Dan Frumkin and Adam Wasserstrom and Arnon Grafit |
Global Research, August 29, 2009 |
Abstract |
The US Health Insurance Assault on Canadian Medicare By Elizabeth Woodworth |
Global Research, August 28, 2009 |
There’s nothing new about the US health insurance industry attacking Canadian Medicare. Back in the eighties, Burson Marsteller, PR front for the US industry, worked from its Toronto offices to publicly undermine the confidence of Canadians in their treasured Medicare program – a program which, according to the US industry, was “the largest unopened oyster in Canada”. Now, two decades later, as President Obama seeks to bring a universal single-payer system to the United States, the inevitable response is in full swing. Back in the sixties, when first Saskatchewan, and then Canada, were precariously inching their way towards universal single-payer health care, there were two extremes of doctors: the ones who fled to the United States to maximize their income under a profit-based system, and the ones who arrived from Britain to break the Canadian doctors’ strike, and who worked for nothing to support the fledgling humanitarian principle: universal health care coverage affordable by all. (See Malcolm Taylor’s dramatic history of the struggle to bring Medicare to Canada.[1]) The resulting Medicare system is Canada’s most treasured social program, and has become a “defining national characteristic”. Canada’s response to the current battle waging in the US can perhaps best be summed up in a recent eight-minute video[2] of a celebration of Canadian Medicare, featuring, among others, former Saskatchewan Premier Roy Romanow, and Commissioner of the Romanow Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada (2003). It would greatly help to clarify US options if every American would watch this video. If the US is ever to have a decent health care system (its infant mortality rate, a primary indicator of health status for countries worldwide, is higher than those of Cuba, Greece, Portugal, Macau, Slovenia, South Korea and Taiwan[3]), now is the time for its citizenry to sit up and take notice of successes elsewhere. For example, 16 % of GDP the US pays on health care, with one-seventh of its people completely uninsured, is staggeringly high compared to 30 OECD countries, mostly in Europe, whose average health insurance cost is 8.9% of GDP[4]. No wonder the US health industry is employing attack ads against other systems: it stands to lose 7% of GDP. If Americans believe the grossly misleading advertisements about Canada, they deserve no better than what they are presently getting: 16% of GDP spent on a system with hospitals half-full, and over 45 million people completely uninsured. The unfortunate tragedy is, that instead of viewing other models and expecting its government to provide a universal social safety net against illness, the US people allows its corporations to run an unfettered, profit-driven “devil take the hindmost” catastrophe. At least that’s how some other countries see it. References: 1. Malcolm Taylor. “Health Insurance and Canadian Public Policy: The Seven Decisions That Created the Canadian Health Insurance System and Their Outcomes,” McGill-Queens University Press, 1988. 2. The video is titled “Universal Health Care Message to Americans From Canadian Doctors & Health Care Experts”, and can be seen athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXXBCFnhsUc. 3. Index Mundi. (http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=bg&v=29). 4. “OECD Health Data 2009. How Does the United Kingdom Compare?”, p. 1. (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/4/38980557.pdf). Elizabeth Woodworth worked for 25 years as the head librarian for the British Columbia Ministry of Health, where she also served on the official response team to the 1991 British Columbia Royal Commission on Health |
Reverse Aging: Easier Than You Think
By Tom Jacobs, Miller-McCune.com
Posted on August 26, 2009, Printed on August 27, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/142232/
Here's an innovative way to lower health care costs: Set everyone's biological clock back 20 years. Senior citizens of 75 will enjoy the strength and stamina they had at 55, meaning they will need far less medical attention. The energetic elderly will remain productive members of their community later into life, which could also ease the strain on Social Security.
Granted, this sounds like an unusually wonky episode of The Twilight Zone. But three decades ago, Harvard University psychologist Ellen Langer conducted a landmark experiment that suggested reverse aging needn't be relegated to the realm of science fiction. Her revealing study, the many follow-ups it spawned and the implications of their findings are the subject of her fascinating new book Counterclockwise: Mindful Health and the Power of Possibility.
It's a brightly written work — Langer has a knack for metaphors — that deftly challenges an array of assumptions we hold about health. She reminds readers that many definitive-sounding diagnoses are in fact best guesses, and that no study, however elegant and persuasive, can truly tell us the best course of treatment for any particular patient. Physicians, she counsels, should be thought of as "consultants." Ultimately, we know our own bodies best.
In a sense, this is a book about the limits of empirical knowledge. But as Langer sees it, the ambiguity that inevitably accompanies medical research can be profoundly liberating. If we can't be sure that a diagnosis — or a widely accepted truism such as "memory loss is inevitable with age" — truly applies in our case, we're less likely to stick ourselves with a self-limiting label. "While many of our experienced disabilities may be a natural part of aging," she writes, "many are instead a function of our mindsets about old age."
The ingenious counterclockwise experiment was conducted in 1979. Langer and her students recruited two small groups of elderly men to spend a week living in a secluded New Hampshire monastery. Those in the control group spent the seven days reminiscing about the past, while those in the experimental group effectively re-entered the past. Their environment was designed to convey the impression they were living in 1959. They watched movies, listened to songs and read magazines from that era and discussed "current events" such as the first U.S. satellite launches.
"Both groups came out of the experience with their hearing and memory improved," Langer reports. (It appears our bodies respond to being intellectually and emotionally engaged.) But members of the experimental group experienced more dramatic benefits. They were more likely to improve their scores on an intelligence test; more likely to show improvement in joint flexibility and dexterity; and more likely to look younger, as judged by a group of outside observers who compared before-and-after photos. Also, their fingers were longer. Since their arthritis declined in severity, they were able to extend their digits past the point they could a week earlier.
A fluke, perhaps? Well, Langer offers plenty of other data suggesting a strong link between self-perception and health. My favorite involves a group of hotel maids who reported their long hours and family responsibilities didn't give them time to exercise. They were then told that their work, with all its bending and scrubbing, in fact involves quite a bit of exercise. So informed, they lost an average of 2 pounds over the next four weeks. Langer, who has spent several decades studying the effects of mindfulness, notes the women were paying renewed attention to activities that long ago became routine and mechanical. That, she suggests, is the key: If you're noticing the precise condition of the carpet rather than daydreaming as you vacuum, chances are you'll push the machine a little bit harder.
Langer defines mindfulness not in the Buddhist sense of meditation and detachment, but rather as being aware enough to notice subtle changes in ourselves and in our environment. The health implications of such alertness are obvious: If we notice small shifts in how we feel, we can address problems before they become acute. She argues we will also begin to realize that the distinction we make between being "sick" and "well" is often arbitrary and usually unhelpful, in that it prompts us to bounce back and forth between willful ignorance of our body's workings and helpless dependence on a medical professional.
Langer wrote a best-selling book on mindfulness in 1990, and this latest volume may also climb the charts: A Hollywood movie focusing on the counterclockwise experiment, starring Jennifer Aniston as the research psychologist, is scheduled for release next year. No doubt the renewed interest in Langer's research reflects a widespread fear of aging among baby boomers, many of whom will resonate to her ideas. How many have the discipline to follow through on her recommendations is another question. Living a fully engaged life in which we constantly question not only society's assumptions about aging but also our own ingrained beliefs is a bit more involved than getting a Botox injection.
Nevertheless, policymakers and health educators need to be exposed to these concepts. (Her chapter about the consequences of language used by doctors should be taught in medical schools. Does anyone really feel better when told their cancer is "in remission"?) Langer persuasively suggests it is no coincidence that a society that worships youth and considers the elderly somewhat embarrassing is bankrupting itself with health care costs. If pop culture and the mass media equate being old with being weak, helpless and irrelevant, why wouldn't the elderly feel feeble?
So the fountain of youth may in fact be the flood of chemicals in our brain that processes both internal and external messages about old age and dutifully passes them on to our joints, blood vessels and vital organs. Perhaps it's time to start noticing these cerebral downloads and disregard the disempowering ones. Personally, I'm planning to pop in a tape of When Harry Met Sally into the VCR and celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall. It turns out 1989 was quite a year.
Tom Jacobs is a veteran journalist with more than 20 years experience at daily newspapers. He has served as a staff writer for the Los Angeles Daily News and the Santa Barbara News-Press. His work has also appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and Ventura County Star.
August 24, 2009
"Mad as Hell" Doctors hit the road for Single Payer Health Plan
By Pam Miles
Mad Doctors Hit the Road
On September 8, 2009 a group of dedicated Oregon physicians will take the message of Universal Health Care "on the road" in a wrapped and branded Motor Home headed for Washington D.C. Our cross-country mission: to stop in big cities and whistle stops alike, conducting pre-booked, local and national media appearances for a curious press. Every move we make along the way will be recorded on camera and then edited and uploaded to the internet that same day. This will allow our Mad As Hell Doctors Tour to leverage the edited video segments on social networking web sites such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, MySpace, et al. In this way, our effort becomes an unprecedented hybrid of reality television and political activism that offers people the opportunity to follow us, in real time, as our story unfolds. The message will be unmistakable: caravan with us to Washington and help make a public demonstration of support for Single Payer Health Care that will be heard around the world.
Imagine...
Thousands of cars pulling into the nation's capital for a protest on the White House lawn. The sidewalks are filled with supporters carrying signs in support of the Mad As Hell Doctors who have captured the imagination and the ignited the passion of their fellow citizens. We wave and honk at the camera crews, as do the endless line of cars behind us, as we wend our way toward the White House. On every antenna, on the backside of every car, and flapping like flags from sidewalk supporters, is the symbol of this new movement: the White Ribbon.
When we arrive, we go directly to the White House Lawn and begin passing out ribbons to the multitude of people waiting for the protest to begin. Politicians, celebrities, entertainers and hand selected citizens stand at the microphone one after the other, offering testimonials and expressing outrage at a corrupted health care system that puts profit before people. Our message to the President and Congress is clear:
Single Payer is the Solution. We Demand it Now.
We know it's going to take a miracle to make this happen, but we're leaving on September 8, 2009, no matter what - even if we have to skateboard into D.C.! And it is in that same spirit we are asking for your support. It's going to take boldness, courage, commitment, a busload of faith and a lot of resources to rally the American people to the cause of Single Payer. But with hundreds of thousands of voices, all singing in unison, in the same place, at the same, we will not be denied.
9/8 - Leave Portland for Seattle
9/9 - Spokane
9/10 - Helena, MT
9/11 - Idaho Falls
9/12 - Salt Lake City
9/13 - Ft. Collins, CO
9/14 - Denver
9/15 - Des Moines
9/16 - St. Paul, MN
9/17 - Madison, WI
9/18-9/19 - Chicago
9/20 - Indianapolis
9/21 - Nashville
9/22 - Louisville
9/23 - Dayton, OH
9/24 - Ft. Wayne, IN
9/26 - Detroit
9/27 - Toledo, OH
9/28 - Cleveland
9/29 - Pittsburgh
9/30-10/1 - Washington DC
Published on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 by The Independent/UK
A Mean Streak in the US Mainstream
The US tolerates more inequality, deprivation and suffering than is acceptable here
by Mary Dejevsky
When we Europeans – the British included – contemplate the battles President Obama must fight to reform the US health system, our first response tends to be disbelief. How can it be that so obvious a social good as universal health insurance, so humane a solution to common vulnerability, is not sewn deep into the fabric of the United States? How can one of the biggest, richest and most advanced countries in the world tolerate a situation where, at any one time, one in six of the population has to pay for their treatment item by item, or resort to hospital casualty wards?
The second response, as automatic as the first, is to blame heartless and ignorant Republicans. To Europeans, a universal health system is so basic to a civilised society that only the loony right could possibly oppose it: the people who cling to their guns, picket abortion clinics (when they are not trying to shoot the abortionists) and block funding for birth control in the third world. All right, we are saying to ourselves, there are Americans who think like this, but they are out on an ideological limb.
If only this were true. The reason why Obama is finding health reform such a struggle – even though it was central to his election platform – is not because an extreme wing of the Republican Party, mobilised by media shock-jocks, is foaming at the mouth, or because Republicans have more money than Democrats to buy lobbying and advertising power. Nor is it only because so many influential groups, from insurance companies through doctors, have lucrative interests to defend – although this is a big part of it.
It is because very many Americans simply do not agree that it is a good idea. And they include not only mainstream Republicans, but Democrats, too. Indeed, Obama's chief problem in seeking to extend health cover to most Americans is not Republican opposition: he thrashed John McCain to win his presidential mandate; he has majorities in both Houses of Congress. If Democrats were solidly behind reform, victory would already be his.
The unpalatable fact for Europeans who incline to think that Americans are just like us is that Democrats are not solidly behind Obama on this issue. Even many in the party's mainstream must be wooed, cajoled and even – yes – frightened, if they are ever going to agree to change the status quo. Universal healthcare is an article of faith in the US only at what mainstream America would regard as the bleeding- heart liberal end of the spectrum.
As some of Obama's enemies warned through the campaign – and I mean warned, not promised – this is the philosophical terrain where, his voting record suggests, this President is most at home. But many more are not. The absence from the Senate of Edward Kennedy, through illness, and Hillary Clinton, elevated to the State Department, has left his pro-reform advocacy in the legislature sorely depleted.
But there is something else at work here, too, beyond defective advocacy, and it lays bare a profound misunderstanding. Europe hailed Obama's landslide election victory as evidence that America had reclaimed its better self, turned to the left and bade farewell to ingrained racial divisions as well. That was a benevolent, but ultimately idealistic, gloss.
Obama's victory can indeed be seen as a reaction to eight years of conservative Republicanism under George Bush and a turn by US voters to the left. But that left is still quite a bit further right than in most of Europe. Nor was it just a leftward turn that cost John McCain the White House; it was also a rejection of the weaker candidate. Obama's great asset was that he came across as more competent on the economy, at a time of global financial meltdown. From this side of the Atlantic, we convinced ourselves that Americans had voted with their hearts, but there was a considerable element of the wallet as well.
That wallet element helps explain the deep-seated misgivings that have surfaced about Obama's plans for health reform. A majority of Americans believe they have adequate health cover. Their choice of job may be limited by their insurance requirements (and labour mobility reduced). And their calculations may be upset – sometimes disastrously – by accident or illness.
But with most pensioners protected by the state system known as Medicare, an "I'm all right, Jack" attitude prevails. It coexists with the fear that extending the pool of the insured, to the poorer and more illness-prone, will raise premiums for the healthy and bring queuing, or rationing, of care – which is why stories about the NHS inspire such dread. The principle that no one should be penalised financially by illness is trumped by the self-interest of the majority, then rationalised by the argument that health is a matter of personal responsibility.
The point is that, when on "normal", the needle of the US barometer is not only quite a way to the political right of where it would be in Europe, but showing a very different atmospheric level, too. For there is a mean and merciless streak in mainstream US attitudes, which tolerates much more in the way of inequality, deprivation and suffering than is acceptable here, while incorporating a large and often sanctimonious quotient of blame.
This transatlantic difference goes far beyond the healthcare debate. Consider the give-no-quarter statements out of the US on the release of the Lockerbie bomber – or the continued application of the death penalty, or the fact that excessive violence is far more common a cause for censorship of US films in Europe than sex. Or even, in documents emerging from the CIA, a different tolerance threshold where torture and terrorism are concerned.
Some put the divergence down to the ideological rigidity that led Puritans and others to flee to America in the first place; others to the ruthless struggle for survival that marked the early settlement years and the conquest of the West. Still others see it as the price the US pays for its material success. What it means, though, is that if and when Obama gets some form of health reform through, it will reflect America's fears quite as much as its promise. And it is unlikely to be a national service that looks anything like ours.
Published on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 by Commonweal Institute
Food's Role in the Health Care Crisis
by Jill Richardson
We must address our food system if we want to reduce the increasing costs of health care. The health care reform debate can be divided into two major issues: increasing access and decreasing costs. On one hand, no reform is complete until we find a way to provide all Americans with adequate insurance coverage. But even after we insure all Americans, we must deal with rising medical costs that result from preventable illnesses.
The easy way to refer to health problems related to food is by pointing a finger at the obesity epidemic. Obesity directly bears the blame for 9% of all health care costs in the U.S. and the health care costs for the obese are rising faster than the costs of non-obese patients. However, blaming obesity is oversimplifying the problem: chronic, lifestyle-related illness can strike people of all sizes, fat or thin. The obese are more likely to suffer from these illnesses, but let’s not forget the true causes – poor diet, lack of physical activity, smoking, stress, and lack of sleep – that lead to many of the chronic diseases burdening our health care system. Furthermore, as recent CDC statistics show that the percent of Americans who engage in recreational physical activity is holding constant over time while obesity and diabetes rates rise (and smoking declines), it’s clear that our eating habits are getting worse.
The USDA recently partnered with Sesame Street to promote healthy eating. Secretary Vilsack, who revealed last year that he struggled with a weight problem as a child and deeply cares about childhood obesity, personally participated in the effort alongside Sesame Street characters Cookie Monster and Broccoli. But what is the impact of a small public health campaign when it’s up against $1.6 billion per year in food marketing aimed at children? The Sesame Street campaign is wonderful, but almost certainly doomed to failure. Public interest advertising campaigns will never be any match for junk food marketing, so politicians interested in promoting healthy eating should advocate for other tactics.
Another problem comes from the conflict of interest shows like Sesame Street face when promoting healthy food. As Sesame Street probably does not wish to lose its sponsorship by McDonalds, it might hesitate to partner with the USDA on any healthy eating programs that actually work. Sesame Street is not the only one with a conflict of interest: the USDA is simultaneously tasked with promoting American agricultural products and promoting healthy eating by Americans. Members of Congress also face a conflict of interest as passing any bill that limits the profitability of the junk food industry may result in their defeat in the next election. Perhaps that is why the standards controlling which foods are not allowed to be sold in schools have not been updated since 1978.
In addition to updating the rules governing which foods schools may not sell to reflect modern nutritional knowledge and public health needs, Congress must also address the budgetary pressures faced by school lunch programs. Because each meal contributes so little to cover the lunch program’s overhead costs, school lunch directors must sell as many meals as possible. That means that they must cater to children’s tastes; if corn dogs and French fries sell better than vegetable stir fry, the school has little choice but to serve corn dogs and French fries.
School lunch programs also lower their overhead by minimizing labor costs, serving ready-to-eat meals that require no cooking beyond reheating. The lunch ladies who cooked school lunches that adults remember from their childhood hardly exist anymore – and even if they did, many schools do not even have kitchens.
If we are to truly lower our health care costs and improve our own quality of life, we must do more than run PSAs and teach children about the food pyramid in health textbooks while serving them unhealthy foods in school cafeterias. The cliché “actions speak louder than words” is tragically true in this case, and a generation of children now faces a lifetime of diet-related diseases as a result. Reforming school lunch is an investment, not an expenditure, which will allow children to pay better attention in school once they are nourished with healthy meals, arm them with healthy eating habits for life, and give them the foundation for preventing diet-related illnesses later in life.
The most powerful nation on earth should surely have the wherewithal to provide its citizens with access to affordable health care, while at the same time promoting good health and healthy habits in its school cafeterias. Serving nourishing school lunches is not only a means of keeping health care costs down in the future, it is also a way to ensure the next generation will enjoy the best quality of life possible. To give them any less would be an abdication of our responsibility in caring for them.
Jill Richardson writes on sustainable food and agriculture policy. Food became an interest of hers after working in health care for several years and realizing that it makes no sense to try and fix our health care system if we are actively making ourselves sick with our food. She's the author of Recipe for America: Why Our Food System is Broken and What We Can Do to Fix it and she blogs on La Vida Locavore . Jill lives in San Diego with her three cats.
Health Care Rats Come Out of the Woodwork
By Matt Taibbi, True/Slant
Posted on August 20, 2009, Printed on August 21, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://trueslant.com//142095/
It is not the be-all and end-all of health-care reform. It is not the long-awaited safety net for the uninsured. And if, as many liberals hope, it turns out to be nothing more than Medicare for All, it won't do anything to hold down long-term growth in health spending.
via Public Optioned-Out -- The Opinionator Blog -- NYTimes.com.
There are some days when it almost seems like the national press is making a conscious effort to prove Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent gospel. If the national commercial media really did exist solely to perpetuate the attitudes of the political elite, and to create phony debates around unthreatening policy poles, endlessly pitting a conservative/reactionary status quo against an "acceptable" position of dissent -- if that thesis were the absolute truth, then you'd see just what we're seeing now in the coverage of the health care debate.
All across the country the news media reacted to the White House leak about the possibility of the public option being dropped with, well, an oddly circumspect tone. Although some initial stories carried a sensational tone, within a day or two the debate had settled down, and the country’s most prominent pundits were considering this treacherous and cowardly development in a pragmatic light. In Eric Etheridge’s review-of-reviewers blog int he Times, the "Opinionator," the situation was described this way:
The debate is primarily on the left, or among the Democrats, where partisans are furiously arguing along two intersecting fronts: First, the public option is or is not an essential element of reform. Second, abandoning the public option will or will not make passing the remainder of reform more likely.
This superficially is true, I guess. There were a few voices arguing that the public option is the bare minimum "reform" that the public should tolerate, and a few who argued that if it is not in the final version, progressives should reject the proposal.
But overwhelmingly the pundits went the route predicted by Manufacturing Consent. The most prominent voices in the last two days have mostly chosen one of two sides to argue. Many attacked the public uproar over the White House’s apparent surrender, blasting the public option as an unrealistic and meaningless affectation, a policy kewpie doll for unrealistic liberals who "don't want to be bothered with the real-life dynamics of the health care market," as the Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein put it (in his column with the amusingly obnoxious title, "Enough Already With the Public Option!"). The White House itself is covertly putting itself in this camp via “unnamed” sources who are expressing rank insider astonishment over the rabble’s naivete, for instance here in theWashington Post:
"I don't understand why the left of the left has decided that this is their Waterloo," said a senior White House adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "We've gotten to this point where health care on the left is determined by the breadth of the public option. I don't understand how that has become the measure of whether what we achieve is health-care reform."
"It’s a mystifying thing," he added. "We're forgetting why we are in this."
Where the chief executive of any administration is on almost any issue, one can also usually find Hobbit understudy and professional White House apologist Joe Klein. Here he is on health care, licking as usual the presidential jellyring:
Meanwhile, I never had much interest in a public option. I think the perils of government-delivered (as opposed to funded) services are obvious and immense. Sarah Lyall had an excellent piece in the Times today about her dealings with the British National Health System, which has some very real strengths, but also some terrifying weaknesses…. I spent the weekend traveling through the west with the President, watching him perform at health care forums in Montana and Colorado. He did quite well, I thought.
So that's that camp. Then, on the other side, there was a whole rash of others who took the pragmatic, chin-scratching route, embracing in advance the possibilities of a public-option-less health care reform. A lot of the people making this argument seemed to have good intentions. One example was Matthew Yglesias:
A set of consumer protections that would cap out-of-pocket health costs, guarantee access to preventive care, and prevent insurers from treating people well as long as they're healthy only to start monkeying around when they get sick. This would be a big deal. The bills in Congress also envision expanding the Medicaid program that currently serves the poor. This would only help a relatively narrow slice of the near-poor, but for those who are helped, the help would be enormous.
And Kevin Drum at Mother Jones:
So as much as I'd like to have a public option (primarily for its ability to force more robust price competition), I just don't see it as something to threaten nuclear destruction over. If insurance reforms are robust and low-income subsidies are decent, that's a huge win for millions of people, and it's a win we can build on. And contra Atrios, social legislation does have a history of getting better after it's first passed. Just ask Henry Waxman.
Then there was Nate Silver:
The fundamental accomplishments of a public option-less bill would be to (1) ensure that no American could be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition or because they became sick; (2) subsidize health insurance coverage for millions of poor and middle-class Americans.
These are major, major accomplishments. Arguably, they are accomplished at too great a cost. But let’s look at it like this. The CBO estimates that the public option would save about $150 billion over the next ten years -- that’s roughly $1,100 for every taxpayer. I'm certainly not thrilled to have to pay an additional $1,100 in taxes because some Blue Dog Democrats want to placate their friends in the insurance industry. But I think the good in this health care bill -- the move toward universal-ish coverage, the cost-control provisions -- is worth a heck of a lot more than $1,100.
So this is where the "debate" is being framed. One side argues that the public option isn’t anything to write home about. The other "side" argues that a bill without the public option won’t be a disaster after all. Of course if you're paying attention these are both actually the same argument, arguing the same side.
I get that the public option isn't a cure-all and I also get that it would be nice if they passed a law preventing insurers from denying patients with pre-existing conditions. But what strikes me the most is how the instant the public decides it's fed up and really wants something, all these arguments suddenly appear in the press showing why they are unreasonable and uneducated and should take a more "nuanced" (God, I hate that word) view of things. It seems to me that if you pay careful enough attention to the underlying theme of a lot of these articles, the pundits' biggest concern about the public option is that their readers are demanding it in spite of what they are being told. Me personally, I think the time to consider what good stuff might be in a public-option-less bill is after you’ve lost that battle, not before.
This Isn’t Reform, It’s Robbery
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090823_this_isnt_reform_its_robbery/
Posted on Aug 23, 2009
By Chris Hedges
Percentage change since 2002 in average premiums paid to large US health-insurance companies: +87%
Percentage change in the profits of the top ten insurance companies: +428%
Chances that an American bankrupted by medical bills has health insurance: 7 in 10
—Harper’s Index, September 2009
Capitalists, as my friend Father Michael Doyle says, should never be allowed near a health care system. They hold sick children hostage as they force parents to bankrupt themselves in the desperate scramble to pay for medical care. The sick do not have a choice. Medical care is not a consumable good. We can choose to buy a used car or a new car, shop at a boutique or a thrift store, but there is no choice between illness and health. And any debate about health care must acknowledge that the for-profit health care industry is the problem and must be destroyed. This is an industry that hires doctors and analysts to deny care to patients in order to increase profits. It is an industry that causes half of all bankruptcies. And the 20,000 Americans who died last year because they did not receive adequate care condemn these corporations as complicit in murder.
The current health care debate in Congress has nothing to do with death panels or public options or socialized medicine. The real debate, the only one that counts, is how much money our blood-sucking insurance, pharmaceutical and for-profit health services are going to be able to siphon off from new health care legislation. The proposed plans rattling around Congress all ensure that the profits for these corporations will increase and the misery for ordinary Americans will be compounded. The corporate state, enabled by both Democrats and Republicans, is yet again cannibalizing the Treasury. It is yet again pushing Americans, especially the poor and the working class, into levels of despair and rage that will continue to fuel the violent, proto-fascist movements leaping up around the edges of American society. And the traditional watchdogs—those in public office, the press and citizens groups—are as useless as the perfumed fops of another era who busied their days with court intrigue at Versailles. Canada never looked so good.
The Democrats are collaborating with lobbyists for the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry and for-profit health care providers to craft the current health care reform legislation. “Corporate and industry players are inside the tent this time,” says David Merritt, project director at Newt Gingrich’s Center for Health Transformation, “so there is a vacuum on the outside.” And these lobbyists have already killed a viable public option and made sure nothing in the bills will impede their growing profits and capacity for abuse.
“It will basically be a government law that says you have to buy their defective product,” says Dr. David Himmelstein, a professor at Harvard Medical School and a founder of Physicians for a National Health Plan. “Next the government will tell us a Pinto in every garage, a lead-coated toy to every child and melamine-laced puppy chow for every dog.”
“Health insurance is not a race to the top; it is a race to the bottom,” he told me from Cambridge, Mass. “The way you make money is by abusing people. And if a public-option plan is not ready and willing to abuse patients it is stuck with the expensive patients. The premiums will go up until it is noncompetitive. The conditions that have now been set for the plans include a hobbled public option. Under the best-case scenario there will be tens of millions [who] will remain uninsured at the outset, and the number will climb as more and more people are priced out of the insurance market.”
The inclusion of these corporations in the crafting of health care legislation has not stopped figures like Rick Scott, the former head of theColumbia/HCA health care company, from attempting to sabotage any plan. Scott’s company was forced to pay a $1.7 billion fraud settlement—the largest health care fraud settlement in U.S. history—for stealing hundreds of millions from taxpayers by overbilling for medical care. Scott, who made his money primarily from Medicare, is now saturating the airwaves in a reputed $20 million ad campaign that is stoking the anger and fear of many Americans. His ads are coordinated by CRC Public Relations, the group that masterminded the “Swift boat” attacks against 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.
“They are using our money to campaign against us,” Dr. Himmelstein told me. “The money for these commercials came from health care interests that collect fees from American patients. We experienced this before in Massachusetts. We ran a ballot initiative for universal health care in 2000 and the insurance industry spent $5 million on it, including the insurance company I am insured by. They used my premiums to smear an idea that 70 percent in Massachusetts, according to polls, favored before this smear campaign. Universal health care was narrowly defeated.”
The bills now in Congress will, at best, impose on the country the failed model in Massachusetts. That model will demand that Americans buy health insurance from private insurers. There will be some subsidies for the very poor but not for anyone above a modest income. Insurers will be allowed to continue to jack up premiums, including for the elderly. The bankruptcies due to medical bills and swelling premiums will mount along with rising deductibles and co-payments. Health care will be beyond the reach