‪Thus says the Lord Donald Trump! @therealdonald_

‪Thus says the Lord Donald Trump! @therealdonald_ Thus says the Lord: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the Lord.”‬

Health Care Reform #HCR, and "The Art of the Deal"

Real Health Care Reform #HCR and "The Art of the Deal".

Real health care reform will deal with costs not access. Donald Trump operating within his strengths as a dealmaker should be able to negotiate these cost reforms through "The Art of The Deal". Each of these reforms require negotiation. I believe the reforms of this BLOG post to be bipartisan, and they can be summarize as... pharmaceutical reciprocity, pharmacist empowerment, and required flexible savings accounts.

Senator Dick Durbin recently suggested that legislators must look at "Big Pharma" if they truly want to reform the cost of health care. The increasing percentage of pharmaceuticals is a key driver in health care costs. Pharmaceuticals were 9.3% of health care costs in 2013 and projected to be 10.4% in 2024. There needs for transparency between the cost of prescription medicines and their actual costs. Pharmaceutical companies are selling the same drugs to third world countries at significant discounts. Past presidents have accomplished greatness by reaching across the aisle to take on traditional opposing party positions. Theodore Roosevelt was willing to take on the monopolies of the industrial revolution by talking softly and carrying a big stick. Could Donald Trump as a republican take on the pharmaceutical companies to enforce transparency of profits and reciprocity of costs that other countries enjoy? Pharmaceutical drugs should be globally priced.

In my first visit to Egypt I ate some bad food on an overnight train from Cairo to Luxor. When I arrived in Luxor that morning, I went straight to the local drug store, and with their broken English they were able to prescribe an antibiotic to cure my intestinal pain within an hour.  In other countries you can get pharmaceutical drugs by going to the local pharmacy and having the local pharmacist prescribe the drug for you. This elimination of the gatekeeper, middle man is a large cost savings. I agree that we need to continue to guard some drugs like opiates, and blind spots with drug interactions, but most people are not asking for that type or quantity of medicine. The Food and Drug Administration in the name of safety is suffocating us with unnecessary costs. Pharmacist should be empowered to dispense most pharmaceutical drugs.

When I had my fifth child my health insurance deductible was $2500 in 1994. I decided to negotiate upfront the cost of the hospitalization. I went to my local hospital and explained my situation. They said they had a program for me and the cost would only be $1500. I realize that the real cost of my child's birth was more that $1500. I was the beneficiary of cost shifting from other people's insurance policies.  However, this does not make the negotiation of a fee for service a mute point. If more people would ask the cost of procedures instead of pulling out their insurance cards, then most doctors would agree that prices would come down. Flexible savings accounts should be required.

The debate about health care reform needs to focused on costs instead of access. Donald Trump has stated that there will be winners and losers in health care reform. While I agree with him, I disagree that the middle class should should shoulder the costs. Instead, they should be empowered to negotiate costs. Taking away people's access to health care cannot be the solution. We must look for win-win cost saving strategies. These strategies can systemically lower costs so that the affluent and the middle class will embrace these strategies.

What can you do? I found a website where you can vote on at least some of these reforms. Currently the con position is winning. Will you vote yes to these reform?

http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/blame-big-pharma-out-control-health-care-costs 

Risks, Alternatives, Cost Control and Health Reform Twitter #HCR

Let’s talk about these powerful words in relation to the current health care crisis.

If the doctor patient relationship was established with a greater risk component, then the patient and not the doctor would be assuming the risk of deciding upon a treatment protocol. In my opinion, this is a healthy way to contain costs in health care. Law suits are not driving up the cost of health care but any medical professional will tell you that defensive medicine practices are. If the medical professionals shift the risk to the patient, then patients will be assuming risks for treatment. I recommend this shift for several reasons.

• The growth of alternative medicine in providing comfort where cures do not exist
• The growth of defensive medical practices
• The growth of information sources now available to patients that did not exist 20 years ago.
• The need to tie cost containment to health care delivery systems
• The growth of electronic means of reporting and monitoring medical treatment

So let the patient beware. One of the reasons that health care has had explosive costs is because health care does not have reciprocal mechanisms built into it which occurs in our free market. This has been a primary cause why health care costs have gone out of control. It also has had an impact on the growth of bio-medical stocks exploding growth in a recessive economy. If the government is going to write a bottomless check for health care, then why not invest in it? Most investors wisely see that they would be foolish not to. The argument that we have the world’s best health care and it should be protected is breaking down. This week The Cancer Society reported that PSA blood testing in 50 year olds is a cash cow that is not delivering any real benefits for many men. I still believe that we have the best health care delivery system, but unchecked medical research and development can not survive on a bottomless pit of borrowed money.

Alternative medicine can provide relief to people where a cure does not exist. For example, pharmaceuticals are not the always the best way to manage pain. They can lead to addiction where withdrawal is just as significant as the pain they are attempting to control. The alternative medicine field is less expensive than the traditional medical practices. They have less burden of regulatory compliance and few defensive medical practices because the patient assumes the risk. Electronic portable devices have made the monitoring and reporting of medical treatment portable. Patients can now monitor their own vital signs and feed back that information to a medical professional with wireless technology.

Perhaps in the future a consumer protection agency for patients can be established that will protect the interests of patients. This regulatory idea is far more preferable to defensive medical practices that encourage medical professionals to exacerbate costs to protect themselves. It is not medical malpractice law suits that are raising our health care costs. It is the threat of them. Medical professionals tend to be compliant individuals that cross their "t’s" and dot their "i’s". They will do everything in their power to avoid being accused of negligence. These people have good values that are being turned on the ear because of the threats of law suits.

Why insurers don't control costs

 

I read Ezra Klein's article in the Washington Post today. It is titled ...  Why insurers don't control costs http://tgli.de/HhN
From Wikipedia ... "Health insurance like other forms of insurance is a form of collectivism by means of which people collectively pool their risk, in this case the risk of incurring medical expenses."

The pooling of medical expenses is a good idea. The problem with our insurance is that it is managed badly. Employers paying 70% of the cost is a bad idea. The risk must be shared for cost containment to work. Otherwise it is viewed as an entitlement that we deserve. I would prefer the private sector doing this, but we are saddled with Medicare now so fix it.

We do not deserve anything that we do not pay for. If we are going to use a single pay-or system then raise the tax for Medicare and bail it out. Begin to pre-pay Medicare instead of pay as you go. When we pay forward our medical expenses through a pay roll tax we will treat it differently. The magic of compounding interest will put us in the enviable position of having medicare surpluses.

Contain costs by introducing more reciprocity into the health care delivery system. Open up choices for patients to consult with medical professionals and not just doctors. I even think that alternative medicine can provide more comfort at less money than our current system.

Get rid of defensive medical practices. Patients should be aware that all surgery and medical treatments have some risk. Assume the risk or refuse the treatment. Medical reporting and monitoring should become electronic to reduce mistakes and decrease administrative costs. Wireless devices make every home a hospital

I am for any business that is profiting from health care paying an excise tax on profits. If a company is benefiting then they should share their profits with the recipients of health care to lower costs.

I give in!

I give in!

Let's pass it, but let's also continue to work on making health care something that we can pay for as well as benefit from. Let's continue to work on developing technology with an eye toward cost savings as well as health care. http://www.ted.com/talks/eric_topol_the_wireless_future_of_medicine.html

I think regulation on alternative medicine should be loosened to emphasize comfort over cure.

I think that insuring 30 million Americans is worth the risk of a few bad apples if there are incentives put in place to stop abuse. http://originalamerica.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-pay-for-care-of-careless.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

The respect the economists in the NY Times article. There is no reason why medicare can be fixed and defensive medicine corrected after this bill is passed. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/health-economists-urge-passage-of-reform/#preview

Our President has done a masterful job of bring the stake holders together. Although I think the summit could have taken place with a caucus process.  (See my previous post) I believe that he make the changes necessary to the health care bill after it is passed.

The Blind Spot of Obama Health Care #HC

Let’s simplify things about the health care debate. Republicans are for states rights. They generally would agree with a health care proposal that has the most limitations on the federal government. Democrats are for federal initiatives. They disagree with the republicans that states should solve national problems and wish to maximize national solutions. The libertarian camp has recently entered the debate in the form of Ron Paul. They go a step beyond Republicans to maximize individual rights over the rights of individual states. I would recommend that there is a forth point on the political compass that is being ignored. That point could be called the “Statist” solution. A statist solution would delegate our democratic freedoms to a panel of experts for a time to solve a problem. This solution would be the way that countries like Germany have traditionally solved problems. Countries like Germany hire a commission of experts to solve these problems, and then take the governing of this solution out of political hands so that the commission can stay the course and solve the problem. Recently, our president set up a bipartisan commission of two former deficit hawks in both parties to remove this blind spot from our eyes. I believe that our president is on the right track here. Why shouldn’t this same strategy work on health care?

I appreciate technological tools like twitter that open up this debate to small voices like mine to enter the fray. Many of the news commentators and journalist have a vested interest in selling advertising. They choose to interview people who are controversial so they can increase their ratings. I do not believe that the German solution has much controversy or democratic input to drive public policy debate. That is why it is currently a blind spot in the health care debate. America is a country made up of salespeople. We love to give our best pitch and hear about ideas we believe in. I think it is time to give the Americans with more or an engineering perspective a turn to govern. The health care system is broke and it needs to be fixed. Should we consider all possible solutions? Problems that do not appear in the blind spot of our rear view mirror may be better solved by us looking directly to the experts for a time until the problems are more easily seen.

The Third Rail of Politics meets Twitter Health Care Reform #HCR

There are three problems facing our president as he prepares for his upcoming televised health care summit. I am a progressive Republican who is rooting for his success. I am going to suggest something that a politician should never do. I would suggest Mr. President that you boldly touch the third rail of American Politics.

1.    He should fix the funding of Medicare and social security.
2.    He should tie the future costs of health care to our standard of living.
3.    He should form an alliance with the Republican Party as well as secure populist support with all stakeholders.

My proposal would be to pre-pay Medicare and Social Security with a 13.5% payroll tax for the employee and employer. A 13.5% payroll tax would enable to begin pre-paying social security and then slowly reduce the tax over 10 years. This could also be accomplished by keeping payroll taxes as they are now and taxing employee benefits. Then contain costs by tying future expense to GDP growth. If our country is not growing, then we must make decisions about comfort instead of cures for those of us in need of health care. Another funding proposal to pre-pay Medicare and Social Security is to empower the IRS and the Social Security Administration to debit $3500 from every retirement account in US. These funds would be used to pre-pay medicare for those designated social security numbers in those households. If a household does not have a retirement account then they would have the option of a 13.5% payroll tax to meet the prepayment option. The magic of compounding interest multiplies the usefulness of these pre-paid funds. Within five years payroll taxes can be lowered to more reasonable levels. The investment options for these funds will be determined by an independent commission  of economists elected by the National Association for Business Economics. (NABE) It could be set up similar to the federal reserve board.

Health care must make sense…

•    Pre-existing conditions must be included in the insurance pool
•    Health Insurance should be able to be purchased across state lines.
•    Those with out health insurance should pre-pay medical expenses at a discount for preventative health care.
•    The uninsured should continue to receive acute critical care through the established practice of cost shifting.
•    Universal health coverage can still be explored at the state level.

Health care cost must be contained

•    Pharmaceutical companies should pay a portion of health care based on their profits.
•    Disincentives must be built into the health care delivery system for patients to sue. 
•    Alternative medicine practices should be encouraged to provide comfort when cures are beyond our ability to pay for them.
•    Electronic reporting procedures must become standard in the delivery of health care by medical professionals.

We are currently being slammed by a snow storm in the Mid-Atlantic States. I am history teacher stuck in my house spinning solutions to problems that I have no business attempting to solve. Perhaps this snow storm can generate more ideas right now. A snow storm can slow things down enough to include the average Joe’s opinion on issues that matter to us all. I want you to solve these difficult problems that are facing our nation. I believe that your judgment is probably better than the intellectual community as you enter into negotiations with the stake holders of this dilemma. I am at the bottom of the list of these stakeholders. The beauty of democracy is that when a snow storm happens I have the time to think through these issues as both the least significant and most numerous of your constituents as I twitter my thoughts to you.

I see the stakeholders as …

•    The Democratic Party
•    The Republican Party
•    Organized Labor
•    Small business
•    Pharmaceutical companies
•    Defensive medical practices
•    Medical community
•    And me Pat Citizen

The State of the Union.

I am progressive Republican that likes President Obama. I think he is one of the best speakers the American Presidency has ever seen. I am a teacher currently on service learning trip with my students in Panama. My concern is about global competition Mr. President. If we continue to leverage our debt to other countries like China will we continue to have the same standard of living that we now experience? This question is meant to be constructive criticism. I am concerned about the future of my students and my five children. When I speak with people in Panama I get the impression that the United States is in an economic slide.
 
I am very impressed with the way that you have tackled your own party and political interests that will benefit the country, but not your political career. When I say that I was referring to examples like the Cadillac tax on health care which unions oppose and the pharmaceutical tax which corporate interest would fight. Of course, as a republican I think the trial attorneys should have some kind of incentive to curb defensive medicine practices, but you are steering through a mine field better than I could have. My advice to you is read about the life of Abraham Lincoln in the book, “Team of Rivals”. Lincoln was able to balance competing interests in a different time when information was not instantaneous. Your task is much harder. I pray that you will be able to do the same.

Twitter to Massachusettes on #HCR

 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts currently has universal health care. The replacement of the former senate seat of Ted Kennedy is ironic. From an outside perspective we may think that Massachusetts citizen's  are rejecting the Obama health care reform bill. Actually they are rejecting the unfair cost shifting of Massachusetts money to other states like Nebraska when they are already holding ground on paying for their own citizens. 

Brown is currently leading in the polls 


http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/01/14/massachusetts-shocker-brown-up-15-in-pajamas-mediacrosstarget-poll/



I am a teacher in Pennsylvania, and I can see this. Perhaps, what needs to be done is to assure the people of Massachusetts that they will have no cost increase to their existing health care plan. Here is a report from the Commonwealth Foundation about the reasons for increases in health care.


From Nathan Benfield
Commonwealth Foundation



On average, consumers’ out-of pocket healthcare costs increased 6.7% each year, while national healthcare expenditures increased by an average 9.8% each year. Increases in expenditures by private insurers, Medicaid and Medicare accounted for the majority of this excess cost growth; since 1965 private insurers’ spending has increased by an average 10.8% annually, Medicaid spending has increased by an average 15.4% and Medicare spending has increased by and average 15.6% each year.

The difference between what people are feeling in increased costs and what is actually happening is masking the crisis. The people in Massachusetts are experiencing cost increases and do not want to be a part of a bail out when they are doing the bailing and other states are watching.

Twitter Health Care Reform #HCR House - Senate Compromise

 From http://briansullivan.blogs

What will it take to pass the House-Senate health care compromise? There are three strategies that will target six states and three groups.

1. You can win moral legislators by tightening up regulations on abortion in specific states.

• In Nebraska Ben Nelson
• In Arkansas Blanche Lincoln
• In Louisiana Mary L. Landrieu

2. You can attack your own party’s supporters which will be perceived as compromise. Senators who attack their own political capitol may find it more desirable to retire, than to run again. Senators like Christopher Dodd and Byron Dorgan are good examples.

• Create incentives for Trial attorneys to reverse defensive medical practices.
• Tax organized Labor’s Cadillac benefit plans.
• Donut Hole Medicare Advantage enrollees

3. You can offer health care subsidies to states that are struggling financially from the recession.

• California
• Florida
• Nevada

Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House from California. Harry Reid is the majority leader from Nevada. Florida has some of the highest percentage of senior citizens in the country. A combination of all of these strategies will win comprehensive health care reform.

If you have your health, you have everything!

Leadership Center 
Health Care Reform
Cyber School teaching
 Service Learning travel



“If you have your health, you have everything!” This is a common saying that I have heard in our senior community in the US. The Senate health care reform bill will take 1/7 of our economy, and seniors will be the largest beneficiaries. I believe that the expansion of Medicaid will solve the Medicare bankruptcy problem. Ben Nelson is seen as a pro-life senator that was the remaining hold-out on health care reform. I believe that the golden thread and common ground of health care reform was not anyone’s stance on abortion or even the deficit. I believe that the underlying pressure that is forging this bill is a political problem of how to honor the senior community. The public option failed because it did not serve seniors. The Senate bill succeeded because it met the needs of seniors. I couldn’t help noticing Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Chris Dodd, Richard Durbin, and Charles Schumer’s hair color and outward appearance as they announced their victory after the Senate vote. They were all noticeably elder statesman. The ultimate winner of the 2009 Health Care reform bill could be the US Senior community.

Last year I had the privilege of traveling to China. When I was there, I was able to capture an outsider’s perspective of attitudes toward the senior community in China. We passed by some seniors that were dancing in the park. I pointed at them and asked my driving companion who those people were. She said that they were retired. “They have nothing to do with their time.” Her off-chance comment resonated in my mind, and I have not been able to forget it. I wonder if what is happening in China today could be a premonition of something that we must avoid. From an outsider’s perspective, the tradition of honoring elders is commonly assigned to the Chinese people. In my opinion, the Chinese government honors this tradition, but does not tap the resource of this elder population.

Our senior community is also desirous of a life style of indolence. I would ask that they be careful what they ask for on this Christmas Eve of 2009. They may get it. What we desire is not always what will best serve us. I have just celebrated my 54th birthday. I am knocking at the door at becoming a senior myself. I believe that the senior community and the gang of five with the legacy of Ted Kennedy mentioned above should be empowered and not retired. They are an important asset that we must find a way to utilize. Ultimately, seniors will not be happy if they are not useful. If health care reform paves the way for an indolent life style, our desire for care will be confounded by irrelevance. My Christmas wish for 2009 is that 1/7 of our economic output be used to keep seniors in the mix of solving our problems and contributing to solutions to move our country forward as we compete on the world stage.

Many of the problems we face as a society are common to our shared desires for safety, comfort, and efficiency. A merging of cultures and values will create a greater need for collaborative skills to find solutions to new problems. Unfortunately, many of these problems will be irregular problems in the years ahead. The smartest, sharpest, and fastest individuals can solve some of these difficult problems by trying new alternatives. Many of these problems have been endured by our senior community over their lifetime. The senior community can provide a safety valve of life skill moderation for the younger population who will be forced to try new alternatives to solve problems.

I found it ironic to this post that the Senate provided a moderating influence over the House of Representatives health care reform bill. Senators are typically older than members of the House of Representatives. They hold a place of honor and usefulness in our government process. They should not be retired to “dance in the park.” They should be forced to interact and collaborate with the younger generation to forge compromises filled with the moderation of brilliant ideas. Jefferson would have said the values to preserve would be life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I would say that these values are currently in a state of reconfiguration to reflect the values of the world stage. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights would say these values are life, liberty, and security of person. I believe that the shift from the pursuit of happiness to a security of person will be facilitated by embracing the assets of our senior community. In this way, our senior assets are moving our country forward as much as the younger generation as we compete and cooperate with the world community.

Winners and losers of in the senate compromise for Health Care Reform

Losers

Employees with rich benefit programs, will receive a 40 percent tax on any plan exceeding $8,500 for an individual and $23,000 for a family.

Employers: There is a $750 penalty per worker on employers of 50 or more who are not covered by the federally approved package of health benefits.

U.S. pharmaceutical companies, which have set up overseas subsidiaries in developing markets (like India), will have to pay tax on their earnings earned abroad.

Alternative medicine, could be expanded to provide comfort for symptoms and choice for treatment when traditional medicine fails to give relief.

Health care facilities, will be forced to provide more services for less money.


Winners

Trial Attorneys, could be taxed when they make huge profits while the cost of health care continues to escalate from defensive medical practices.

Insurance companies, insurance companies also be taxed for out sourcing their employees? When insurance companies are making profits they should share in the cost.

Working families at 150 % the poverty level without insurance: The most important number in 2011 could be Medicaid’s expansion to include wage earning families making $33,000 a year and individuals making $29,327 per year.

Health care practitioners, helped to write the compromise. When health care practitioners are making bonuses they should share in the cost.

The weakest link of health care reform

The weakest link

The medical professionals are paying for Nelson-Reid health reform compromise currently being debated in the Senate. They will receive a 21% pay cut starting in 2010.

What kind of cuts are insurance companies taking?
What kind of profits will Pharmaceutical companies continue to make?
What kind of fee will lawyers benefit from defensive medical practices?

Unfortunately, the truth is the medical professionals are the weakest link. They have less political clout because they are less in numbers. The truth is that most doctors would not mind taking a 25 % cut if insurance companies, Pharmaceutical companies and trial attorneys also took the same cut. True health care reform can not happen without cost containment.

Cost containment can happen in two ways. The groups profiting from health care delivery can take a cut. This is the crux of the Nelson-Reid health care compromise. Unfortunately only the weakest link is taking a cut? Another way to contain costs is to introduce competitive forces. Patients should question the cost of health care treatment and be motivated to seek out more efficient choices. New alternate medical practices that promote comfort as much as cure should be allowed to compete on the open market with traditional forms of health care. Patients and medical professionals should be motivated to deliver and receive health care in the most efficient manner possible.

The balance of health care costs and health care delivery

Now that the Senate looks like it has given up on its single payer sweeping health care bill it is time to consider incremental health care reform. The principal of reciprocity is a critical to linking health care delivery with cost control. I believe that twitter followers understand this argument and can help our legislators make sense of it.

When you look at health care reform you should take “deep throat’s” advice from the movie,
'All the President’s Men", “follow the money”. The vast majority of the money spent on health care is coming from expensive medicines. If prescription drug companies are willing to lower their prices to other countries to enlarge their market share, then drugs should be re-imported to pass these savings on to United States patients. This measure will introduce the kind of competition into the market place that will control costs.

Pre-existing conditions are not spread across the population. They need to be. The concept of insurance is to spread risk out across a healthy population. Health care delivery should be portable and available to those of us with catastrophic illness. Crossing the boarder of New Jersey when I live in South Eastern Pennsylvania should not require a health care visa. This practice is awkward and makes health care more costly. The health care payer (insurance) and provider should establish a practice that works in the interest of the patient.

Health care must be opened up to less costly alternative medicine practices. This medicine and therapy may not cure a patient, but it can give them hope and comfort. The growth of disease and illness is outpacing our current research and development of it. If we can not keep up with the development of disease, then we can at least make it more comfortable for the patient in the last days of life. In this day and age of a growing hospice movement health care is becoming as much about comfort as it is about cure. Therapy caps can be eliminated in the current health reform measure if alternative medicine is able to compete in the open market. These reciprocal measures represent some of the incremental change to bring cost into balance with treatment protocol.

Twitter’s 3 Rs of # Health Care

Responsibility


Doctors and patients should be given the responsibility to make health care decisions. Patients should think about how much the care costs. Doctors should consider the value in the medicine or procedure. Between the two of them they should make a decision that will be the best solution keeping in mind the cost, the benefit and the quality of life.



Reciprocity


Pharmaceutical companies are benefiting from the advertisement of drugs. Advertising could be banned. You will not see many commercials in Canada where health care is nationalized. Pharmaceutical drugs that alleviate symptoms of medical conditions could be taxed if we do not ban them.

Defensive medicine must stop. Lawyers are benefiting from out of court settlements from malpractice suits. Legal advertising could be banned. You will not see lawyers advertising in Canada where health care is nationalized. Lawyers who choose to pursue practices of medical malpractice could take a separate set of bar exams to qualify. They could also pay a surtax to offset the increased cost of medical procedures because of the award.


Rationing


Technology must be capped at what we can afford. One recommendation would be to create a delay of adopting new health care drugs and procedures. Affordable alternative medicine procedures and medicines could be expanded to help people be more comfortable in tolerating symptoms.


The three Twitter Rs will distribute the cost of health care across the people who are most likely to benefit.

Senator joe lieberman twitter buzz

Senator joe lieberman: In the latest twitter buzz on Lieberman from his Yale roommate there is no mention that his independent stance on health care reform could also be used to stop the advertising of Pharma that drives up health care cost.

This is the kind of independent minded twitter buzz that I subscribe to. Perhaps Senator Lieberman's unsightly new lobbyist growth is a result of the latest hair or sex growth advertising that is driving up our health costs.

If we are to contain health care costs then we will need to curb advertising that is driving demand for unnecessary drugs.

http://pov9.blogspot.com/2009/11/twitter-and-health-care-of-concrete.html

Twitter and the health care of concrete

If Mr. Obama attempts to spend us out of this current recession he should consider the past attempts of the other presidents who have attempted this. Franklin Delano’s attempt was successful. It differed from our Presidents attempt in a very important way. FDR spent his way out of the depression by creating public works projects that moved our country forward by increasing speed of movement, providing more power, and making us healthier. Bridges, Roads, Power Plants, and Dams all have one thing in common. They are made of concrete. The concrete construction of the WPA, TVA and CCC camps had a lasting impact on moving us forward economically. They also were projects that had a set start and finish date. Chris Matthews likes to quote Pat Monahan who said the nice thing about concrete is that it cracks and needs to be built again. I do agree that these types of improvements are not perfect, but the progress has outweighed its cost in the long run.

If the Obama Administration gets its way, then a bureaucracy will be set up that will never end and will never crack. Bureaucrats excel at perpetuating their own existence. In my experience with organizations like the social security system this seems to be their top priority. The health care proposal in its current form could create a system that will sap the life out of the economic engine of growth. In addition if we move the decisions of health care to more uninvolved parties, then bad decisions and even abuse will likely follow.

I am not against health care reform. I applaud the president’s efforts. He has mobilized many people into the political process who at one time did not even vote. It is my desire to take twitter independent activists and unite them into a voice that our president will hear. I do not believe that we can separate treatment protocol in health care from the doctor patient relationship. I do not feel that the public option matters much as long as a bureaucracy of patronage is not created. I believe we must tie the cost of health care to the parties who are profiting from its expansion. This law of reciprocity will create a concrete health care structure. When this structure cracks it can be repaired by the people who are closest to the person in need of treatment.

Twitter activists must unite and independently fight for change that benefits everyone.

Both political parties must shoulder the cost to solve this problem. Republicans must realize that the advertising by pharmaceutical companies must be regulated or banned to limit the insatiable appetite for drugs. This appetite by consumers is driving up the cost of health care. Every time I hear “Ask your doctor” I grab my wallet and wonder how long health care will be affordable. The abuse of pharmaceutical drugs has climbed to an all time high. A coworker of mine was joking with me last week when she invited me to a skittles party. This is a party where everyone comes with their left over pharmaceutical medicine and dumps them into a bowl. The party starts when the guests start popping pills indiscriminately and giggle the night away. Pharmaceutical drugs are rapidly approaching their liability weighing more than their benefit.

Democrats must realize that defensive medicine practices are driving costs up, and causing doctors to leave the profession. Law suits must be capped to reasonable levels where patients assume some risk for agreeing to treatment. I know that the actual law suits are not driving costs up, but many people refuse to look at the horror most health care professional fear of being sued. I realize we must choose to trust a doctor if this is going to work. If we do not trust the doctors then they should be ethically tested and not allowed to practice medicine if they fail. Insurance companies also must be required to spread out risks across the entire population. The insurance companies, Health Maintenance organizations or Medicare should not be calling the shots for treatment protocol. To make decisions one step removed from the process does not usually result in good judgment. It is now time for Twitter users to exercise their own judgment and fight for real change in health care that makes sense.

Twitter health care reform

Health care should be about people getting the health care they need. Unfortunately, it is also about politics. Today’s debate in the Senate is very important. Individual preferences of a few may be re-shifting the political spectrum of our country.

When I say political spectrum I know that I lost most of you, but bear with me. Our American political spectrum is better looked at then read about. It is best described in the geometric figure of a diamond. The radicals establish a point on the far left side of the median line across the center of the diamond. The reactionaries establish a point symmetrical to the radicals on the opposite side of the line. The republicans fall to the left of the reactionary point and the democrats fall to the right of the radical point. The difference between republicans and democrats could be the emphasis of equality over liberty. However, many people overlook that there are at least two more points on the diamond that cause many people to differ. The other two points represent order and anarchy. Unfortunately, it will be difficult to find any two people exactly in the same place of these four quadrants. US party politics allows for more individual differences than most other parliamentary forms of government. So the debate today over health care is likely to come down to individual preferences of a few Senators that must be appeased to win their vote. The vote tonight, Saturday, November 22, 2009 is the second step of a process that will not conclude until the middle of January at the earliest. To the twitter community this period of time is very long and probably perceived as unnecessary. This post will discuss the process of United States politics reaching consensus. I will also discuss my opinion on health care and what can be done to fix a broken health care system.

This post will look at these Democratic and Independent Party Senators and their individual preferences. I have placed a twitter label next to their names to summarize their perspective. I have also placed a link on their names to look into the point on the spectrum where they fall. The aids of these Senators are reading your twitter posts, so please take 10 minutes to learn more about this debate.

Name .Wiki Descrip. Twitter label Abortion Stance

Blanche Lincoln of Ark. Centrist Democrat Favors partial birth abortion ban

Mary Landrieu of Lou. Conservative Dem. Supports Stupak-Pitts Amendment,

Ben Nelson of Neb. Conservative Dem Pro life

Independents

Joe Lieberman of Con. "Indep. Democrat" Pro choice

Bernie Sanders Democratic socialist Pro choice

Senator Harry Reid’s proposal of a "firewall" that would segregate private premiums from federal funding in the public insurance plan is an attempt to accommodate those democrats with a desire towards regulated order of the abortion debate. Harry Reid’s accommodation right now seems to focus on Medicare bookkeeping practices. The proposal does to its credit address paying for health care reform. However, it does this by adopting bookkeeping practices. Bookkeeping is not a solution. If this bookkeeping means that we are going to control the cost of health care by bureaucratic means then he should say so. Regulation pushes this solution toward the “State-ist” side of the political spectrum. In accepting this solution we should be aware that we are losing choice to gain more order in the health care delivery system. The details behind this strategy would include a powerfully divisive “R” word. Rationing is a very divisive word that could shift this debate to the “State-ist” side of the political spectrum.

Before you react to the word rationing you should be aware that most doctors would say that this is already happening in our current health care system. Most doctors would also say that the Hippocratic Oath that they take would demand that the doctor patient relationship maintain choices of treatment protocol. Most doctors are not pleased with our current health care system since the introduction of the DRG system. This system allowed for a private form of bureaucratic rationing creeping into our current health care delivery system. These private bureaucrats are HMO’s and insurance companies. The current public bureaucracy is Medicare and Medicaid. The current health debate would eventually create one big DRG system. If Harry Reid were to say that he is balancing the cost of health care on the rationing of senior health care, then this bill would be dead on arrival.

I believe that rationing senior health care is only one place to control the cost of a health care system that is out of our control. We should also tie cost control to pharmaceutical companies’ gains, lawyers’ actions that promote defensive medical practices, and open up restrictions on health care by expanding alternative medicine practices. For example, when people have the choice of using alternative medicine in a hospice scenario they become empowered to experiment with their own health care at their own expense. When people are forced to pay for technological breakthroughs out of pocket within a window of time limitations then they are empowered with choices that are tied to their initiative. Please read my previous BLOG post.

Health Reform Goes to the Senate!

I am a conservative that agrees with Robert Reich. :-) I absolutely hate the idea that the lawyers, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies are benefiting from this reform. The groups who are profiting from health care should be shouldering the cost. Restoring the doctor patient relationship, and cutting the profits of those who are profiting from health care would be a good start to containing costs. Here are some questions that I have that I would like senators to consider.

1. How did the country maintain costs for many generations before costs went out of control?
2. Since the percentage of uninsured in our country is similar to countries with a single payer plan how will that contain costs?
3. Will the growth of Health care reform become self serving when bureaucrats are making health decisions?
4. Why should lawyers be the ones to regulate health care when they are the one that are driving up costs due to defensive medical practices?
5. Why should pharmaceuticals companies be allowed to advertise new drugs when that increases health care and they benefit from them?
6. Why should experimental technology be covered by insurance when it represents an assumed risk on the part of the patient?

Health care costs are out of control!

Health care reform should be based upon containing costs not covering the 16% of people who are uninsured. Other countries with single payer plans have many people that do not contribute into the health care system that is a similar percentage to what we have in our country.

* Over the past decade, premiums have doubled, out-of-pocket costs have increased by a third, and deductibles have continued to rise.
* If there was ever a time for Washington to put partisanship aside and get something done, this is it.
* We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fix what’s broken with our system and build on what works.

We should consider cutting cost by re-instating the doctor patient tradition in our country. The watch dogs of HMO's and attorneys are only increasing costs. Will a bureaucratic watch dog do any better? The pharmaceutical industry is promoting cost increases. The patient or family should consult with his doctor to decide on a treatment protocol that works for everyone.

Doctors should be tested for ethical judgment as well as medical training. Alternative practitioners who pass the ethical treatment test should also be allowed to practice medicine restricted by the confines of their knowledge. Medical practitioners should be removed who violate ethical principals.

Limiting technology and its expense is also a way to contain costs. Technology is driving costs up. There should be fewer restrictions on the use of experimental technology. These decisions should be subject to the doctor patient relationship. In addition any procedure or drug deemed as experimental should not be covered by insurance. The people who take these kinds of risks should also assume the costs associated with these risks.

Alternative medicine practices should be regulated and covered under medical insurance. China currently uses a two prong system of health care that uses traditional Chinese medicine as well as modern pharmaceuticals, surgery and rehabilitation to help their people. Could alternative medicine practiced by US Chiropractors and health food supplement stores bring hope and relief to many people in our country as well? Alternative medical treatments could help contain costs by offering competition in the medical marketplace.

Congress must pass real health insurance reform in 2009. If we fail to act:

* Within a decade, one out of every five dollars we earn will be spent on health care.
* The amount our government spends on Medicare and Medicaid will eventually grow larger than what our government spends today on everything else combined.

The answer lies in containing costs. The health care system will not be solved by insuring an uninsured population that already is covered by emergency rooms.

Pat Parris

Health Care Reform Now!

I have taken the Obama administration's template letter to the editor and added my own ideas to it. It is below my questions. Please consider asking the following questions to our president. I am a conservative that agrees with Robert Reich. :-) I absolutely hate the idea that the lawyers, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies are benefiting from this reform. These groups should be taking a hit. Restoring the doctor patient relationship, and cutting the costs of those who are profiting from health care would be a good start to containing costs.

Mr. President

1. How did the country maintain costs for many generations before costs went out of control?
2. Since the percentage of uninsured in our country is similar to countries with a single payer plan how will that contain costs?
3. Why should insurance companies be the ones to determine the costs when they benefit from cost increases?
4. Why should lawyers be the ones to regulate health care when they are the one that are driving up costs due to defensive medical practices?
5. Why should pharmaceuticals companies be allowed to advertise new drugs when that increases health care and they benefit from them?
6. Why should experimental technology be covered by insurance when it represents an assumed risk on the part of the patient?

Health care costs are out of control!

Health care reform should be based upon containing costs not covering the 15% of people who are uninsured. Other countries with single payer plans have many people that do not contribute into the health care system that is a similar percentage to what we have in our country.

* Over the past decade, premiums have doubled, out-of-pocket costs have increased by a third, and deductibles have continued to rise.
* If there was ever a time for Washington to put partisanship aside and get something done, this is it.
* We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fix what’s broken with our system and build on what works.

We should consider cutting cost by re-instating the doctor patient tradition in our country. The watch dogs of HMO's and attorneys are only increasing costs. The pharmaceutical industry is promoting cost increases.. The patient or family should consult with his doctor to decide on a treatment protocol that works for everyone.

Doctors should be tested for ethical judgment as well as medical training. Alternative practitioners who pass the ethical treatment test should also be allowed to practice medicine restricted by the confines of their knowledge. Medical practitioners should be removed who violate ethical principals.

Limiting technology and its expense is also a way to contain costs. Technology is driving costs up. There should be fewer restrictions on the use of experimental technology. These decisions should be subject to the doctor patient relationship. In addition any procedure or drug deemed as experimental should not be covered by insurance. The people who take these kinds of risks should also assume the costs associated with these risks.

Congress must pass real health insurance reform in 2009. If we fail to act:

* Within a decade, one out of every five dollars we earn will be spent on health care.
* The amount our government spends on Medicare and Medicaid will eventually grow larger than what our government spends today on everything else combined.

The answer lies in containing costs. The health care system will not be solved by insuring an uninsured population that already is covered by emergency rooms.

Pat Parris