Another Fine Example Of Government Healthcare

No sooner than I had written a story about government "care" than a reader sent me the following story, written by Kimberly Hefling and Ben Evans, of Associated Press.

"Fewer than half of Veterans Affairs centers given a surprise inspection last month had proper training and guidelines in place for common endoscopic procedures, such as colonoscopies... even after the agency learned that mistakes may have exposed thousands of veterans to HIV and other diseases.

The findings, from the VA's Inspector General and obtained by Associated Press, suggest that errors in colonoscopies and other minimally invasive procedures, performed at VA facilities, "may be more widespread than initially thought."

What?

If this was a private hospital, the outcry would be deafening. The lawsuits would already be stacked ten feet high. Insurance premiums for those doctors would rise like a hot air balloon.

You would already be hearing the stentorian tones of network television announcers asking why and how such a tragedy could happen.

But there is no outcry, because the defendant is the government, and as everyone knows, even when the government makes a mistake, and in this case a HUGE mistake, "NOTHING" is the most likely outcome.

"The VA's response was that there was no way to tell whether the infections suffered by veterans came from VA procedures. Their experts said that most, or all, of the infections probably already existed. Six veterans had HIV, thirty four had hepatitis C and thirteen had hepatitis B.

All from one hospital?

For all those out there that think the government can run healthcare, think again. The present system, no matter its flaws, has checks and balances. The government has no checks and balances, and zero accountability. There is no report of anyone losing their job in this entire scandal. Not only that, but there is no plan in place to make sure this doesn't happen again, and if bureaucrats draft one, there will be enough holes for them to weasel out of any situation that gets sticky.

The best thing you can do for yourself and your family is to practice preventative medicine, and to make sure that you don't have to go into the system, because you are in excellent health.

One of the ways you can do that is by taking Omega Oil Supplements, pharmaceutical grade fish oil and pharmaceutical grade CoQ10 and multiple vitamin and nutrient supplement.

With my best wishes for your optimum health,

Dr. Bill

Dr. Bill is the nom de guerre of William Thomas Stillwell, M.D., FACS, FICS, FAAOS, FAANAOS, FAAPGS. He is a licensed, board certified orthopaedic surgeon, with nearly a quarter century of clinical experience, and has served as Chairman of the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery at St. Catherine of Siena Medical Center, Smithtown, New York until he retired in 2003, Associate Professor of Clinical Orthopaedic Surgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook (1987-2003), Assisitant Professor before that, and Instructor of Clinical Orthopaedic Surgery at the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Columbia University (1982-1999).

Posted: True Health Is True Wealth

Are You Eating Cloned Meat?

Are you eating cloned meat? You probably don’t know. It’s becoming common practice ... but the FDA doesn’t require labeling of cloned meat!

Birth defects in clones are quite common. Cloning has been found to produce unhealthy animals who suffer tremendously. Clones often die young, suffer birth defects, and commonly need antibiotics. 1

The Center for Food Safety says that as many as 50% of cow clones have what’s called “Large Offspring Syndrome.” Symptoms include unusually high birth weight that endangers the mother, and a long list of organ and systemic abnormalities, including heart problems and immature lung development. 2

The report also states that there is evidence that clones are not always exact duplicates of their gene donors.3 Clearly, cloning remains an unpredictable science.

And cloning scientists have warned that even small imbalances in these clones could result in hidden food safety problems in the cloned meat.4 A recent study found differences in the composition of the milk and meat of cloned animals. 5

But here’s what’s even more worrisome, the nation’s major cattle cloning companies admit that they have not been able to keep track of how many offspring of clones have entered the food supply. 6

So there’s no way of knowing if you are buying cloned meat or not! I don’t know about you, but I consider this extremely deceptive. We should have the right to choose, especially when it comes to what we eat.

It’s sad to think that the FDA approved cloned livestock food without completely knowing all of the risks involved. But they don’t exactly have a good track record…just look at all the drug recalls they’ve made over the last decade.

The whole idea of cloned meat is frightening if you ask me. That’s another reason why I choose grass-fed beef. I don’t have to worry about whether or not I am eating some science experiment developed in a test tube.

So when choosing meat for your next meal, consider the following two options.

• Cattle raised as nature intended – in an open field free to roam and feast on their natural diet of grass

Or

• Something developed in a scientific experiment that has not been properly researched, not to mention fed an unnatural diet of grain and given massive doses of antibiotics.

This should be an easy one, correct? Choose the grass-fed beef, of course. At least you’ll know exactly what you are getting – something that’s healthy and nutritious with no hidden food safety issues. It’s hormone-free, antibiotic-free, has no preservatives, and has a healthy ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fats.

I get my grass-fed meats at U.S. Wellness Meats at www.grasslandbeef.com. They ship it right to your door packed in dry ice.

So you can enjoy a nice juicy grass-fed burger or steak any time – clone free and worry free!

To Your Good Health,

Al Sears MD

Al Sears, MD
11903 Southern Blvd., Ste. 208
Royal Palm Beach, FL 33411

Reprinted From: May 2009

True Health Is True Wealth

The Essentials You Need To Keep Yours Eyes Healthy

• Lutein and Zeaxanthin are used by your body to produce the macular pigment that absorbs UV rays before they can damage your retina
• Bilberry promotes the strength and elasticity of microcapillaries in the eyes and optic nerve, and supports the millions of nerve cells and blood vessels in the retina
• Vitamin C protects the eye from sunlight-induced diminutions of photoreceptor cells, rod deterioration, and loss of rhodopsin
• Vitamin A helps maintain a crystal-clear cornea and prevent clouding over, and also helps improve night vision
• Vitamin E and Selenium flush out toxic heavy metals like cadmium from eye tissue--levels of which have been found to be higher in the lenses of cataract patients
• Taurine is vitally needed in the retina where it blocks UV rays and helps protect the lens
• Riboflavin is part of the enzyme system that maintains the lens' supply of glutathione -- a major free radical fighter in the eye
• Zinc -- so essential to a normally functioning retina that deficiencies of it can lead to vision loss and inability to see clearly at night.
• Copper attacks free radicals and protects optic nerve fiber by maintaining myelin, the insulating sheath that surrounds nerve cell

It's never too late to begin protecting your eyes against the ravages of free radicals.

Source: HSI

Posted: True Health Is True Wealth

Doctors Boo Obama In Chicago… Analysis: Tough Road Ahead

WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama isn't used to hearing boos.

For all the young president's popularity, the response he got Monday from doctors at an American Medical Association meeting was a sign his road is only going to get rockier as he tries to sell his plan to overhaul the nation's health care system.

The boos erupted when Obama told the doctors in Chicago he wouldn't try to help them win their top legislative priority — limits on jury damages in medical malpractice cases.

But what could they expect? If Obama announced support for malpractice limits, that would set trial lawyers and unions — major supporters of Democratic candidates — on the attack. Not to mention consumer groups.

Every other group in the health care debate has a wish list and a top priority. Insurers don't want competition from the government. Employers don't want to be told they have to offer medical coverage to their workers. Hospitals want to stave off Medicare cuts. Drug companies want to charge what the market will bear.

Obama can't give all of them what they want. Instead, he's got to figure what's just enough to keep as many groups as possible on board — without alienating others. It's a fine line for him — and sometimes for them.

"It's a coalition issue," said Robert Blendon of the Harvard School of Public Health, an expert on public opinion and the politics of health care. "No major group is able by itself to sink health reform. But if numbers of them come together for different reasons, it could really hurt the direction the president wants to go in."

The doctors were only Obama's first house call. He'll be making his case to the other groups — and to the nation at large — in an increasingly energetic campaign to get a bill passed by the end of his first year in office.

AMA insiders shouldn't have been surprised by Obama's upfront refusal to consider malpractice caps.

The group couldn't get that idea passed by a Republican Congress and president a few years ago. Some states have such curbs, but anyone who can count votes knows the chances for national limits are slim to none with Democrats in charge of Congress.

Instead, Obama left the door open to some kind of compromise on malpractice.

The president said he's willing to explore alternatives to taking doctors to court. In the past, he supported special programs in which hospitals and doctors are encouraged to admit mistakes, correct them and offer compensation. Studies have shown the approach can work, because doctors' refusal to acknowledge mistakes is one reason many families file suit.

Doctors have special reasons to be wary of the president's plans to overhaul the health care system.

Not long ago, doctors' decisions were rarely questioned. Now they are being blamed for a big part of the wasteful spending in the nation's $2.5 trillion health care system. Studies have shown that as much as 30 cents of the U.S. health care dollar may be going for tests and procedures that are of little or no value to patients.

The Obama administration has cited such findings as evidence that the system is broken. Since doctors are the ones responsible for ordering tests and procedures, health care costs cannot be brought under control unless they change their decision-making habits.

"Change is scary," said Dartmouth University's Dr. Elliott Fisher, a doctor turned costs researcher. "I think there is a fear of loss of autonomy, that someone is going to tell you what to do." Fisher collaborated on research that showed wild differences in health care spending around the country — and no signs of better health in the high-cost areas.

But Obama did not blame the doctors. Instead, he tried to woo them, much as he has done with recalcitrant foreign leaders.

"It's the equivalent of international diplomacy. He's got to make them feel like it's possible to have dialogue about what the future looks like," said Blendon. "I think he's starting out with the AMA, but before the summer's over he's going to reach out to a lot of the other groups."

Obama assured the doctors that his plan would provide them with objective information on what treatments work best, with new computerized tools to better manage their patient case loads, and with support for harried solo practitioners to form networks.

He promised that Washington would not dictate clinical decisions. And he asked the doctors to imagine a world in which nearly every patient has insurance coverage and they can devote their full attention to the practice of medicine.

"You did not enter this profession to be bean-counters and paper-pushers," Obama said. "You entered this profession to be healers — and that's what our health care system should let you be."

That line got him an ovation.

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR – 2 hours ago - reports on health care policy for The Associated Press.

Obama needs to take time and give Congress and the American People time to examine all the options and do the needed research about American Healthcare Reform, not push through another nightmare (costing 1 Trillion Dollars over 10-years), like the TARP and Omnibus Bills without reading or researching with the gun of immediacy to all our heads. Obama also needs to stop rewarding the organized labor, who spent $80 Million dollars getting Obama and the Democrats elected. Doing something just to fulfill your uninformed campaign promises is not a good enough reason to spend another Trillion Dollars and to do this wrong!! This time around is everyone's job to get this right and to stand up to the Obama Administration and Congress to get it right, or let it go until we have our ducks in a row and can afford the needed decisions. - Ask/Marion – Daily Thought Pad

--------------------

OBAMA BOOED BY DOCTORS IN ILLINOIS TODAY

Seems pretty funny to me that doctors booed the Obama and it was told by CNN today and it's not on the internet yet. Doctors in Illinois didn't like what he had to say and it was big on CNN. Thought I'd look into the Liberal side and see what was happening.

Oh, and what he meant about having it costing less as it goes along - is the Government going to make sure the elderly get their coverage or operations or whether they will tell them to go home and die is that what they mean about costing less as it goes along. Makes one wonder, doesn't it?

Seems a lot of doctors feel this will be offensive to them - and NO CAPS on the way people sue doctors looks to me that less men or women will want to be doctors in the future.

By: Teatime1 on AARP.org/blog

Source: Knowledge Creates Power

Posted: True Health Is True Wealth

Related Resources and Posts:

• Safeway’s Health Care Program Gets Attention
• House Health-Care Proposal Adds $600 Billion in Taxes (Update-2)
• How To Stop Socialized Health Care
• Democrats Set to Rush Through Government-Run Healthcare
• Understanding the House Democrat's Healthcare Bill
• Healthcare: You Think Michael Moore Will Contribute? Don’t Hold Your Breath
• Here Comes Health Care Rationing
• Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look
• British Healthcare – Don’t Treat The Old – And Senator Coburn Warns The Same For USA
• Rights, Responsibilities and Healthcare
• Universal Health and Old People
• Social Medicine is Great*! (as long as you don’t get sick)
• Conservatives for Patient's Rights
• Obama's Attack on Medical Civil Liberties
• Big Pharma and the FDC: Suppress the Science, Ban the Natural Substances, Sell Drugs
• Socialized Medicine in cartoon form.
• Voters Steer Europe to the Right – Why… Because Socialism Isn’t Working
• Progressivism – The Progressive Movement Is A Cancer – How We Got Here
• American Capitalism Gone With A Whimper – Pravda

Safeway's Health Care Program Gets Attention

My "Citizens, heal thyselves" item Wednesday on the responsibility of individuals to reform their own health care prompted inquiries from readers wanting to know more about what I referred to as Safeway Inc.'s stick-and-carrot approach.

Based on the belief that rising health care costs are mostly driven by behavior (smoking, eating poorly, not checking your cholesterol, etc.), the Pleasanton company's Healthy Measures program uses screenings and questionnaires and offers access to prevention-related facilities like fitness clubs, along with advice and referrals to help improve behavior.

The carrot: discounted premiums or refunds for passing the screenings or showing improvement. The stick: higher premiums for failing tests and no measurable improvement in behavior. "Holding people accountable gives them incentives," said Ken Shachmut, the Safeway senior vice president who oversees the health program.

It has also kept Safeway's health care costs, amounting to $1 billion or so a year, mostly flat over the past five years, an achievement few other companies can claim, said Shachmut, who admits battling his own weight problems.

The voluntary program now covers 25,000 employees, or about three-quarters of Safeway's nonunion workforce. Elements of the program are included in contracts covering Safeway's union workers, who fall outside the company's self-insurance plan. Shachmut said most of its 200,000 union workers should be participating in the program within the next six years. The main thing that employees covered by the program seem to want, said Shachmut, is "more discounts."

In the meantime, Safeway is spreading its consumer-driven approach via the recently formed Coalition to Advance Healthcare Reform (coalition4healthcare.org), founded by company CEO Steve Burd. The 63 corporate members include Bay Area companies McKesson Corp., PG&E, Clorox Co., and Kaiser Permanente.

"This is the silver lining in the cloud of rising health costs. If we can design incentives in these core areas, we have a fighting chance of getting our arms around it," Shachmut said.

More details: You can find more on Safeway's program at links.sfgate.com/ZHIV. A Chronicle feature that ran earlier this year, is online at sfgate.com/ZHJB. Safeway CEO Burd penned on op-ed on the subject in Friday's Wall Street Journal, available at links.sfgate.com/ZHIX.

The Journal also has a news story in Friday's edition questioning the efficacy of prevention programs (links.sfgate.com/ZHIY). On the other hand, a 2007 nationwide survey of 355 human resources and health benefits managers suggested a strong correlation between wellness programs and increased productivity and market and shareholder value. (links.sfgate.com/ZHIZ).

-------

How Safeway Is Cutting Healthcare Costs

Effective health-care reform must meet two objectives: 1) It must secure coverage for all Americans, and 2) it must dramatically lower the cost of health care. Health-care spending has outpaced the rise in all other consumer spending by nearly a factor of three since 1980, increasing to 18% of GDP in 2009 from 9% of GDP. This disturbing trend will not change regardless of who pays these costs -- government or the private sector -- unless we can find a way to improve the health of our citizens. Failure to do so will make American companies less competitive in the global marketplace, increase taxes, and undermine our economy.

At Safeway we believe that well-designed health-care reform, utilizing market-based solutions, can ultimately reduce our nation's health-care bill by 40%. The key to achieving these savings is health-care plans that reward healthy behavior. As a self-insured employer, Safeway designed just such a plan in 2005 and has made continuous improvements each year. The results have been remarkable. During this four-year period, we have kept our per capita health-care costs flat (that includes both the employee and the employer portion), while most American companies' costs have increased 38% over the same four years.

Martin Kozlowski

Safeway's plan capitalizes on two key insights gained in 2005. The first is that 70% of all health-care costs are the direct result of behavior. The second insight, which is well understood by the providers of health care, is that 74% of all costs are confined to four chronic conditions (cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity). Furthermore, 80% of cardiovascular disease and diabetes is preventable, 60% of cancers are preventable, and more than 90% of obesity is preventable.

As much as we would like to take credit for being a health-care innovator, Safeway has done nothing more than borrow from the well-tested automobile insurance model. For decades, driving behavior has been correlated with accident risk and has therefore translated into premium differences among drivers. Stated somewhat differently, the auto-insurance industry has long recognized the role of personal responsibility. As a result, bad behaviors (like speeding, tickets for failure to follow the rules of the road, and frequency of accidents) are considered when establishing insurance premiums. Bad driver premiums are not subsidized by the good driver premiums.

As with most employers, Safeway's employees pay a portion of their own health care through premiums, co-pays and deductibles. The big difference between Safeway and most employers is that we have pronounced differences in premiums that reflect each covered member's behaviors. Our plan utilizes a provision in the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act that permits employers to differentiate premiums based on behaviors. Currently we are focused on tobacco usage, healthy weight, blood pressure and cholesterol levels.

Safeway's Healthy Measures program is completely voluntary and currently covers 74% of the insured nonunion work force. Employees are tested for the four measures cited above and receive premium discounts off a "base level" premium for each test they pass. Data is collected by outside parties and not shared with company management. If they pass all four tests, annual premiums are reduced $780 for individuals and $1,560 for families. Should they fail any or all tests, they can be tested again in 12 months. If they pass or have made appropriate progress on something like obesity, the company provides a refund equal to the premium differences established at the beginning of the plan year.

At Safeway, we are building a culture of health and fitness. The numbers speak for themselves. Our obesity and smoking rates are roughly 70% of the national average and our health-care costs for four years have been held constant. When surveyed, 78% of our employees rated our plan good, very good or excellent. In addition, 76% asked for more financial incentives to reward healthy behaviors. We have heard from dozens of employees who lost weight, lowered their blood-pressure and cholesterol levels, and are enjoying better health because of this program. Many discovered for the first time that they have high blood pressure, and others have been told by their doctor that they have added years to their life.

Today, we are constrained by current laws from increasing these incentives. We reward plan members $312 per year for not using tobacco, yet the annual cost of insuring a tobacco user is $1,400. Reform legislation needs to raise the federal legal limits so that incentives can better match the true incremental benefit of not engaging in these unhealthy behaviors. If these limits are appropriately increased, I am confident Safeway's per capita health-care costs will decline for at least another five years as our work force becomes healthier.

The Healthy Measures program currently applies only to our nonunion work force. While we have numerous health and wellness provisions in our union contracts, we are working with union leaders like Joe Hansen of the United Food and Commercial Workers to incorporate healthy measures provisions in our union work force as well.

While comprehensive health-care reform needs to address a number of other key issues, we believe that personal responsibility and financial incentives are the path to a healthier America. By our calculation, if the nation had adopted our approach in 2005, the nation's direct health-care bill would be $550 billion less than it is today. This is almost four times the $150 billion that most experts estimate to be the cost of covering today's 47 million uninsured. The implication is that we can achieve health-care reform with universal coverage and declining per capita health-care costs.

There is a very real possibility that we will see positive transformational health-care reform in the near future. I am encouraged by the effort I see on Capitol Hill, particularly the bipartisan effort in the Senate. While some tough issues remain, if we continue to work in a bipartisan manner I believe we will resolve these issues successfully and find agreement on meaningful reform.

By STEVEN A. BURD - Mr. Burd is CEO of Safeway Inc., and the founder of the Coalition to Advance Healthcare Reform.

Steven Burd has testified in Washington D.C. and appeared on Fox News’ Huckabee. He has caught the attention of people from Senator Barbara Boxer to Rush Limbaugh; definitely opposite ends of the spectrum!! This is a great alternative to $600 Million in additional taxes and $400 Million in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid!!

Source: Daily Thought Pad

Posted: True Health Is True Wealth

Related Resources and Posts:

• How To Stop Socialized Health Care
• House Health-Care Proposal Adds $600 Billion in Taxes
• Democrats Set to Rush Through Government-Run Healthcare
• Understanding the House Democrat's Healthcare Bill
• Healthcare: You Think Michael Moore Will Contribute? Don’t Hold Your Breath
• Here Comes Health Care Rationing
• Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look
• British Healthcare – Don’t Treat The Old – And Senator Coburn Warns The Same For USA
• Rights, Responsibilities and Healthcare
• Universal Health and Old People
• Social Medicine is Great*! (as long as you don’t get sick)
• Conservatives for Patient's Rights
• Obama's Attack on Medical Civil Liberties
• Socialized Medicine in cartoon form.
• Voters Steer Europe to the Right – Why… Because Socialism Isn’t Working
• Progressivism – The Progressive Movement Is A Cancer – How We Got Here

Deadly Anti-Psychotics Approved for Children?

The FDA – or at least its advisory panel – has lost its collective mind. Or maybe they're so enamored by Big Pharma and its big money that they see nothing else...like the very lives of our children.

In a crushingly disappointing decision, the FDA advisory panel has voted to approve three dangerous – sometimes deadly – drugs for use in our children. Even though these drugs are known to increase the risk of weight gain, diabetes, high cholesterol, and DEATH. (And those are just a few of the life-threatening problems linked to them.)

Based on results in ADULTS, the three (potentially) lethal drugs – Seroquel, Zyprexa, and Geodon – all come with black box warnings, and an alarming list of side effects and adverse event reports. These drugs should be pulled from the markets, not given to children.
Bottom line: If the doctor wants to prescribe one of these drugs for your child, find another doctor...fast.

--Michele – HSI

Posted: True Health Is True Wealth

How to Stop Socialized Health Care

Five arguments Republicans must make…

It was a sobering breakfast with one of the smartest Republicans on Capitol Hill. We can fix a lot of bad stuff President Barack Obama might do, he told me. But if Mr. Obama signs into law a "public option," government-run insurance program as part of health-care reform we won't be able to undo the damage.

I'd go the Republican member of Congress one further: If Democrats enact a public-option health-insurance program, America is on the way to becoming a European-style welfare state. To prevent this from happening, there are five arguments Republicans must make.

Getty Images

The first is it's unnecessary. Advocates say a government-run insurance program is needed to provide competition for private health insurance. But 1,300 companies sell health insurance plans. That's competition enough. The results of robust private competition to provide the Medicare drug benefit underscore this. When it was approved, the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cost $74 billion a year by 2008. Nearly 100 providers deliver the drug benefit, competing on better benefits, more choices, and lower prices. So the actual cost was $44 billion in 2008 -- nearly 41% less than predicted. No government plan was needed to guarantee competition's benefits.

Second, a public option will undercut private insurers and pass the tab to taxpayers and health providers just as it does in existing government-run programs. For example, Medicare pays hospitals 71% and doctors 81% of what private insurers pay.

Who covers the rest? Government passes the bill for the outstanding balance to providers and families not covered by government programs. This cost-shifting amounts to a forced subsidy. Families pay about $1,800 more a year for someone else's health care as a result, according to a recent study by Milliman Inc. It's also why many doctors limit how many Medicare patients they take: They can afford only so much charity care.

Fixing prices at less than market rates will continue under any public option. Sen. Edward Kennedy's proposal, for example, has Washington paying providers what Medicare does plus 10%. That will lead to health providers offering less care.

Third, government-run health insurance would crater the private insurance market, forcing most Americans onto the government plan. The Lewin Group estimates 70% of people with private insurance -- 120 million Americans -- will quickly lose what they now get from private companies and be forced onto the government-run rolls as businesses decide it is more cost-effective for them to drop coverage. They'd be happy to shift some of the expense -- and all of the administration headaches -- to Washington. And once the private insurance market has been dismantled it will be gone.

Fourth, the public option is far too expensive. The cost of Medicare -- the purest form of a government-run "public choice" for seniors -- will start exceeding its payroll-tax "trust fund" in 2017. The Obama administration estimates its health reforms will cost as much as $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. It is no coincidence the Obama budget nearly triples the national debt over that same period.

Medicare and Medicaid cost much more than estimated when they were adopted. One reason is there's no competition for these government-run insurance programs. In the same way, Americans can expect a public option to cost far more than the Obama administration's rosy estimates.

Fifth, the public option puts government firmly in the middle of the relationship between patients and their doctors. If you think insurance companies are bad, imagine what happens when government is the insurance carrier, with little or no competition and no concern you'll change to another company.

In other words, the public option is just phony. It's a bait-and-switch tactic meant to reassure people that the president's goals are less radical than they are. Mr. Obama's real aim, as some candid Democrats admit, is a single-payer, government-run health-care system.

Health care desperately needs far-reaching reforms that put patients and their doctors in charge, bring the benefits of competition and market forces to bear, and ensure access to affordable and portable health care for every American. Republicans have plans to achieve this, and they must make their case for reform in every available forum.

Defeating the public option should be a top priority for the GOP this year. Otherwise, our nation will be changed in damaging ways almost impossible to reverse.

By Karl Rove

About Karl Rove - Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy making process.

Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.

Karl writes a weekly op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is now writing a book to be published by Simon & Schuster. Email the author at Karl@Rove.com or visit him on the web at Rove.com.

Or, you can send him a Tweet @karlrove.

Related Resources and Posts:

• Democrats Set to Rush Through Government-Run Healthcare
• Understanding the House Democrat's Healthcare Bill
• Healthcare: You Think Michael Moore Will Contribute? Don’t Hold Your Breath
• Here Comes Health Care Rationing
• Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look
• British Healthcare – Don’t Treat The Old – And Senator Coburn Warns The Same For USA
• Rights, Responsibilities and Healthcare
• Universal Health and Old People
• Social Medicine is Great*! (as long as you don’t get sick)
• Conservatives for Patient's Rights
• Obama's Attack on Medical Civil Liberties
• Socialized Medicine in cartoon form.
• Voters Steer Europe to the Right – Why… Because Socialism Isn’t Working
• Progressivism – The Progressive Movement Is A Cancer – How We Got Here

Posted: True Health Is True Wealth

The 20 Cancer Symptoms Women Are Most Likely to Ignore

Don't rely on routine tests alone to protect you from cancer. It's just as important to listen to your body and notice anything that's different, odd, or unexplainable. Here are some signs that are commonly overlooked:

1. Wheezing or shortness of breath
One of the first signs many lung cancer patients remember noticing is the inability to catch their breath.

2. Chronic cough or chest pain
Several types of cancer, including leukemia and lung tumors, can cause symptoms that mimic a bad cough or bronchitis. Some lung cancer patients report chest pain that extends up into the shoulder or down the arm.

3. Frequent fevers or infections
These can be signs of leukemia, a cancer of the blood cells that starts in the bone marrow. Leukemia causes the marrow to produce abnormal white blood cells, sapping your body's infection-fighting capabilities.

4. Difficulty swallowing
Trouble swallowing is most commonly associated with esophageal or throat cancer, and is sometimes one of the first signs of lung cancer, too.

5. Swollen lymph nodes or lumps on the neck, underarm, or groin
Enlarged lymph nodes indicate changes in the lymphatic system, which can be a sign of cancer.

6. Excessive bruising or bleeding that doesn't stop
This symptom usually suggests something abnormal happening with the platelets and red blood cells, which can be a sign of leukemia. Over time, leukemia cells crowd out red blood cells and platelets, impairing your blood's ability to carry oxygen and clot.

7. Weakness and fatigue
Generalized fatigue and weakness is a symptom of so many different kinds of cancer that you'll need to look at it in combination with other symptoms. But any time you feel exhausted without explanation and it doesn't respond to getting more sleep, talk to your doctor.

8. Bloating or abdominal weight gain
Women diagnosed with ovarian cancer overwhelmingly report unexplained abdominal bloating that came on fairly suddenly and continued on and off over a long period of time.

9. Feeling full and unable to eat
This is another tip-off to ovarian cancer; women say they have no appetite and can't eat, even when they haven't eaten for some time.

10. Pelvic or abdominal pain
Pain and cramping in the pelvis and abdomen can go hand in hand with the bloating that often signals ovarian cancer. Leukemia can also cause abdominal pain resulting from an enlarged spleen.

11. Rectal bleeding or blood in stool
This is a common result of diagnosing colorectal cancer. Blood in the toilet alone is reason to call your doctor and schedule a colonoscopy.

12. Unexplained weight loss
Weight loss is an early sign of colon and other digestive cancers; it's also a sign of cancer that's spread to the liver, affecting your appetite and the ability of your body to rid itself of wastes.

13. Upset stomach or stomachache
Stomach cramps or frequent upset stomachs may indicate colorectal cancer.

14. A red, sore, or swollen breast
These symptoms can indicate inflammatory breast cancer. Call your doctor about any unexplained changes to your breasts.

15. Nipple changes
One of the most common changes women remember noticing before being diagnosed with breast cancer is a nipple that began to appear flattened, inverted, or turned sideways.

16. Unusually heavy or painful periods or bleeding between periods
Many women report this as the tip-off to endometrial or uterine cancer. Ask for a transvaginal ultrasound if you suspect something more than routine heavy periods.

17. Swelling of facial features
Some patients with lung cancer report noticing puffiness, swelling, or redness in the face. Small cell lung tumors commonly block blood vessels in the chest, preventing blood from flowing freely from your head and face.

18. A sore or skin lump that doesn't heal, becomes crusty, or bleeds easily
Familiarize yourself with the different types of skin cancer -- melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma -- and be vigilant about checking skin all over your body for odd-looking growths or spots.

19. Changes in nails
Unexplained changes to the fingernails can be a sign of several types of cancer. A brown or black streak or dot under the nail can indicate skin cancer, while newly discovered "clubbing"-- enlargement of the ends of the fingers with nails that curve down over the tips -- can be a sign of lung cancer. Pale or white nails can sometimes be a sign of liver cancer.

20. Pain in the back or lower right side
Many cancer patients say this was the first sign of liver cancer. Breast cancer is also often diagnosed via back pain, which can occur when a breast tumor presses backward into the chest, or when the cancer spreads to the spine or ribs.

Whether you are a man or a woman, it’s important to watch for any unusual changes in your body and energy levels in order to detect any signs of cancer early on. The sooner you notice there’s a problem, the sooner you can begin to take the steps necessary to promote healing within your body.

Of course, ideally you should follow an anti-cancer lifestyle even before you notice any symptoms, as prevention is the best route when it comes to most chronic diseases. It is not unusual for 10 or more years to pass between exposure to a cancer-causing agent (tobacco, chemicals, radiation, cell phones, poor nutrition, etc.) and detectable cancer.

So during this time you have a chance to alter the progression of the disease.
Cancer is actually a group of diseases characterized by uncontrolled growth and spread of abnormal cells. The “cure” lies in controlling this abnormal growth and stopping the spread.

Your body has a remarkable capacity to do just that -- to heal -- and that ability is fueled largely by your lifestyle. If you eat well, exercise, get enough sleep and sun exposure and address your emotional stress, your body should be able to maintain a healthy balance.

The problem with cancer often lies not only with ignoring these health principles but also with the invasive and highly risky treatments that conventional medicine relies on to treat it -- surgery, chemotherapy and radiation.

This may surprise you to hear, but a recent landmark study found some cancers, even invasive cancers, may go away without treatment, and it may happen more often than anyone thought.

On the contrary, many experts now say cancer patients are more likely to die from cancer treatments like chemotherapy than the cancer itself.

The alarming rates of cancer deaths across the world -- cancer has a mortality rate of 90 percent, according to Italian oncologist Dr. Tullio Simoncini -- speak volumes about the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of these treatments, yet they are still regarded as the gold standard of cancer care.

Source: Dr. Mercola/MSN Health

Posted - True Health Is True Wealth

Suzanne Somer's Sip of Sunshine

Order Here - Try Some Today

Democrats Set to Rush Through Government-Run Healthcare

Senate Democrats announced plans Tuesday to begin committee work next week on health care legislation designed to assure coverage for millions of Americans who now lack it, a key objective of the Obama administration.

IBut Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said the measure that goes before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee would contain gaps rather than include several controversial features included in a draft that circulated only last week. Among them are a proposed government-run insurance plan to compete with private companies -- vociferously opposed by nearly all Republicans -- and a requirement for employers to pay a penalty if they fail to provide coverage for their workforce.

Dodd said he would preside over the sessions in the place of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., the committee chairman, who was diagnosed more than a year ago with brain cancer and has not been in the Capitol in recent days. The committee work will take about three weeks, he said.

Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., the top Republican on the health committee, responded dismissively to Dodd's comments about leaving gaps for GOP lawmakers to debate.

He said Democrats did so "because they know we're not going to like what they've written and they don't want us to have any time to comment," he said in an interview.

Enzi also said Democrats would have behaved differently if Kennedy were present.

"I've never worked a process on any bill with him that went like this where there was absolutely no input taken from the other party," Enzi said. "And I never treated him that way either."

"What the question is, is Senator Dodd in charge or is he just running the meeting, and we don't know yet," Enzi said.

Dodd's announcement signaled a quickening pace of activity on health care legislation, and came as senior House Democrats disclosed they are considering a new tax on employer-provided health benefits to help pay for expanding coverage to the 50 million uninsured. President Barack Obama opposed a tax on benefits during last year's campaign and aired numerous television commercials criticizing the idea when his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, proposed it.

Several officials also said an outline of emerging legislation in the House envisions a requirement for all individuals to purchase affordable coverage, with an unspecified penalty for those who refuse and a waiver for those who cannot cover the cost.

"There's no sense having a mandate unless you have a contribution," Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said Monday. He referred to the suggestion as "play or pay."

Rangel and other senior Democrats arranged to bring members of the party's rank and file up to date at a midday session Tuesday on the effort to draft health care legislation at the top of President Barack Obama's agenda.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they did not want to pre-empt the presentation to rank-and-file Democrats on Tuesday.

Under an outline of the House Democratic plan, individuals and small businesses would be able to purchase coverage from a "health exchange" and the government would require all plans to contain a minimum benefit. No applicant could be rejected for pre-existing conditions, nor could one be charged a higher premium.

The outline shows Democrats want to provide subsidies to families up to about $88,000 a year to help them pay for insurance, and to require new policies to limit out-of-pocket spending as a way to prevent personal bankruptcies.

House Democrats also are considering a wide-ranging change for Medicaid that would provide a uniform benefit across all 50 states and increase payments to providers, according to several officials. Medicaid is a joint state-federal program of health coverage for the poor.

The measure also envisions several changes to Medicare, the government program that provides health care to seniors, although details are lacking.

According to the outline, the gap between primary care physician fees and those of specialists would be narrowed, and beneficiaries would not incur out-of-pocket costs for preventive services. The outline also mentions unspecified improvements in the prescription drug benefit. Democrats vociferously opposed that benefit when Republicans passed it, saying it provided billions in unnecessary subsidies to pharmaceutical companies.

The outline does not include an overall cost for the legislation, which is expected to exceed the $1.2 trillion, 10-year price tag Obama's proposal carried last winter.

Part of the cost would be covered in the form of cuts in the government payments under Medicare plans run by private insurance companies, which receive more per patient than the cost of traditional coverage.

Strikingly, the outline made no mention of the possible tax on health benefits, or of the proposed penalty for those refusing to purchase affordable insurance.

Several officials stressed that no final decisions would be made for several days on the possible tax on health benefits.

The idea has been gaining currency in recent weeks as Congress intensifies its search for more than $1 trillion to help pay for a health care overhaul.

America… Do your homework, contract your Representative and Senator (no matter which side you are on) and do not let them pass this legislation without reading it, without having ‘real’ funds to pay for it and a real plan, and without being satisfied that you will be receiving and will continue to receive the same or better health care treatment than you do today… which means better than the care in any country that now has socialized or nationalized healthcare. If not… do not let the government force you into a plan of worse healthcare that nobody can pay for!!

Source: Associated Press/MoneyNews.com

Related Resources and Posts:

• Understanding the House Democrat's Healthcare Bill
• Healthcare: You Think Michael Moore Will Contribute? Don’t Hold Your Breath
• Here Comes Health Care Rationing
• Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look
• British Healthcare – Don’t Treat The Old – And Senator Coburn Warns The Same For USA
• Rights, Responsibilities and Healthcare
• Universal Health and Old People
• Social Medicine is Great*! (as long as you don’t get sick)
• Conservatives for Patient's Rights
• Obama's Attack on Medical Civil Liberties
• Socialized Medicine in cartoon form.
• Voters Steer Europe to the Right – Why… Because Socialism Isn’t Working
• Progressivism – The Progressive Movement Is A Cancer – How We Got Here

Big Pharma and the FDA: Suppress the Science, Ban the Natural Substances, Sell the Drugs!

In 2005, an up-and-coming pharmaceutical company made a big mistake: they invested millions of dollars into developing a drug only to discover that the only active ingredient of the drug, pyridoxamine, was really a common, naturally occurring substance that has been sold for decades at low cost to consumers in the form of a dietary supplement, and has always been available in commonly consumed foods such as chicken and brewer’s yeast.

We’re taught as children that when you make a mistake, you should own up to it and face the consequences. Apparently the pharmaceutical company in question, Biostratum, Inc., has yet to learn that lesson. Instead of owning up to their mistake, Biostratum tried to game the system to their advantage by asking the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to declare supplements containing pyridoxamine “adulterated” and effectively ban anyone but Biostratum from selling pyridoxamine.

Sadly, Biostratum’s desparate ploy to save their investment worked. Earlier this year the FDA agreed to ban companies from selling pyridoxamine as a dietary supplement. They denied the request to declare products containing pyridoxamine “adulterated,” but instead they declared that such products are not dietary supplements at all—claiming they are excluded from the definition of dietary supplements under the “prior market clause” [21 U.S.C. 321(ff)(3)(B)(ii)] and so may not be marketed as such.

Please note that nowhere in the FDA’s response letter is anything said about safety concerns. In fact, the FDA’s letter specifically says that “to allow such an article to be marketed as a dietary supplement would not be fair to the pharmaceutical company that brought, or intends to bring, the drug to market.” Fair to the pharmaceutical companies? What about fairness to consumers, some of whom rely on affordable pyridozxamine supplements to provide the levels of vitamin B-6 required for their survival? Is it fair to force those consumers to pay for expensive prescription drugs and doctors’ visits to supply their B-6 needs when they could get the exact same thing for a fraction of the cost in the form of a supplement? Isn’t this why our health care system is so ineffective?

This is hardly the first time the FDA has attacked naturally occuring substances. On October 17, 2005, the FDA banned information about the health benefits of cherries from appearing on websites—scientifically proven benefits, such as tart cherries’ ability to reduce the risk of colon cancer because of the anthocyanins and cyanidin contained in the cherry. Cherries, according to the latest research, help ease the pain of arthritis and gout; reduce risk factors for heart disease and diabetes; help regulate the body’s natural sleep patterns, aid with jet lag, prevent memory loss, and delay the aging process; and helps lower body fat and cholesterol—risk factors associated with heart disease. Moreoever, Scientists at Johns Hopkins have found that tart cherry anthocyanins reduced painful inflammation as well as a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, indomethacin.

When the 2005 ban was instituted, the FDA sent warning letters to twenty-nine companies that market cherry products. In these letters, they ordered the companies to stop publicizing scientific data about cherries. According to the FDA, when cherry companies disseminate this peer-reviewed scientific information, the cherries become “unapproved new drugs” and are subject to seizure. The FDA warned that if those involved in “cherry trafficking” continue to inform consumers about these scientific studies, criminal prosecutions would ensue.

But fresh fruit and vegetables are not the FDA’s only target: As we reported in this newsletter recently, General Mills was recently issued a warning letter by the FDA for illegally marketing Cheerios Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal. The problem was the claim on the cereal box that Cheerios can lower cholesterol 4% in six weeks, and the statement on their website that “diets rich in whole grain foods can reduce the risk of heart disease.” The letter, dated May 5, 2009, called the above claims “serious violations” of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and applicable regulations.

FDA stated that based on the claims made, Cheerios is now an unapproved drug, and must go through FDA new drug approval process.Note that the FDA isn't disputing the claim. It's disputing the company's right to make the claim.

As one newspaper columnist humorously put it, “One of these things is not like the others: morphine, penicillin, aspirin, Cheerios. Most drugs, if taken improperly, will kill the consumer or cause substantial bodily harm. An entire bottle of aspirin at one sitting will harm or kill. If Cheerios is a drug, therefore, one should be able to commit suicide by consuming the entire box.”

For years, the FDA barred health claims about the benefits of fish oil for heart, cancer, depression, body pain, and various other conditions until a drug company paid a great deal of money to go through the approval process. This type of enforcement effectively censors scientific information and greatly restricts consumer access to scientific studies that provide valuable information.

In the case of pyridoxamine, the FDA did not act out of concern for public safety. This is about money, and about a profit-seeking corporation taking advantage of what is supposed to be a public health organization in order to save their skins.

Source: American Association for Health Freedom

Related Articles:

• The Drug Story
• Western Medicine - Forbidden Cures
• HPV Vaccine Dangers
• 32 Girls Have Died
• Creating a Generation of Drugged Kids
• Why Does the FDA Maintain a Conspiracy of Silence about the Health Benefits
• The Neglected Nutritional Research of Dr. Weston Price, DDS
• Sanoviv Medical Center
• Big Red Juice
• Conservatives for Patient's Rights In "The Land of the Free", is Natural Medicine One of Your Freedoms?

Posted: True Health Is True Wealth

Understanding the House Democrats’ health care bill

Posted Tuesday, June 9th, 2009, at 10:30 am

Yesterday I posted and described the draft Kennedy-Dodd health care bill. Today I would like to do the same for an outline produced by House Democrats.

Here is a three-page outline of “Key Features of the Tri-Committee Health Reform Draft Proposal in the House of Representatives,” dated yesterday (June 8, 2009).

The three committees are:

• The House Ways & Means Committee, chaired by Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY). The Health Subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA).
• The House Energy & Commerce Committee, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA). The Health Subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ).
• The House Committee on Education & Labor, chaired by Rep. George Miller (D-CA). The Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ).

The document suggests this is a joint product of the three committees and/or their subcommittees. My sense, however, is that it is Speaker Pelosi who is driving the bus. This is in contrast to the Senate, where the committee chairmen (Kennedy/Dodd and Baucus) appear to have the pen, in less well-coordinated efforts.

Kennedy-Dodd and the House bill outline are remarkably similar. Whether this represents House-Senate coordination or parallel thought processes is unclear.

I think the easiest way for me to present the House bill outline is in comparison with the Kennedy-Dodd bill. So here my description from yesterday of the Kennedy-Dodd bill, with today’s comparison to the House bill outline in red. I hope it’s comprehensible and useful this way. If you read yesterday’s post, you can skim the text in black and focus on the new text in blue.

Here are 15 things to know about the draft Kennedy-Dodd health bill and the House bill outline.

1. The Kennedy-Dodd bill would create an individual mandate requiring you to buy a “qualified” health insurance plan, as defined by the government. If you don’t have “qualified” health insurance for a given month, you will pay a new Federal tax. Incredibly, the amount and structure of this new tax is left to the discretion of the Secretaries of Treasury and Health and Human Services (HHS), whose only guidance is “to establish the minimum practicable amount that can accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage (as so defined).” The new Medical Advisory Council (see #3D) could exempt classes of people from this new tax. To avoid this tax, you would have to report your health insurance information for each month of the prior year to the Secretary of HHS, along with “any such other information as the Secretary may prescribe.”

   The House bill also contains an individual mandate. The outline is less specific but parallel: “Once market reforms and affordability credits are in effect to ensure access and affordability, individuals are responsible for having health insurance with an exception in cases of hardship.”

2. The Kennedy-Dodd bill would also create an employer mandate. Employers would have to offer insurance to their employees. Employers would have to pay at least a certain percentage (TBD) of the premium, and at least a certain dollar amount (TBD). Any employer that did not would pay a new tax. Again, the amount and structure of the tax is left to the discretion of the Secretaries of Treasury and HHS. Small employers (TBD) would be exempt.

   The House bill outline also contains an employer mandate that appears to parallel that in Kennedy-Dodd: “Employers choose between providing coverage for their workers or contributing funds on behalf of their uncovered workers.”

3. In the Kennedy-Dodd bill, the government would define a qualified plan:
   1. All health insurance would be required to have guaranteed issue and renewal, modified community rating, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, no lifetime or annual limits on benefits, and family policies would have to cover “children” up to age 26.

      The House bill outline is consistent with but less specific than the Kennedy-Dodd legislative language. The House bill outline would “prohibit insurers from excluding pre-existing conditions or engaging in other discriminatory practices.” I will keep my eye on what “other discriminatory practices” means in the legislative language. Does that mean that a health plan cannot charge higher premiums to smokers?

      Like the Kennedy/Dodd bill, the House bill outline would preclude health plans from imposing lifetime or annual limits on benefits: “Caps total out-of-pocket spending in all new policies to prevent bankruptcies from medical expenses.” This would raise premiums for new policies.

      The House bill outline “introduces administrative simplification and standardization to reduce administrative costs across all plans and providers.” I don’t know what this means, but suggest keeping an eye on it.

   2. A qualified plan would have to meet one of three levels of standardized cost-sharing defined by the government, “gold, silver, and bronze.” Details TBD.

      Same: “… by creating various levels of standardized benefits and cost-sharing arrangements…”. It also contains this addition relative to Kennedy-Dodd: “… with additional benefits available in higher-cost plans.”

      But note the “various levels of standardized benefits.” This appears to be more expansive government control of health plan design than in the Kennedy-Dodd draft.

   3. Plans would be required to cover a list of preventive services approved by the Federal government.

      This is unspecified in the House bill outline. We’ll have to wait to see legislative language. The House bill would require plans to “waive cost-sharing for preventive services in benefit packages.”

   4. A qualified plan would have to cover “essential health benefits,” as defined by a new Medical Advisory Council (MAC), appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The MAC would determine what items and services are “essential benefits.” The MAC would have to include items and services in at least the following categories: ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and new born care, medical and surgical, mental health, prescription drugs, rehab and lab services, preventive/wellness services, pediatric services, and anything else the MAC thought appropriate.

      This appears parallel but is less specific for now: “Independent public/private advisory committee recommends benefit packages based on standards set in statute.” I find the “standards set in statute” interesting. It suggests that provider and disease interest groups will have two fora in which to lobby for their benefits to be mandated: Congress, and the advisory committee.

   5. The MAC would also define what “affordable and available coverage” is for different income levels, affecting who has to pay the tax if they don’t buy health insurance. The MAC’s rules would go into effect unless Congress passed a joint resolution (under a fast-track process) to turn them off.

      The House bill outline is silent on this.

4. Health insurance plans could not charge higher premiums for risky behaviors: “Such rate shall not vary by health status-related factors, … or any other factor not described in paragraph (1).” Smokers, drinkers, drug users, and those in terrible physical shape would all have their premiums subsidized by the healthy.

   The House bill outline says it would “prohibit plans [from] rating (charging higher premiums) based on gender, health status, or occupation and strictly limits premium variation based on age.” If the bill were to provide nothing more, this would appear to parallel the Senate bill and preclude plans from charging higher premiums for risky behaviors.

5. Guaranteed issue and renewal combined with modified community rating would dramatically increase premiums for the overwhelming majority of those Americans who now have private health insurance. New Jersey is the best example of health insurance mandates gone wild. In the name of protecting their citizens, premiums are extremely high to cover the cross-subsidization of those who are uninsurable.

   The House bill outline is silent on guaranteed issue and renewal. I’m going to make an educated guess that the bill includes these provisions as part of “other discriminatory practices,” and they have just left them out of the outline. Given the philosophy behind this outline (with which I disagree), it would be a striking omission. But for now, the outline says nothing specific on these topics.

6. The bill would expand Medicaid to cover everyone up to 150% of poverty, with the Federal government paying all incremental costs (no State share). This means adding childless adults with income below 150% of the poverty line.

   The House bill outline “expands Medicaid for the most vulnerable, low-income populations,” so we have no specifics other than that there’s an expansion. I cannot tell if this is expanding eligibility or benefits. The outline also “improves payment rates to enhance access to primary care under Medicaid.” I assume this means the bill would expand the Federal share paid of each dollar spent by a State Medicaid program on primary care, rather than the Federal government actually mandating specific payment rates to be implemented by States. Federal micromanagement of specific Medicaid provider payment rates was eliminated in the mid 1990’s.

7. People from 150% of poverty up to 500% (!!) would get their health insurance subsidized (on a sliding scale). If this were in effect in 2009, a family of four with income of $110,000 would get a small subsidy. The bill does not indicate the source of funds to finance these subsidies.

   The House bill outline has a sliding scale up to 400% of poverty. If this were in effect in 2009, a family of four with income of $88,000 would get small subsidy.

8. People in high cost areas (e.g., New York City, Boston, South Florida, Chicago, Los Angeles) would get much bigger subsidies than those in low cost areas (e.g., much of the rest of the country, especially in rural areas). The subsidies are calculated as a percentage of the “reference premium,” which is determined based on the cost of plans sold in that particular geographic area.

   The House bill outline is not specific on this point. I would not expect it to be – this is something you can tell only from legislative language.

9. There would be a “public plan option” of health insurance offered by the federal government. In this new government health plan, the federal government would pay health care providers Medicare rates + 10%. The +10% is clearly intended to attract short-term legislative support from medical providers. I hope they are not so naive that they think that differential would last.

   The House bill outline “creates a new public health insurance within the Exchange … the public health insurance option competes on ‘level field’ with private insurers in the Exchange.” There are no specifics on how the public plan would work, or on provider payment rates.

10. Group health plans with 250 or fewer members would be prohibited from self-insuring. ERISA would only be for big businesses.

    The House bill outline is silent on this point.

11. States would have to set up “gateways” (health insurance exchanges) to market only qualified health insurance plans. If they don’t, the Feds will set up a gateway for them.

    The House calls it an Exchange rather than a Gateway. While the Senate bill would tell each State, “Create a Gateway or we’ll create one for you,” the House bill outline says to each State, “We’re creating a single new national Exchange. You’re in it unless you develop your own State or Regional Exchange.”

12. Health insurance plans in existence before the law would not have to meet the new insurance standards. This creates a weird bifurcated system and means you would (probably) be subject to a different set of rules when you change jobs.

    The House bill outline appears to parallel the Kennedy-Dodd draft: “Phases-in requirements to benefit and quality standards for employer plans.” This means that new plans will be more expensive than old plans. It also means they’re creating a bifurcated system with all sorts of perverse unintended consequences for employment flexibility.

13. The bill does not specify what spending will be cut or what taxes will be raised to pay for the increased spending. That is presumably for the Finance Committee to determine, since it’s their jurisdiction.

    The House bill outline lists specific topics for changes to Medicare reimbursement:

    • Changing (how?) the Medicare reimbursement for doctors, called the “Sustainable Growth Rate” (SGR).
    • “Increasing reimbursement for primary care providers”
    • “Improving” the Medicare drug program. I won’t be surprised if, when I see the specifics, I disagree that their changes are “improvements.” In the past this has meant having the federal government mandate specific prices for drugs.
    • Cutting payments to Medicare Advantage plans.
    • Expanding low-income subsidies for seniors and eliminating cost-sharing for all preventive services in Medicare.

    The House bill outline also uses positive language to describe things that might generate budgetary savings from Medicare and/or Medicaid. The hospital readmissions point is specific. The first two points could increase or decrease federal spending, depending on the specifics.

    • “Use federal health programs … to reward high quality, efficient care, and reduce disparities.”
    • “Adopt innovative payment approaches and promote[s] better coordinated care in Medicare and the new public option through programs such as accountable care organizations.”
    • “Attack the high rate of cost growth to generate savings for reform and fiscal sustainability, including a program in Medicare to reduce preventable hospital readmissions.”
14. The bill defines an “eligible individual” as “a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence or an alien lawfully present in the United States.”

    The House bill outline is silent on this point.

15. The bill would create a new pot of money for state gateways to pay “navigators” to educate people about the new bill, distribute information about health plans, and help people enroll. Navigators receiving federal funds “may include … unions, …”

    The House bill outline is silent on this point.

This would have severe effects on the more than 100 million Americans who have private health insurance today:

• The government would mandate not only that you must buy health insurance, but what health insurance counts as “qualifying.”
• Health insurance premiums would rise as a result of the law, meaning lower wages.
• A government-appointed board would determine what items and services are “essential benefits” that your qualifying plan must cover.
• You would find a tremendous new disincentive to switch jobs, because your new health insurance may be subject to the new rules and would therefore be significantly more expensive.
• Those who keep themselves healthy would be subsidizing premiums for those with risky or unhealthy behaviors.
• Far more than half of all Americans would be eligible for subsidies, but we have not yet been told who would pay the bill.
• The Secretaries of Treasury and HHS would have unlimited discretion to impose new taxes on individuals and employers who do not comply with the new mandates. (The House bill outline is not specific on this point.)
• The Secretary of HHS could mandate that you provide him or her with “any such other information as [he/she] may prescribe.” (The House bill outline is not specific on this point.)

I strongly oppose the Kennedy-Dodd bill and the House Tri-Committee bill.

If this topic interests you, I highly recommend Jim Capretta’s blog Diagnosis.

Source: Keith Hennessey.com /Daily Thought Pad

Posted: True Health Is True Wealth

Related Resources and Posts:

• Healthcare: You Think Michael Moore Will Contribute? Don’t Hold Your Breath
• Here Comes Health Care Rationing
• Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look
• British Healthcare – Don’t Treat The Old – And Senator Coburn Warns The Same For USA
• Rights, Responsibilities and Healthcare
• Universal Health and Old People
• Social Medicine is Great*! (as long as you don’t get sick)
• Conservatives for Patient's Rights
• Obama's Attack on Medical Civil Liberties
• Socialized Medicine in cartoon form.
• Voters Steer Europe to the Right – Why… Because Socialism Isn’t Working
• Progressivism – The Progressive Movement Is A Cancer – How We Got Here

In "The Land of the Free", is Natural Medicine One of Your Freedoms?

As of May 20, police around the country were on the lookout for a Minnesota mother who fled with her cancer-stricken 13 year old son rather than consent to chemotherapy.

Colleen Hauser had told a judge that she wished to treat her son's cancer with natural healing methods advocated by an American Indian religious group known as the Nemenhah Band.

Daniel has Hodgkins lymphoma, a form of cancer. But the teen and his parents rejected chemo after a single treatment, with the boy's mother saying that putting toxic substances in the body violates the family's religious convictions.

The Hauser family had been ordered to appear before a judge for a hearing to consider chemo. But mother and son failed to show, and a warrant was issued for the mother's arrest.

Source - American Association for Health Freedom

As many of you probably heard, a federal arrest warrant was issued for Colleen Hauser after she and her 13-year old son Daniel left Minnesota on May 19, to avoid chemotherapy treatment.

Daniel has Hodgkins lymphoma, a form of cancer typically treated with chemo and radiation.

Their refusal to cooperate with the standard treatment for his condition led to a medical neglect petition, and a Brown County District Court Judge took custody away from his parents.

It’s hard to believe, but this case actually turned into an international manhunt with Interpol being notified, and U.S. Marshals being deployed to Mexico in search of this mother and her child, whose only crime was to say “No thank you” to the conventional medical treatment prescribed by Daniel’s doctor!

Whose Body is it Anyway?

According to the Associated Press, there have been at least five instances in the U.S. in recent years in which parents fled with a sick child to avoid some form of medical treatment.

And, as I reported last year, we’re seeing courts siding with well intentioned but seriously misinformed government “officials” with increasing frequency. Many parents are increasingly cut out of the decision-making process about what’s in their child’s best interest with regards to their health.

Instances like these should be a wakeup call for parents everywhere. There’s something seriously wrong going on here.

Said Gretchen DuBeau, Executive Director of the American Association for Health Freedom:

“I am shocked at the court’s ruling. For the court to take custody, disregard the parents’ right to parent, and dismiss the child’s own wishes is a travesty. Our Constitution affords certain rights, and the court has completely trampled on them. It is still unclear as to what exactly ‘the compelling state interest’ is that the court used to justify this ruling.”

Most states have laws that allow parents to refuse treatment on religious grounds. Minnesota, however, removed this right two decades ago with the help of Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

Caplan has stated that “religious exceptions are bad public policy because effective medical treatment for a child shouldn't be sacrificed for a parent's beliefs.”

It’s shocking but true that, increasingly, you .are being told to sacrifice your beliefs as to what’s in the best interest of your child, and simply go along with a program that is designed to uphold the status quo of conventional medicine rather than promote true health.

Chemotherapy is NOT as Effective as Promised by Conventional Medicine

The central challenge in this case is your freedom to choose the health care you want, for whatever problem you have. However, it might be wise to review the specific health challenge here.
Lymphoma is cancer of your white blood cells, and half the people who get it die within 5 years. There are two main kinds of lymphoma: Hodgkin's disease, and the more common non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), which accounts for about 88 percent of all lymphoma.

No one knows exactly what causes this type of cancer, but we know that all cancers are caused by multiple gene mutations and/or damage to the parts of your immune system that normally destroy cancer cells.

According to Colleen Hauser, she opted to treat her son’s cancer with herbal supplements, vitamins, ionized water and other natural alternatives, because she believes chemotherapy to be highly toxic and dangerous. Daniel had suffered severe side effects after his first round of chemo.

This is clearly a rational and objective response to the dangerous and toxic solution that was offered to him.Chemotherapy is by its very nature extremely toxic, and may end up killing you prematurely or cause other cancers down the line as it practically destroys your immune system.

The biggest drawback to chemotherapy is the fact that it destroys healthy cells throughout your body right along with cancer cells. A typical, and potentially deadly, side effect of chemo is the destruction of the rapidly multiplying and dividing cells found in your:

• Bone marrow, which produces blood
• Digestive system
• Reproductive system
• Hair follicles

Conventional Medicine’s Lopsided View of Safety

According to a more recent update on the case, after returning home on May 25, the judge returned custody to Daniel’s parents on the condition that they comply with the recommendations of Daniel’s doctor.

After undergoing the second round of chemo on May 28, a family spokesman stated:

"Danny has had a horrible day, he's felt terrible all day long. He's not happy. The doctor changed the number of chemotherapy drugs in the protocol submitted to the court.
Danny is not tolerating the drugs well and has been vomiting all day.
He is understandably angry and depressed about being forced to go through the ravages of chemotherapy again."

His treating physician, Dr. Richards, has recommended at least five cycles of chemotherapy followed by radiation, adding that “the goal will be to include alternative therapies in which the family is interested, as long as there is not data to suggest that a particular danger exists with any alternative medicine.”

That’s really a rather funny, if not insulting, comment, considering the vast amount of data detailing the severe dangers that exist with chemo and radiation... In fact, a full 75 percent of doctors say they’d refuse chemotherapy if they were struck with cancer due to its ineffectiveness and its devastating side effects!

Granted, Hodgkin’s lymphoma is one of only a handful of cancers where chemotherapy may be of some value. The 5 year survival rate for patients treated with chemotherapy is just under 36 percent, according to a 2004 study published in the journal Clinical Oncology.

Still, being FORCED to undergo an excruciating and potentially deadly treatment because it offers a one third chance of being successful is, to me, morally reprehensible.

The Best Known “Chemotherapy” Agent Ever Found
Every month, there’s new and exciting news emerging about the near-miraculous benefits of having optimized vitamin D levels, and cancer prevention is one area that has already seen a huge number of studies confirming its usefulness.

Calcitriol, the most potent steroid hormone in your body, is produced in large amounts in your tissues when you have sufficient amounts of vitamin D. However, most cancer patients are vitamin D deficient.

Calcitrol -- the activated form of vitamin D -- has been shown to protect against cancer by inducing cell differentiation and controlling cell proliferation.

People with a low vitamin D level are less able to make activated vitamin D in an amount sufficient to exert the controls over cell proliferation that are needed to reduce cancer.
Optimized vitamin D levels will work synergistically with virtually every other cancer treatment. There are over 830 peer reviewed scientific studies showing its effectiveness in the treatment of cancer!
Not only is this approach virtually without any side effects, but the treatment is practically free.

I believe it is nearly criminal malpractice to not optimize vitamin D levels when treating someone with cancer, in which case you’ll want to elevate your levels of vitamin D to about 80-90 ng/ml. To determine your current levels, and to have them monitored throughout your treatment, I strongly recommend you get your blood test done by LabCorp, if you are in the United States.

If the notion that sun exposure actually prevents cancer is new to you, then I highly recommend you watch my one-hour vitamin D lecture to clear up any confusion.

Additionally there are large numbers of highly effective energetic therapies like Meridian Tapping Techniques, or quantum approaches like Matrix Energetics, which can provide powerful options.

Dr. Mercola

Posted: True Health Is True Wealth

Related Resources:

• Fight Cancer with Vitamin D

• Why Does the FDA Maintain a Conspiracy of Silence about the Health Benefits

• The Drug Story

• Western Medicine - Forbidden Cures

• The Neglected Nutritional Research of Dr. Weston Price, DDS

• Sanoviv Medical Center

• Big Red Juice

• Conservatives for Patient's Rights