New AIDS Vaccine

The new AIDS Vaccine is supposed to be a new break through according to AOL news. Researchers came up with the vaccine by trying out two unsuccessful vaccines, and the new vaccine is suppose to cut the risk of being infected with HIV by 31 percent in the world's largest AIDS vaccine trial of more than 16,000 volunteers in Thailand.
According to AOL News the institute's director, Dr. Anthony Fauci, warned that this is "not the end of the road," but he said he was surprised and very pleased by the outcome. The study used strains of HIV common in Thailand. Also according to AOL News Whether such a vaccine would work against other strains in the U.S., Africa or elsewhere in the world is unknown, scientists stressed, even a marginally helpful vaccine could have a big impact. Every day, 7,500 people worldwide are newly infected with HIV; 2 million died of AIDS in 2007, UNAIDS estimates, the study tested the two-vaccine combination in a "prime-boost" approach, in which the first one primes the immune system to attack HIV and the second one strengthens the response. With this new AIDS vaccine a lot of people may now start to get home, because before when there wasn't a cure for AIDS at all many people just became hopeless and really gave in because they felt as if they had nothing to live for. Now with this type of news they can have hope again. This is really giving people a second chance on life.














http://news.aol.com/health/article/new-aids-vaccine/684837

Healthcare really a right?

Rather than search for yet another article scrutinizing the ins and outs of Obama’s attempt at a healthcare plan, I looked for something closer to home. The Daily Illini produced an article yesterday titled “Freedom of press, speech, religion and… healthcare?” This article discusses healthcare as a right and whether or not it is accurately placed in that category as both President Obama and deceased Senator Kennedy have referred to it.  The author makes some good points, such as, “just because we need something doesn’t entitle us to it.” He goes on to question whether seeing the best doctor would then be in someone’s rights, if patients would then consider cosmetic surgeries, Lasik, and quit-smoking counseling a right, and if healthcare as a right would mean free healthcare?

            While I do not completely agree with the author that health care should be a “commodity that can be bought and sold,” I am also not convinced that healthcare should be a right. In a perfect world, I wish it could be a right…along with food and housing and equal opportunity, etc. Unfortunately, that is not that way it works. Giving someone the right to press, speech or religion does not cost billions of dollars.

If you'd like to read this article ---> http://www.dailyillini.com/blogs/different-perspectives/2009/09/28/freedom-of-press-speech-religion-and-health-care

 

Today's article in the New York Times, "Abortion Fight Adds to Debate on Health Care", illustrates how complicated and out-of-control the health care debate is beginning to appear. As if the issues with public option, cost, quality, subsidies, and drug companies did not take enough discussion and negotiating time in Washington, the issue of abortion has been added to the list. This is only going to delay an issuance of strong health care bill.
Abortion opponents argue that for the past 30 years there has been a ban on using federal funded money or taxpayer money to pay for elective abortions. They feel that the public can use government subsidies to buy insurance that cover abortion. However, the Obama administration says that is not the case. According to the Democratic leaders, the bill still upholds the ban. Under the bill, the insurance companies will be required to separate the funding in individual accounts; the funding from public subsidies will be separated from individual payments. Insurers would only be allowed to extract money from individual payments account to pay for abortions.
Nevertheless, the efforts of abortion opponents have been strong as they gain support of moderate Democrats. It has caught the attention of Obama and Nancy Pelosi. Both have tried to personally meet or contact the opponents.
This saga is a perfect demonstration of health care opponents trying to further complicate and delay the bill. The administration’s plan on segregating the funding is the same plan used today for Medicaid programs, where it seems to work without few flaws. This should not be the critical issue in the health care debate as we have an already-tested solution currently placed in the market. We know the plan of segregating funding will work and continuing to debate about such issues is only a strategy to complicate the debate, create confusion, and develop negative perception about universal health care.

To read today's article please click on the following link - abortion fight adds to debate on health care.

Health Care Reform Comes with a Price

President Obama's recent national address on healthcare seems to have done little to calm the debate on health care that has been going strong since before the presidential election. Since the unveiling of the new health care proposal, the reform has gained even more opposition. Where as before the biggest opponents of Obama's attempt at reform were Republican, the newest plan endorsed by Obama and devised by Democratic senator, Max Baucus, has been meet with disapproval from members of both parties. Liberal Democrats argue that the health care bill would be a new financial burden for the middle class. Requiring all families to have insurance and penalizing as much as $3,800 if the don't, seems unfair to those families having to spend more than seven percent of their income on insurance. Obama urged demaocrats to stick together in order to make progress in the efforts to put a plan in place. The current system does not work and as long as we continue to debate and forgo change people and families continue to suffer as they have been. Obama explains on "CBS" that, "... If we don't do anything a lot of Americans are going to be much worse off". So eventhough I don't agree with every detail of the policy, I do believe that it is time to inact a new plan and I am willing to accept my rights and responsibilities under the new policy. President Obama said, "We've got to get past some of theses ideological arguments to actually make something happen", and he is right.

The Cost to our Generation

In the recent Wall Street Journal article entitled "Health 'Reform' Is Income Distribution," the authors critique the Congressional health care bill for the burden it puts on the younger generation. They explain how three facets of the bill would produce a costly burden. First, the mandate for insurers to not discriminate based off pre-existing conditions or prior health. Second, the mandate dictating every citizen purchase health insurance. Finally, the idea behind community rating, where insurers are forced to relatively equalize how much they charge individuals for health insurance. The authors argue that these forces will cause younger citizens to finance the large expansion of the health care system by essentially transferring their income to the older generation by means of higher premiums.

While this article has a distinct opposition to such a redistribution, it raises many theoretical questions regarding the proper role of each generation. Should the younger generation be expected to "pick up" the bill in order to insure an aging population? Is putting the cost burden on the healthiest Americans consistent with capitalistic principles? How effect are current systems that utilize similar funding methods, namely Social Security?

I find this article interesting at a time when many younger Americans are in favor of the proposed health overhaul, while many older Americans are against it.

Who Pays For it All?

The article entitled "Why Health Care Will Never Be Equal", written by N. Gregory Mankiw, started off talking mostly about philosophy which is a very intriguing topic when trying to discuss health care. And then the article made a switch and took a very interesting position about how, with the increasing prescription technology and also price, will many Americans be able to afford new drug treatment to get the best quality health care. Mankiw begins to talk about this magic pill that if you take it, you will never get sick, age, or die, the only downfall is that is costs $150,000 a year, which brings up the question "who pays for it all." Should the government be responsible for providing this unbelievable service, the insurance agencies, or should the price be bared solely by the individual? This is where the problem arises, with medical care becoming more and more advanced, it is also getting more and more expensive, leaving the millions of Americans no access to these expensive, but possibly life saving, procedures simply because of their lack of funds.
The reason why people are so drawn to universal health care is because they think that it will be able to provide the best treatment to everyone. That, unfortunately, will not be the case. At some point the universal health care system will be exasperated off its funds and be forced to not pay for certain, more likely expensive uncommon, procedures and medication. And that is where the question is brought up again. Who gets the magical pill that makes you live forever and how will it be paid for?

This article was posted in the New York Times on September 19, 2009 and can be found at
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/health/policy/20view.html?scp=10&sq=health%20care%20economics&st=cse

Should health care reform cover abortion?

As plans for reforming health care are discussed, politicians on Capitol Hill will vote this week to amend the bill to restrict the use of federal subsidies for abortion-related surgeries. In David Kirkpatrick’s article, “Abortion Fight Complicates Debate on Health Care,” he lays out both the affirmative and negative sides toward approving this amendment.

Those who support the amendment for the health care bill said that without this amendment, the procedure would be eliminated from the women’s plans that currently support it. This is because if the public plan did not cover abortion, then private plans cannot either. This is problematic since this would eliminate coverage from half of women who have health care insurance now. Supporters of the amendment also cite how 17 current Medicaid programs are able to fund this procedure by separating federal from state funds. By separating funds, the option for private and public insurers to pay for abortion is not taken off the table.

Those who oppose the amendment believe that Congress should follow its 30-year statute that allows insurers to cover abortion-related surgeries through private sources. This group also cites how President Barack Obama promised in his campaign to prohibit federal dollars to be spent toward abortion procedures.

As of Monday, 31 letters from Democratic Congressmen and 125 letters from Republican Congressmen urged legislators to restrict funds for abortion-related surgeries. Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan said that 40 politicians agreed that they would not sign the health care reform bill if abortion-related surgeries was included in the plan. This threat caught President Obama’s eye, causing him to ask House speaker Nancy Pelosi to speak to legislators about the issue this week.

A link the full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/health/policy/29abortion.html?_r=1&hp

Can Obama, Democrats, get it done?

As an exceptionally grumpy American summer grinds to a conclusion, it is apparent that only a bipartisan solution will enable Congress and the Obama Administration to complete health reform. No, we’re not talking about co-operating with the Republicans. Other than a handful of contrarian Republican moderates on the Senate Finance Committee, at least one of whose votes might be needed for eventual passage, the Republicans are irrelevant to the final outcome.

Despite the fantasy that the last election represented a fundamental re-alignment of voters toward traditional Democratic liberalism, America remains a nation of skeptical political moderates who keep their politicians on a very short leash. When political leaders attempt something as complex as health reform, voters are handicapped by limited attention spans, shocking gaps in knowledge and, most seriously, a profound lack of trust in their government.

President Obama entered office just seven months ago with high hopes of reforming the health system. In this regard, the President arrived with two strikes against him: the economic crisis and his partnership an increasingly discredited and out of touch Congress. He had ample opportunities to postpone health reform due to the economic crisis. In retrospect, this was the sensible choice.

Rather than wait, however, the President linked the two and plunged ahead. He has clung grimly to this formulation as political and economic conditions worsened through the first seven months of his term, as his own approval ratings have wilted.

The President should focus on covering as many of the uninsured as he can - the original impulse for health reform. It’s surprising how much good could be done on this front if one postpones, at least temporarily, the politically and fiscally unachievable goal of universal coverage in 2009. It is certainly within reason to cover at least 30 million of those presently uninsured, with the balance to be covered by Congressional action when the economy recovers. This would be a huge victory and it is within reach.

The Healthcare Debate

The article that I read was titled “Poll: Support for Government Health Insurance Declines a bit”. The article talked about the ways in which support for government healthcare has declined. The decline of the support for the government plan is questioning the importance of the healthcare policy. Universal healthcare is liked on one end and it is disliked on the other. This article has provided evidence of these conflicting views all of which has been produced as a result of a nationwide telephone poll. The two views are costs and morals.
First, I want to touch on the side where people have declined interest from universal healthcare because they feel as if it will hurt our economy in addition to people needing to have their own responsibility for their healthcare insurance. The article supports these views as follows: “Support for universal health insurance drops to 38 percent if it is suggested that the cost of health insurance would increase, and to 36 percent if taxes went up. Forty percent say it is not the federal government’s responsibility to provide health insurance for all Americans. [Also], opposition to universal health insurance declines to 29 percent when respondents are reminded that about 46 million people would continue to be without health insurance (Connelly, paragraph 2-3).” So, people do not like the healthcare policy because the cost of health insurance has been predicted to increase, people feel as if it should not be the federal governments responsibility to provide healthcare, and people feel as if it will increase America’s economic deficit. But, the majority of Americans who have responded to the issue feel as if the government does not help health insurance now; they would not help them in the future. Basically, this view is based off of costs. The other view is based off of morality.
This article also suggests that people do not like the plan because they do not feel like it is their responsibility to help care for people who did not meet their responsibility of having healthcare. The article reads, “47 percent say the United States has the moral responsibility to promise health insurance to all Americans and 48 percent say it does not (Connelly, paragraph 6).” I think people who agree with the moral aspect does not like to see people suffer and their opinion is based off of their emotions toward the issue instead of facts.
The healthcare policy debate has been going on for a long time. People are having increasingly mixed feelings about the healthcare policy. There are two standpoints in this article, which are costs and morality. About half of Americans do not agree with the new healthcare plan because they want our economy to be healthy and the other half does not like the fact that people are suffering. We have been through a bad economic crisis and are not fully recovered and I feel as if people do not want to take a chance to help others if it will bring us down as a whole. But, this is when morality comes into affect. I am in between these two views because I want people who do not have healthcare to have healthcare, but I do not want our economy to suffer. I think healthcare insurance is very important and now its importance is being debated.
















Website: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/poll-support-for-government-health-insurance-declines-a-bit/

Obama resumes health care push, vows to 'get it done this year'

President Obama is not backing down on his health care proposal. On Saturday night President Obama is making it his business to push the health care reform by speaking before the congressional Black Caucus Foundation annual dinner. President Barrack vows that we need to act on this now instead of waiting. American needs a better health system and they need it now. We been waiting on this health care system since Teddy Roosevelt, Clinton and Nixon the American people cannot wait much longer. Barrack also focus on getting this health care reform done this year. But Barrack Obama says he had “…hope and confidence he’d get legislation through soon”.
I feel Obama’s approached the audience at Congressional Black Caucus Foundation dinner Saturday night was a god idea on his part. However, some people think a bad proposal on health reform Barrack is trying to get across the facts that some American people cannot wait much longer. This is something that we as a country had been struggling with for years. Why can’t this health reform get through this year? I think the government is taking their time with this because they are putting too much money into the health care plan and they don’t want it to fail and create a larger hole in the economy as it is. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/26/obama.health/index.html?iref=newssearch#cnnSTCText

A Canine Conundrum

An article published on 09/24/2009 by Capital Hill newsgroup Roll Call highlighted political infighting within House Democrats with respect to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's current proposal for health care reform legislation. Members of the Blue Dog Coalition, a collaboration of fiscally conservative Democrats, have stated opposition to the inclusion of a costly public insurance option pegged to Medicare reimbursement rates as well as a levy on the rich. Interestingly enough, the levy is seen as so liberal that Senate Democrats have already called the surcharge dead on arrival. Speaker Pelosi, however, has made her intentions clear that her proposal will contain the two liberal provisions. Believing that her proposal will have the support of 20 members of the Blue Dog Coalition, Speaker Pelosi asserts that the bill can pass the House of Representatives. Coalition whip, Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, however, believes otherwise.

For any health care reform bill to pass the House, Blue Dog Democrats must be willing to support it. Reeling from previous liberal votes that sparked sometimes violent backlash from their constituents, Blue Dog Democrats are caught in a tug of war between Democratic leadership and their voters. The Blue Dog Coalition has called for a removal of the liberal approach to the public option and taxes on the rich, but this most recent iteration of the health care bill still includes these highly controversial provisions. While current whip counts (projected votes) are unclear, it appears as if Speaker Pelosi's unwillingness to concede to Blue Dog Coalition demands may derail her health care reform proposal.

FDA bans flavored cigarettes

The AP reports that in its latest move dealing with the tobacco industry, the FDA issued a ban this past week on the manufacturing, importing, marketing and distribution of candy, fruit, or clove flavored cigarettes.

This new federal ban goes hand-in-hand with a June 2009 law President Obama signed into effect that gives the FDA the authority to regulate the tobacco industry. The law, which does have limits and stops short of fully and outright banning tobacco and nicotine products in the US, does not ban menthol cigarettes or flavored cigars. Targeting children, teenage smokers and adults alike, the law also calls for graphic warnings and labels to be placed on all tobacco products’ packaging by June 2010 in an effort to decrease a person’s smoking habits. The federal government estimates now that a staggering 3600 young people begin smoking daily and this law is designed to stop that increasing trend. "Candy- and fruit-flavored cigarettes are a gateway for many children and young adults to become regular tobacco users," said Dr. Lawrence R. Deyton, director of the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products.

This latest legislation was supported by industry-leader Phillip Morris USA while rivals Reynolds American Inc. and Lorillard Inc opposed it and have filed suit challenging the legal basis and constitutionality of the regulations.

For more information, read the full story here or check out the official FDA statement for more details.

New AIDS Vaccine - A Step in the Right Direction

In a New York Times article,"For First Time, AIDS Vaccine Shows Some Success" written by Donald G. McNeil, scientist have developed a new vaccine that had shown some success towards the prevention of AIDS.

A six year long clinical study had concluded that the this vaccine, known as RV 144, has worked among a small population of people. The study was conducted in Thailand with over 16,000 people. The people that were chosen for the trial were both men and women from the ages of 18 to 30. This group of people was taken from the general population, avoiding intravenous drug users and prostitutes. Half of the volunteers were given six doses of 2 different vaccines while the other half was given placebos.

Everyone was given condoms and taught how to avoid infection, and if anyone did get infected they were promised and guaranteed antiretroviral drugs for life. All participants were tested regularly for three years.

Out of those that were given the placebo, 74 became infected. Out of those that received the vaccines, 51 became infected. The vaccine was 31.2% effective.

Although this is not considered a break through, it is definitely a step towards the right direction. Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is quoted saying, "For more than 20 years now, vaccine trials have essentially been failures." "Now it's like we were groping down an unlit path, and a door has been opened. We can start asking some very important questions."

Here is the link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/health/research/25aids.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=AIDS&st=cse

KIDS OR NO KIDS

In an article published September 28, 2009 from MSNBC online, Melissa Schorr explains the concern of many parents, who battle the decision on having children regarding their family history of mental illness. The chances of developing a mental disorder such as bipolar or schizophrenia is about 1 percent; however those who have a relative such as a parent or sibling have a 10 percent chance of developing or passing the mental disorder. Many couples question the thought of having children. Is it worth the risk of bring a child into the world knowing that their might be chance they will never live a normal life? Many people say NO, it isn't worth the risk because it would become a burden to the family. Nevertheless, risking the chance of having a mentally ill child can cause emotional side effect on both the child and the family. However, psychologist believes that couple shouldn't deny themselves children. People can still have a happy life with a mental disorder; this doesn't mean it’s the end of the world. There are counseling centers that help families communicate with their family members who are diagnose with a mental disorder. Everybody is unique in their own special way regardless if they have a disorder or not. America is filled with talented individuals who have disorder and they are still able to live a comfortable lifestyle. The small risk of having a child with a mental disorder shouldn’t stop those for having children.

Photo by msnbc photo illustration

To read the full article, visit http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33021811/ns/health-kids_and_parenting//

A Different Kind of Lobbyist

With the current debate about health care reform and a public option, there is no doubt that the private insurance companies are pouring millions of dollars into lobbying. This article "The Influence Game:Birth Centers Fight for Fees" describes a different kind of lobbyist. Karen Fennel is a a former nurse as well as a lobbyist for birth centers all over the United Sates who provide prenatal care to women who are poor or too far from a hospital to receive care. Surprisingly, despite the lack of large funds, Fennel has convinced lawmakers in Washington to continue to fund these birth centers. The Obama administration is backing Fennel because they believe providing prenatal care will save money in the long run. Two years ago, the agency overseeing federal health programs suddenly stopped reimbursing birth centers after 20 years claiming that they no longer had the legal authority to do so. With 250 birth centers scattered around the US and serving a large portion of low income women, Fennel knew that this would just not do. She has come to Washington armed with evidence and facts to show law makers that the birth centers cut the amount of costly births in this country. Part of her success is also due to the fact that she represents a constituency that no politician is willing to shun, mothers-to-be. The rest is due to the fact that she always has a backup plan. Fennel says if birth center reimbursement were to somehow be dropped from the legislation or the bill was dropped altogether, she'll try to get it attached to a budget measure that could move by year's end.

THE INFLUENCE GAME: Birth centers fight for fees

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS (AP)

Lower Prescription Drug Costs Can Be Easily Achieved

In his article entitled “Leading Dem Plans To Blow Up Deal With Big Pharma”, HuffingtonPost.com reporter Ryan Grim outlines the argument being made by North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan regarding foreign pharmaceuticals. Dorgan intends to ruin the deal made by the White House, Max Baucus and Big Pharma. Dorgan’s plan is to amend the current Health Care Bill to allow U.S. citizens to re-import prescription drugs from Canada. Dorgan goes on to argue that by allowing American’s to join in on the lower prices for prescription drugs in Canada, we will help to ease the rising costs many seniors and others currently incur when purchasing their medication. This amendment would likely save a lot of people a lot of money, however, I think that there might be a simpler answer. Instead of making drugs in the U.S., then shipping those drugs to Canada or Mexico where they are cheaper, and then re-importing those same drugs back into the United States, we should simply cut out the middle man. It really bothers me that Big Pharma was able to influence our Health Care bill before it was brought into the public sphere, and it seems illogical that the only way to allow free market principles to influence drug costs is by shuttling drugs back and forth between countries. It seems simple and intuitive to amend the bill to include provisions that would allow US costumers to collectively bargain for cheaper drugs. This model of collective bargaining has allowed Canadians as well as a number of other countries to experience cheaper prescription drug costs. Grim also cites sources that claim a potential savings of 50 Billion dollars in direct savings in the next decade. The gains from modifying our current prescription drug buying system would effect millions of American’s currently being drowned in prescription drug costs, all while using a very American tactic known as capitalism.


Ryan Grim's article can be found here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/28/leading-dem-plans-to-blow_n_302235.html

Health Care Reform, Then and Now.

When former president Bill Clinton took office in 1992, health care reform was, much like Barack Obama, one of his top goals. Despite the Clinton administration's efforts, health care reform was not passed and was widely considered to as a government takeover. What will make this time any different for President Obama and Democrats?

To answer this question, one needs to examine the differences between the two reform efforts. The Clinton administration proposed a health care insurance mandate for all Americans, while President Obama has sidestepped around this issue both during his presidential campaign and upon entering office, saying that he does not support a complete mandate but that all Americans must be covered somehow. He has, however, made it clear that he require all children to be insured.

The words "government takeover" have certainly been used by some to describe the current administration's health care reform proposals, and similar language was used to describe Clinton's efforts in 1993. However, if health care reform is passed, it is clear that governmental involvement would be substantially less than what was proposed sixteen years ago. Under Clinton's plan, a federal national health board would have been created to oversee to health system and regulate premiums. President Obama has no intention of eliminating private insurance, but does support a public-option that would compete with private insurers. Other plans (not including a public-option), have suggested the creation of health care cooperatives.

There are similarities, though, that may indeed explain for the comparable levels of approval both health care reform attempts have achieved. Both look to cut back Medicare and Medicaid by eliminating inefficiencies in the programs. This has created a cause for concern for those on these programs. There is also the question of cost, which may be a greater concern now than it was during Clinton's administration. Republicans argued then and now that the only result is higher taxes for the American people, a prospect that has never been received with much enthusiasm.

For more on this issue, read the article posted by Huma Khan.

Health Concerns Over Popular Contraceptives

In the September 25th article, "Health Concerns over Popular Contraceptives" published in "The New York Times" Natasha Singer speaks about two pharmaceutical drugs that are on high demand not because of the effectiveness of the drug, but more so because of the marketing placed around the two drugs. Yaz, and Yasmin are both forms of contraception that are heavily circulating as great forms of contraception; especially for women over age 35. However, Yaz in particular the "sister drug" to Yasmin is the top selling birth control pill in the U.S. This pill contains less estrogen than Yasmine and is advertised as "a quality of life treatment that will to combat acne and severe premenstrual depression.

Despite advertisements and tremendous sales worldwide for Yaz, some researchers, health advocates, and lawyers are concerned about the drug. They say that it puts women at a higher risk for blood clots, strokes and many other health problems. In addition to that The Food & Drug Administration earlier this year asked "Bayer"; the health care company producing these contraceptives to correct misleading advertisements.

Despite the ongoing research and studies surrounding the pharmaceutical, the company stood behind the safety of the drug and claimed to have taken heed to the F.D.A's questions, concerns and requests. However, industry analysts say that the Yaz product family may be tarnished due to the recent and ongoing defamation of the product.

I believe that there are always health concerns surrounding contraceptives, and in most situations that does tarnish the product name and company, but that doesn't mean that people should not voice their concern on what can become a very big health problem in the future for people, and health care. Pharmaceutical companies continuously produce misleading advertisements and marketing to sell a product, so for that reason they should be prepared to take on the consequences for doing such; even if that means losing money or gaining a bad reputation.

Full article available at

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/26/health/26contracept.html?em

Insurance mail

In the article "Republicans defend mailers by insurers", the Republican party was defending the insurance companies right to send mail to the elderly about health care reform topics. The mailed items contained information about how some of the medicare coverages would be cut for elderly and some disabled Americans. Obama spoke out openly against these mailed items by claiming that they have no right to send controversial information to seniors about what is going to be cut from their medicare option. He claimed that medicare users currently get fourteen percent more coverage than the traditional pay-for-service plans by insurance companies, and this percent would become closer with a plan, but no services for the elderly would be cut. The Republican party, in response to Obama's outcry claimed that it was perfectly okay for the insurance companies to send this information about the health care reform to elderly citizens who may lose coverage. Which according to Obama, as previosuly stated, they would be losing around fourteen percent. I believe that Obama had no right to threaten the insurance companies as he did. It is a matter of freedom of speech, they are completely able to send out information to citizens involving what is going to happen if a reform is instituted.

Full article can be found at: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-medicare23-2009sep23,0,3526451.story

Cutting the Medicare Budget

In an article found from The Chicago Tribune, cost cuts on Medicare, a popular health care coverage plan for senior citizens, is discussed. “Will health care overhaul weaken the safety net for seniors, or help heal Medicare?” informs the readers that the plans to cut “hundreds of billions from the Medicare budget over the next 10 years” and that “proposed cuts to hospitals, nursing homes and other providers are bigger than any Congress has imposed since the late 1990s” (Alonso-Zaldivar, 2009). The money that would be saved from cutting $218 billion from the Medicare budget and hospitals and nursing homes would go towards the younger generation. Though this seems very appealing to myself and other people in the ‘younger generation’ category, one can’t be but curious and a little nervous as to how this will affect all the senior citizens. With the budget cuts, most likely they will save money on their monthly premiums because the private plan costs will be cheaper, but they could lose benefits if they are under Medicare Advantage, which deals with seniors who are with private insurance plans and Medicare Advantage. However, there seems to be some good signs to the budget cut. Brand name prescription drugs will offer a 50% discount for some people on the Medicare plan who fall into this area called the “doughnut hole”, in other words, the Medicare coverage gap. The White House also promises that preventative care would be better and the Senate bills will take away co-payments and deductibles. The bill to change Medicare costs also introduces the idea of “medical homes” and “accountable care organizations” which seem like great ideas. A “medical home” would mean having a general practice doctor acting as the patients medical care coordinator: Making sure all the medications don’t interact badly with another, and making sure all the doctors one patient sees are good and following up in an appropriate manner. Many seniors do deal with tons of doctors, and having one doctor who manages that for them would be extremely helpful. An “accountable care organization” are various hospitals, nursing homes, regular doctors’ offices who want to give the best medical care and who are trying to be cost efficient for patient’s sake. An example of an “accountable care organization” is the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. Seniors should definitely start paying attention to all these bills being proposed because ultimately they will be the ones affected. As long as government doesn’t but hold the idea of saving money on Medicare higher than maintaining quality health care for seniors, then this seems like they could be on a smart track to save money and add more options and better medical attention for seniors with Medicare. We all should stay tuned in to the changes that are proposed to take place.

To view this article in full, visit the Chicago Tribune.

Bringing Gender Comparisons into the Healthcare Debate

In a New York Times article titled “Health Care Reform Is a Woman’s Issue”, Nancy Folbre brings gender into the healthcare reform debate. She argues, backed by First Lady Michelle Obama’s recent speech regarding gender and healthcare, that healthcare reform is “a women’s issue”. Folbre points out that pregnancy and family planning make it so that, on average, women require more healthcare than men. To back up her claim, she draws on an effective example; the typical woman who chooses to have 2 kids will spend about 5 years either trying to get pregnant, being pregnant or recovering from pregnancy and 30 additional years preventing any unwanted pregnancies (Folbre, 2009). Folbre also points out that women eat the cost of healthcare for their children in single-parent families, which wind up being headed by women more often than not. Folbre also argues that women are often more burdened by healthcare insurance issues than men. She argues that this is because women are more likely to be reliant on their husband’s healthcare for a variety of reasons (for example, women are more likely to hold part-time jobs or be the one who stays home to take care of the children) and are thus in a more vulnerable position if divorce or death of a spouse takes place.
I personally believe that bringing gender into the healthcare debate is pointless. There is however a part of this article that is effective: when Folbre shows that women have just as much at stake as men when it comes to healthcare. Folbre has a point when she argues that women need to take a more active role in the healthcare debate. However, trying to prove that women have more at stake than men will prove to be fruitless. Gender is too broad a category to generalize arguments across and most of Folbre’s arguments lost meaning because of over-generalization. Ultimately, the focus of the healthcare debate should be on specific policies and not on useless comparisons.

To read this article go to: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/health-care-reform-is-a-womens-issue/

The Fight to Save Money Ends Up Costing Us Even More

In an article found in the New York Times entitled, "U.S Cost-Saving Policy Forces New Kidney Transplant" overall discusses that many of the new U.S outreaches to save money, are not saving us anything at all. It is a current battle within the health-care debate as to whether or not funding should be cut off from patients after 3 years of having all expenses and medicine covered. This particular article discusses both sides but also addresses its bias towards this being a ridiculous idea. It seems almost ridiculous to pay for someones transplant, treatment, and medicine for three years and then completely cut them off, expecting them to take over the outrages prices, and HOPEFULLY survive if they are unable to. One direct case this article mentions involves a person who was cut off from the medicine and benefits we provided for the last year, and ultimately became so sick again that there was a need for yet another kidney transplant which would then be expected to cover. In the end, it is obvious, that actually cost us way more money than we could have ever expected, thus showing this new plan could ultimately cost us more than the original. The medicine these patients take after going through a transplant are those which lead them to a successful recovery. With that said, these drugs are needed for much more than three years. It is like giving these patients a false sense of hope. The article explains that the medication provided for them eases the pain and increases the rate of recovery but then withdrawing them after an extended period of time may just put them back at the beginning. This may not be true of all patients, but for many of them, the medication is needed for a lifetime. Therefore, in cutting them off from funding we could potentially have hundreds of people back in square one needing yet another transplant. Overall, the U.S is in such a frenzy trying to save all the money possible, but because we are in such a hurry to do so, many of the plans are not well though out. This one proves that to be true. As much as we need money, we still need a well-run and successful government. Children, women, men, elders, they are all dying left and right today. The lists for transplants are years long and the care being provided for them is not good enough. Something has to be done to better ensure a recovery or even better, a lifetime, for these people. Our society is letting the importance of health-care go, and because of it, its losing its people.
"Cost-Efficient" Policy

Liberals fight to cover illegal immigrants

A recent Washington Times article titled, "Liberals seek health-care access for illegals", displays just how out of hand this country's politicians are really becoming with the health-care debate. Headed by California Democrat, Rep. Michael M. Honda, he and his allies argue "illegal immigrants should be allowed to pay for insurance if they can afford it, even if it comes through a government-established exchange" (Dinan 2009). In 2007 there were an estimated 12.5 million illegal immigrants, many of whom brought crime and gang/cartel related activity with them. They do not pay federal income taxes like other law abiding immigrants who came here legally, and now we have politicians who want to fight for their rights? I understand that we're all humans and that people deserve certain rights, but at what point does the government realize the worth of its spending? At what point do some politicians understand that the ideal answer is not always the one we can afford? The National Council of La Raza launched its own "flood their voice mail" campaign last week to put pressure on Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, to expand coverage in his proposal to include all legal immigrants and to drop verification language in the legislation that would prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining coverage. Mr. Honda told The Washington Times that he's not pushing for illegal immigrants to gain access to taxpayer-subsidized benefits. "That's an argument that's been done already," he said. My question is how does Mr. Honda really plan to pay for this then? Illegal immigrants are going to pay for it themselves? They're going to openly pay into a program that is specifically for people who are breaking the law, even when they are already getting E.R. care for free? Honestly, where do we draw the line? Our system cannot work when those who follow the rules and pay taxes have to constantly be held financially responsible for those who contribute nothing back to the government's income yet still recieve aid. For this to even be a talking point among democrats is just another slap in the face to the American taxpayer.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/28/liberals-seek-health-care-access-for-illegals/

Canada's Increase In Private Health Care

The article "Canada Sees Boom In Private Health Care Business" explains that several Canadians are starting to opt for private health care. It is interesting because it cites examples that contradict Michael Moore's documentary. "Facing long waits and substandard care, private clinics are proving that Canadians are willing to pay for treatment" (Line, 2009). Moore argues that Canadian's do not have to wait in line very long, but the article goes on to quote another "who was told she could wait up to a year for an MRI after injuring her hip during an exercise class. Warned she would have to wait for the scan, and then wait even longer for surgery" (Line, 2009). Canada's universal health care option has been in place for some time, and if they are still having problems, consider what an entire overhaul of the current U.S. health care system would do.

Canada is oft cited as being an example of what the U.S. could become in terms of health care, but as this article reveals, Canada is not without its problems either. Canadians are starting to go for privatization, while America is leaning toward universal care. Neither option is perfect, but the U.S. should look at the positives and negatives in Canada's health care, and then make a joint decision, not a political one.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/30/canada-sees-boom-private-health-care-business/

Dialysis Treatment or Death

Kevin Sack’s article, “Immigrants Cling to Fragile Lifeline at Safety-Net Hospital,” speaks about the closing of an immigrant friendly hospital. Grady Memorial Hospital currently serves about 90 outpatients a day, and it does not base its willingness to serve people on their legal residency status; about two-thirds of its patients are illegal immigrants. Many people rely on this hospital for outpatient dialysis treatment, and are begging for the hospital to be kept open. This dialysis program is free to the patient, but it costs the hospital about $50,000 each patient every year, and this is causing problems because its budget has had a very large deficit. The financial need is so great that the hospital has announced it has to close on September 19th of this year. One woman, a 32 year old illegal immigrant from Honduras, said she hopes to make it “back to [her] country to die.”
This is an unbelievably sad story, and it is terrible that our healthcare system has gotten to the point where we need to shut down entire hospitals that serve the poor; these recent and illegal immigrants that are being served here have no other hope to get this type of treatment, and since it will be cut off, they have a large chance of dying. Our system should serve anyone that is in need; we are all humans.
To read more on the article check out the NewYork Times website.

Do We Already Have A Death Panel?

In the recent months of health care debate there have been a number of arguments against, what many would regard as, “socialized” health care. When journalists picked up on the “death panel” story many American’s were shocked by the idea that their lives might be left in someone else’s hands. However, as Aaron Glantz shows in his Sept. 10th article for NewAmericaMedia.org entitled “Why Insurance Companies Deny Health Care”, the so-called “death panel” may have been present in the health care industry for years already.
Glantz interviews Wendell Potter, a former head of corporate communications for Cigna Corporation, where he worked for 15 years and often served as the chief spokesperson for the company. Potter details the Wall St. side of health care as he explains terms like “medical loss ratio”, which refers to the fraction of revenue from a plan’s premium that goes to pay for medical services. Potter goes on to explain how the medical loss ratio often influences, if not dictates, the stock prices of these large health care providers. Later in the article, Potter explains that although most consumers would see the rejection of their transplant or surgery as denial of care, the health care industry attempts to maintain that their denial of 31.2 millions claims in the State of California from June of 2002 to this year is simply denial of coverage to the patient. However, we have seen that denial of coverage can result in anything from debt to death for the patient. Denying someone with insurance the right to treatment is wrong, but Potter shows how it is difficult for a public traded company to not cut corners in order to cut costs.
The over-arching theme of the Glantz article is to disprove the death panel argument while illuminating one of the health care industry’s dirtier secrets.

“Why Insurance Companies Deny Health Care” by Aaron Glantz can be found here:
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=33655d70ff9cd7509f16bfd2bfbafa9f

“Legal Age for House of Representatives is 25…Act Like It!”

Last night President Obama gave a health care reform speech in front of Congress that was written about, talked about, and tweeted about more then any other topic of the day. No, it was not his remarks on his reform that impassioned people so, it was a comment shouted from the crowd by South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson. He publicly, and nationally, as it was seen all over network television and YouTube, called the President of the United States a liar. As Obama addressed the topic of illegial immigrants entering the U.S. as a result of his reform, Rep. Wilson lost it….

Obama: “…the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegial. 

Rep. Wilson: “YOU LIE!”

Obama: “….That’s not true….”

Obama respectfully replied to the remark and moved on to his next topic…but the crowd did not move on as quickly. The House speaker sat furiously behind Obama for the remainder of the speech and people started to form all kinds of opinions on the topic.  Between last night and this morning, there has been a public apology, of course, and several Republican representatives speaking out against Rep. Wilson about how inappropriate and embarrassing his actions were.  There are others who think it was an exercise of free speech.

This controversial remark really got me thinking about free speech as it relates to someone of such high esteem. In my opinion, there’s a time and a place…blogs...twitter…etc etc. But than again, look how many people he got talking about this? What do you think?

 

Read an article & link to the video clip here @ NBCChicago.com.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/The-Shoutout-Heard-Across-the-Hill-58305832.html