OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

No, here's the skinny.

"PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR HEALTH REFORM: Findings from the 2009 Health Confidence Survey—the 12 annual HCS—

indicate that Americans have already formed strong opinions regarding various aspects of health reform, even before details

have been released regarding various key factors. These issues include health insurance market reform, the availability of a

public plan option, mandates on employers and individuals, subsidized coverage for the low-income population, changes to

the tax treatment of job-based health benefits, and regulatory oversight of health care. These opinions may change as details

surface, especially as they concern financing options. In the absence of such details, the 2009 HCS finds generally strong

support for the concepts of health reform options that are currently on the table.

U.S. HEALTH SYSTEM GETS POOR MARKS, BUT SO DOES A MAJOR OVERHAUL: A majority rate the nation’s health

care system as fair (30 percent) or poor (29 percent). Only a small minority rate it excellent (6 percent) or very good

(10 percent). While 14 percent of Americans think the health care system needs a major overhaul, 51 percent agree with the

statement “there are some good things about our health care system, but major changes are needed.”

NATIONAL HEALTH PLAN ELEMENTS RATED HIGHLY: Between 68 percent and 88 percent of Americans either strongly

or somewhat support health reform ideas such as national health plans, a public plan option, guaranteed issue, expansion of

Medicare and Medicaid, and employer and individual mandates."

http://www.ebri.org/pdf/briefspdf/EBRI_IB_7-2009_HCS_09.pdf

Paul Fronstin and Ruth Helman, “The 2009 Health Confidence Survey: Public Opinion on Health Reform Varies; Strong Support for Insurance Market Reform and Public Plan Option, Mixed Response to Tax Cap,” EBRI Issue Brief, no. 331, July 2009.

This survey was made possible with support from AARP, American Express, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Buck Consultants, Chevron, Deere & Company, IBM, Mercer, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Principal Financial Group, Schering-Plough Corp., Shell Oil

Company, The Commonwealth Fund, and Towers Perrin.

Why should we provide free health care to people at our expense; when the rest of us have to work to earn money and pay for our health care?

The government has NO responsibility too, nor is the government supposed to provide free health care. The government attempting to do so, goes against the intent and purpose of the Constitution.

Health Care is NOT a right, it is earned and paid for privilege.

Ahhhh,the sounds of walls crumbling. Won't be the last one either.

Crook Tom Daschle, the man originally tapped to lead President Obama's health care push, is now urging him to drop the idea of offering a government-run plan.

According to ABC, the former Democratic Senate Majority leader had this to say:

"While I feel very strongly that consumers should have the choice of a national, Medicare-like plan, my colleagues do not. . . But we were concerned that the ongoing health reform debate is beginning to show signs of fracture on the public plan issue, so in order to advance the process of developing bipartisan legislation and to move it forward, it's time to find consensus here," Daschle said.

"We've come too far and gained too much momentum for our efforts to fail over disagreements on one single issue," he said.

This is significant news not merely as a result of his relationship to Obama, but because Daschle is somebody who is recognized for his network on Capitol Hill, his ability to shepard legislation through Congress and strike compromises. If he is coming out and saying this publicly, it's a pretty good indication that Democrats simply do not have the votes to pass legislation that would include a government plan.

While this is a positive devolopment for those of us who oppose government health care, I should emphasize that this doesn't mean that we're in the clear. One of the things that supporters of free market health care have feared all along was that Democrats were merely using the government plan as a bargaining tool, so that when they drop it, they can say, "Ok, we gave up something we really wanted, now let's strike a deal." They will use this to label anybody who doesn't go along as an obstructionist. But a "compromise" that still provides subsidies for individuals to purchase government-designed health care plans on a government-run exchange, imposes mandates on individuals and businesses, and steps up regulation, is not much of a compromise. It's a major victory for the left.

That's why this language by Bob Dole is troubling:

"I had a lot of trouble with [individual] mandates just as Tom had trouble with the public plan. ... But if we can't compromise, how do we expect anyone else, how are we going to get a bill passed," Dole said. "We weren't going let two or three issues derail our total effort."

Fortunately, Dole isn't in office anymore. If Obama follows Daschle's advice and drops the government plan, Republicans shouldn't simply roll over. That provision would have made it easier for government to takeover the health care system, but it is far from the only way.

Obama's plan does not represent a takeover of health care. The opponents of Obama's plan are on the short end of popular opinion. 75% of Americans want a public option. So the opponents of Obama's plan invented a straw man, a government takeover to fight against.

Its true that a public option would compete with private plans. However, the public option can't win unless it provides better care or less expensive care. I say we should go with the system which comes out on top of a fair fight.

what better wway to control the population then to hold health care over them.

that is what i call a control tool for the masses.

The U.S. health care system has its problems, and we cannot ignore them. It does not follow, however, that the answer is the poison pill of socialism — a la Canada, Britain, and most of Europe.

Replace a flawed system with a proven disaster?

This column has been building a file on the entitlement crisis America faces and what can be done about it. In the future, we intend to address that broader issue of entitlements.

The biggest hurdles to doing something constructive are primarily three factors: (1) cheap political demagogues whose response to every proposed reform is to accuse the reformers of wanting to toss Grandma out in the snow; (2) endless propaganda leaning on America to "join the world" in an alleged "single payer" paradise, while ignoring/covering up that system's failures; and (3) organized brainwashing here and abroad using the dishonest euphemism "single payer," instead of calling it by its accurate name — government-controlled health care.

From the frying pan into the fire

Meanwhile, there are some disconcerting facts about the so-called "up-to-date" or moderne systems elsewhere. Part of our research on this question has focused on the recent book The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care. The author, Dr. David Gratzer, a physician, is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. He is widely cited on health policy issues in such publications as the New England Journal of Medicine. He divides his time between Toronto and New York.

Socialist paradise

Before considering Dr. Gratzer's book, let me say that my own biggest hang-up with the systems in Canada and Europe is that they tend to ration care for the elderly sick. They don't throw Grandma out into the snow. They just let Grandma die. They might as well say, "Die, old woman." As cruel as it would be to come out and say that, it would at least be more honest than "single payer."

First the statistics

I could regale you with plenty of anecdotes about the failures of government-run health care abroad. And there are some horror stories which we will address. But first, let's get to some absolute undeniable figures.

First, Dr. Gratzer (whose work is one of many in our file) cites the common error of assuming that health insurance and health care go hand in hand.

There are those who will argue that because life expectancy — for example in England and Japan — surpasses that of the United States, the fault must lie with America's health care system. But life expectancy, as with the infant mortality rate, reflects "a mosaic of factors such as parental diet, marital status, drug use, and cultural values." Thus, according to The Cure, "judging American health care only by such statistics is like declaring Cuban democracy stronger than America's based on voter turnout."

Obesity: Whose fault is that?

Gratzer might also have cited the recent concerns about obesity in America. If two-thirds of Americans are overweight, it hardly reflects on the health care they are getting. At the risk of sounding profoundly out of date, there is such a thing as personal responsibility. That may not appeal to the political opportunists peddling the snake oil that anyone who is not a millionaire is being cheated, but who can deny that the Japanese (as the most glaring example) have more healthy eating habits than we do? Of course they will live longer.

The proof

Dr. Gratzer makes no claim that cannot be backed up by facts.

1 — Women who get breast cancer in Europe are four times as likely to be diagnosed after the cancer is spread and are less likely to survive the disease than women in the United States — 95% in the early stages in the U.S., 80% in Europe.

2 — Cancer patients in the United States have markedly higher survival rates than their European counterparts. Survival for stage 1 colorectal cancer is 90% in the U.S. That compares with 80% in Germany and 70% in Britain. First stage breast cancer has a U.S. survival rate of 97 %, but only 78% in Britain. Datamonitor finds that patients tend to be diagnosed earlier in the U.S. 70 percent of prostate cancers are caught in the early stages in America, but only 58% in Britain.

3 — On survival rates for various forms of cancer, the U.S. consistently bests Europe. The Cure presents charts comparing the U.S. rate favorably with Australia, Canada, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand.

4 — The percentage of patients having to wait more than 4 months for non-emergency surgery is far smaller in the U.S. than in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, or Britain.

The anecdotes

This is the story of two women with similar problems. Donna Longmoore and Christina Alcorn are both diabetics. Rather than the endless insulin injections, they opted for an insulin pump which is fastened to the stomach and injects insulin that way The device was not cheap: $5,000.

For Alcorn, acquiring the pump was no problem, and it was covered by her insurance company. Longmoore had to struggle just to get one. It involved thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses. She found out about it by accident, not through her doctor, who did not mention it.

Alcorn sees a nearby specialist for monthly follow-up treatment. Longmoore is lucky to see a far-away specialist just twice a year.

This has nothing to do with wealth. Though the two women live close to each other, geography is the factor. Longmoore lives in Canada, Alcorn is across the river in the USA.

Up close and personal

Gratzer's own father — a Canadian citizen — had intense pain radiating down his legs. He was referred to a neurologist. The earliest appointment he could get was for three months later. Meanwhile he had increasing pain and decreased mobility. A university professor with an active life, he became housebound. Seeking a second opinion, he went to an emergency room, and was told, "This isn't an emergency. You just need to see a neurologist." Thus we see how the Canadian system can take you around in circles.

The rough equivalent of "You can't get there from here."

Gratzer's father had more than a cold, but economist David Henderson who grew up in Canada says that in his native land, "If you have a cold and are willing to wait in your family doctor's office for three hours, this is the best health-care system in the world."

This is one reason why a 2000 survey involving 1500 people suggested that 8 out of 10 Canadians consider their health-care system "in crisis."

But wait, it gets worse

In Canada, (1) total wait times from initial visit to a GP through to surgical therapy was 17.7 weeks, deemed by physicians to exceed "clinically reasonable" delays; (2) 63 percent of x-ray equipment was out of date. So too was a majority of all diagnostic machinery; and (3) Canadian heart attack survivors have a dramatically lower quality of life than their U.S. counterparts.

Shortages were also a factor. On Vancouver Island, for example, only one — just 1 — MRI machine was available to serve 600,000 people. Compounding that problem was that the scanner was allowed to operate only on bankers' hours, performing no more than 3000 scans per year.

Where have we heard this before?

Dr. Gratzer concludes, "Therein lies the dirty truth of Canadian health care. It is just like the old Soviet system: everything is free, but nothing is readily available." That may sound like a bad joke. But Canadians with MS waiting for an MRI today are not laughing.

These are just examples of how Canadian and European health systems suffer from politicization, bureaucratization, and (perhaps worst of all) anti-innovation.

But there is hope

The Canadian Supreme Court — arguably so liberal as to make the U.S. Ninth Circuit (immersed in the San Francisco culture where it is located) look conservative by comparison. Recently Canada's high court justices agreed to hear the case of man who waited almost a year for a hip replacement.

In so doing, the judges decided that the province of Quebec had no right to restrict the freedom of a person to purchase his own health care or health insurance. That overturned a 30-year ban on private medicine in the province. Gratzer calls this the "the hip that changed history."

Well, maybe. We'll believe it when we see it, though the doctor also cites stirrings of change elsewhere in the industrialized world, inching away from the much heralded socialized medicine as the cure-all. But change is slow. Socialism is the political equivalent of quicksand. The deeper you get into it, the harder it is to extricate yourself from it. That is precisely what is so insidious about it. Winston Churchill once equated trying to reverse socialism in Britain — or anywhere else — with trying to "unscramble an egg."

Insuring America

While touting the alleged glories of socialized medicine, the chicken-little alarmists have distorted and exaggerated the figures and problems of America's uninsured.

46 million American without insurance? Let's examine the details:

Number 1 — Roughly 20 percent of the uninsured in this country are not citizens. Ergo, 36 million Americans lack insurance. Immigrants without insurance are a serious problem. But that is an immigration issue, not a health insurance matter.

Number 2 — Only about half the uninsured Americans at any given time are without insurance 5 months later. In our mobile society, 84 percent of the uninsured are without coverage for less than 24 months.

Or as Gratzer puts it: "The executive who leaves his corner office at Citigroup to look for greener pastures may soon join the ranks of the uninsured...If the gentleman lands a vice presidency at a rival bank, we would consider that a success story. Yet, statistically speaking, he became apart of the group of "uninsured Americans."

Number 3 — The uninsured are not a relatively homogeneous group — poor. The single mom with three children is not uninsured — she has Medicaid — as do her children and their neighbors.

Number 4 — Many Americans are uninsured by choice. Some of these are eligible for Medicaid, but choose not to sign up.

And Number 5 (bottom line) — "A full 93 percent of Americans either are insured or could afford insurance."

Thus, to put it in perspective

Again, the U.S. health care system is flawed, but not the way the socialists — homegrown and otherwise — figure it. And those critics do not offer the cure.

There are ways to upgrade and improve our system, a topic with which we will deal in the future. But the next time someone rolls out "Hillarycare" or "single payer," it is well to bear in mind that while figures don't lie, they can distort and mislead.

The Obamacare horror story you won't hear

The White House, Democrats and MoveOn liberals are spreading healthcare sob stories to sell a government takeover. But there's one healthcare policy nightmare you won't hear the Obamas hyping. It's a tale of poor minority patient-dumping in Chicago -- with first lady Michelle Obama's fingerprints all over it.

Both Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Democratic Rep. Bobby Rush of Illinois have raised red flags about the outsourcing program run by the University of Chicago Medical Center. The hospital has nonprofit status and receives lucrative tax breaks in exchange for providing charity care.

Yet, in fiscal year 2007, when Mrs. Obama was employed there, it spent a measly $10 million on charity care for the poor -- 1.3 percent of its total hospital expenses, according to an analysis performed for The Washington Post by the nonpartisan Center for Tax and Budget Accountability. The figure is below the 2.1 percent average for nonprofit hospitals in surrounding Cook County.

Rep. Rush called for a House investigation last week in response to months of patient-dumping complaints, noting: "Congress has a duty to expend its power to mitigate and prevent this despicable practice from continuing in centers that receive federal funds."

Don't expect the president to support a probe. While a top executive at the hospital, Mrs. Obama helped engineer the plan to offload low-income patients with non-urgent health needs. Under the Orwellian banner of an "Urban Health Initiative," Mrs. Obama sold the scheme to outsource low-income care to other facilities as a way to "dramatically improve healthcare for thousands of South Side residents."

In truth, it was old-fashioned cost-cutting and favor-trading repackaged as minority aid. Clearing out the poor freed up room for insured (i.e., more lucrative) patients. If a Republican had proposed the very same program and recruited black civic leaders to front it, Michelle Obama and her grievance-mongering friends would be screaming "RAAAAAAAAACISM!" at the top of their lungs.

Joe Stephens of The Washington Post wrote, "To ensure community support, Michelle Obama and others in late 2006 recommended that the hospital hire the firm of David Axelrod, who a few months later became the chief strategist for Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Axelrod's firm (ASK Public Strategies) recommended an aggressive promotional effort modeled on a political campaign -- appoint a campaign manager, conduct focus groups, target messages to specific constituencies, then recruit religious leaders and other third-party 'validators.' They, in turn, would write and submit opinion pieces to Chicago publications."

Some healthcare experts saw through Mrs. Obama and PR man Axelrod -- yes, the same Axelrod who is now President Obama's senior adviser. But the University of Chicago Medical Center hired ASK Public Strategies to promote Mrs. Obama's initiative. Axelrod had the blessing of Chicago political guru Valerie Jarrett -- now a White House senior adviser.

Axelrod's great contribution: re-branding! His firm recommended renaming the initiative after "internal and external respondents expressed the opinion that the word 'urban' is code for 'black' or 'black and poor.' ...Based on the research, consideration should be given to re-branding the initiative." Axelrod and the Obama campaign refused to disclose how much his firm received for its genius re-branding services.

In February 2009, outrage in the Obamas' community exploded upon learning that a young boy covered by Medicaid had been turned away from the University of Chicago Medical Center. Dontae Adams' mother, Angela, had sought emergency treatment for him after a pit bull tore off his upper lip. Mrs. Obama's hospital gave the boy a tetanus shot, antibiotics and Tylenol, and shoved him out the door. The mother and son took an hour-long bus ride to another hospital for surgery.

I'll guarantee you this: You'll never see the Adams family featured at an Obama policy summit or seated next to the first lady at a joint session of Congress to illustrate the failures of the healthcare system.

Following the Adams incident, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) blasted Mrs. Obama and Axelrod's grand plan. The group released a statement expressing "grave concerns that the University of Chicago's policy toward emergency patients is dangerously close to 'patient dumping,' a practice made illegal by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)" -- signed by President Reagan, by the way -- "and reflected an effort to 'cherry pick' wealthy patients over poor."

Rewarding political cronies at the expense of the poor while posing as guardians of the downtrodden? Welcome to Obamacare.

Nope ,we sure won't hear about this on the state media.That's why they'll be going aftyer internet contaent soon in the form of regulation"for the children"

In England if you're 59 or older they won't give you heart stints or a heart bypass.

Just let it be known that if we go to Universal Health Care, which is government paid and government managed health care, our system will be just like England's, and if you're 59 and you need heart care, forget about it. They don't allow you to have it.

I made to NEW POSTS about this, and they both say "Pending Moderator Approval." I'm figuring the Obama gang doesn't want Americans over 59 to know this.

AIG is the largest Insurance Company. AIG is still bankrupt. Be wary of the amount of money being alotted and who the money will go to in Obama's healthcare bill. There is a 10000000000% guarantee that the money will be alotted to AIG. The healthcare reform bill sounds good from what very very very little Obama says. The hidden part will be another bailout to AIG.

Uh yeah, tell us about it creeksneakers and evreport (p.s. If you bother to adjust the margins, it isn't so obvious that you just cut and pasted from a Bammy site).

Here's a site with a Canadian telling how she would have died under government run "health care":

http://live.radioamerica.org/loudwater/player.pl?name=wnd&url=http://feeds.radioamerica.org/podcast/DWP/audio/000007_010358.mp3

75% of Americans want this type of garbage, huh?

How about this:

If you believe the White House, there are 30 million Americans who support a government healthcare takeover. But if you look at the funding behind the Obamacare campaign, it's the same few leftist billionaires, union bosses and partisan community organizers pushing the socialized medicine agenda. Let's connect the dots.

On Thursday, a national "grassroots" coalition called Health Care for America Now (HCAN) will march on Capitol Hill to demand universal healthcare. The ground troops won't have to march very far. HCAN, you see, is no heartland network. It is headquartered at 1825 K Street in Washington, DC -- smack dab in the middle of Beltway lobby land.

In fact, 1825 K Street is Ground Zero for a plethora of "progressive" groups subsidized by anti-war, anti-Republican, Big Nanny special interests. Around Washington, the office complex is known as "The Other K Street." The Washington Post noted in 2007 that "its most prominent tenants form an abbreviated who's who of well-funded allies of the Democratic Party....Big money from unions such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, as well as the Internet-fueled MoveOn, has provided groups like those at 1825 K Street the wherewithal to mount huge campaigns."

MoveOn, of course, is the recreational political vehicle of radical liberal sugar daddy George Soros. The magnate's financial fingerprints are all over the HCAN coalition, which includes MoveOn, the action fund of the Center for American Progress (a Soros think tank), and the Campaign for America's Future (a pro-welfare state lobbying outfit).

HCAN has a $40 million budget, with $10 million pitched in by The Atlantic Philanthropies -- a Bermuda-based organization fronted by Soros acolyte Gara LaMarche. Also in the money mix: notorious Democratic donors Herb and Marion Sandler, the left-wing moguls who made billions selling subprime mortgages and helped Soros fund his vast network of left-wing activist satellites. By their side is billionaire Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance, whose "Progressive Future" youth group has dispatched clueless volunteers armed with clipboards and literature bashing Rush Limbaugh and Fox News to scare up support for Obamacare.

And two more left-wing heavyweights are joining the HCAN parade: the corruption-plagued SEIU (which has battled numerous embezzlement scandals among its chapters across the country while crusading for consumer and patients' rights), and Obama's old chums at fraud-riddled ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

ACORN and HCAN are linked by left-wing philanthropist Drummond Pike, who heads the nonprofit Tides Foundation/Tides Center. As the tax disclaimer for HCAN discloses, "HCAN is related to Health Care for America Education Fund, a project of The Tides Center, a section 501(c)(3) public charity." For decades, the Tides Center and its parent organization, the Tides Foundation, have seeded some of the country's most radical activist groups of the left, including the communist-friendly United for Peace and Justice, the jihadist-friendly National Lawyers Guild and the grievance-mongering Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Pike is the same philanthropist who assisted ACORN founder Wade Rathke after his brother, Dale, was caught embezzling nearly $1 million from the group. Wade Rathke sits on the Tides Foundation board of directors. In a conspiracy to cover up Dale Rathke's massive theft of funds, Pike volunteered to buy a promissory note worth $800,000 to cover the debt. These are the populist do-gooders supposedly looking out for you and your health.

Why do they want Obamacare? An internal ACORN memo I obtained from August 2008 makes the motives clear: "Over our 38 years, health care organizing has never been a major focus either nationally or locally for ACORN," wrote ACORN Philadelphia regional director Craig Robbins. "But increasingly, ACORN offices around the country are doing work on health care." The goal: "Building ACORN Power."

The memo outlines the ACORN/HCAN partnership and their strategy of opposing any programs that rely on "unregulated private insurance" -- and then parlaying political victory on government-run healthcare "to move our ACORN agenda (or at least part of it) with key electeds that we might otherwise not be able to pull off."

The objective, in other words, is to piggyback and exploit Obamacare to improve and protect their political health. The "grassroots" movement is not about representing Main Street. It's about peddling influence and power at 1825 K Street.