Some Good News!

According to a Bloomberg poll of over 2,000 adults:

60% would be willing to repeal tax cuts in order to fund healthcare for all.
53% think a single-payer system is the best solution

Yay! A majority! In a Democracy! Oh - wow! We should see results now, right?

Right?!

But, alas, the candidates and lawmakers remains asleep on the laps of luxury purchased in part by the corporate giants of the insurance industry. Every one has ignored the prickly little details of representation and presented plans that keep their bedfellows in the dollars meant to provide for healthcare.

*sigh*

Here are some great editorial articles from good sources...that will be completely ignored by our so-called leadership in order to preserve a status quo serving only the few.

San Francisco Chronicle
July 10, 2007

What country endures such long waits for medical care that even one of its top insurers has admitted that care is "not timely" and people "initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is intolerable?"

If you guessed Canada, guess again. The answer is the United States.

Scrambling for a response to the popular reaction to Michael Moore's "SiCKO" and a renewed groundswell for a publicly financed, guaranteed single-payer health care solution, such as SB840, the big insurers and their defenders have pounced on Canada, pulling out all of their old tales of people waiting years in soup kitchen-type lines for medical care.

But, here's the dirty little secret that they won't tell you. Waiting times in the United States are as bad as or worse than Canada. And, unlike the United States, in Canada no one is denied needed medical care, referrals or diagnostic tests due to cost, pre-existing conditions or because it wasn't pre-approved. U.S. waiting times are the elephant in the room few critics care to address.

But, listen to what the chief medical officer of Aetna had to say in March. Speaking to the Aetna Investor's Conference 2007, Troy Brennan let these pearls drop:

The U.S. "health care system is not timely." Recent statistics from the Institution of Healthcare Improvement document "that people are waiting an average of about 70 days to see a provider."

"In many circumstances, people initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is intolerable."

In his former stint as an administrator and head of a physicians' organization, he spent much of his time trying "to find appointments for people with doctors."

Brennan's comments went unreported in the major media. But some reports are now beginning to break through, spurred by the debate "SiCKO" has spawned.

Business Week reported (www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2007) that "as several surveys and numerous anecdotes show, waiting times in the United States are often as bad or worse as those in other industrialized nations -- despite the fact that the United States spends considerably more per capita on health care than any other country."

A Commonwealth Fund study of six highly industrialized countries (www.commonwealthfund.org), the United States and five nations with national health systems (Britain, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and Canada) found waiting times were worse in the United States than in all the other countries except Canada .

There's something else you probably don't hear about Canada. Substantial progress is being made. Most of the wait-time problems derive from funding cuts by conservative national or provincial governments, or from the siphoning off of resources by private providers. But precisely because the Canadian system is publicly administered, Canadians are able to force their elected officials to fix problems, or get voted out of office. Throughout Canada, there are multiple pilot programs that have succeeded in slashing wait times. Canada's latest statistics show that median wait times for elective surgery in Canada is now three weeks -- that's less time than Aetna's chief medical officer says Americans typically wait after being diagnosed with cancer.

Canada also has no waits for emergency surgeries. It also doesn't have 44 million people who are uninsured because everyone has a national health-care card guaranteeing health care from any doctor or hospital they choose. And it doesn't burden those with insurance with rising deductibles or co-pays. A study reported by Health Affairs, a policy journal, for example, found that out-of-pocket costs to U.S. consumers jumped 76 percent this year over last year alone.
Canada also surpasses the United States in a broad array of health barometers, including life expectancy, infant mortality rates, adult mortality rates, deaths due to HIV/AIDS, mortality rates for cardiovascular diseases and years of life lost to injuries and diseases, according to data from the World Health Organization and the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development.

No wonder some people are so afraid we'll learn the real comparative story about Canada's system -- and our own.

Deborah Burger, R.N.

Bryant Quinn
We Can Afford Universal health CareNewsweek
July 30, 2007

Prepare to be terrorized, shocked, scared out of your wits. No, not by jihadists or Dementors (you do read "Harry Potter," right?), but by the evil threat of ... universal health insurance! The more the presidential candidates talk it up, the wilder the warnings against it. Cover everyone? Wreck America? Do you know what care would cost?

Here are some of their canards, and my replies:

Universal coverage costs too much. No—what costs too much is the system we have now. In 2005, the United States spent 15.3 percent of gross domestic product on health care for only some of us. France spent 10.7 percent and covered everyone. The French comparison is good because its system works very much like Medicare-for-all. The other European countries, all with universal coverage, spent less than France. Why are U.S. costs off the charts? Partly because we don't bargain with providers for a universal price. Partly because of the money that health insurers spend on marketing and screening people in or out. Medicare's overhead is just 1.5 percent, compared with 13 to 16 percent in the private sector. John Sheils of the Lewin Group, a health-care consultant, says that the health insurers' overhead came to $120 billion last year, of which $40 billion was profit. By comparison, it would cost $54 billion to cover all the uninsured. Eeeek, your taxes would go up! Maybe not, if Sheils is right. Both the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office have testified that the United States could insure everyone for the money we're spending now. But even if taxes did rise, you might still come out ahead. That's because your Medicare plan would probably cost less than the medical bills and premiums you're paying now.

We get world-class care; don't tamper with it. On average, we don't. International surveys put France in first place. On almost all measures of health care and mortality, we lag behind Canada and Europe. Many individuals do indeed get superior care, but so do people in single-payer countries, and at lower cost.

They have long waiting times. No advanced country has waiting periods for emergency surgery or procedures that are urgently needed. The United States has shorter waits than Canada and England for elective surgery. Still, queues are developing here, at the doctor's door. In a study of five developed countries, the Commonwealth Fund looked at how many sick adults had to wait six days or more for an appointment. By this measure, only Canada's record was worse than ours. But waits depend on how well a system is funded, not with the fact that it's single-payer. Many countries that cover everyone, including France, Belgium, Germany and Japan, report no issue with waits at all.

There's no problem; people get care even if they're uninsured. They don't. They get emergency treatment but little else. As a group, the uninsured are sicker, suffer more from chronic disease and rarely get rehabilitation after an injury or surgery. They also die sooner, knowing that, with insurance, they might have lived.

Right now, Congress is trying to bring 3.3 million uninsured children into the State Children's Health Insurance Program. President George W. Bush says he'll veto the expansion as "the wrong path for our nation." He objects to "government-run health care" (like Medicare?) and says that SCHIP "deprives Americans of ... choice" (like the choice to go uninsured?). Buzzwords like "government run" are supposed to summon up monsters like "socialized medicine" that apparently still lurk under our beds. If these terror tactics work, prepare for another 46 million uninsured.

You express some dismay that the world's most powerful economy does not
produce the world's best medical care. But if a nation makes the economy its
ultimate bottom line, and if that economy is unabashedly skewed to favor the
wealthiest top percent, it should hardly be surprising that its health care
system is calibrated to function in precisely the same fashion.
--Joel Brence, M.D.Aspen, Colo., Aug. 12, 2007

Oh Private Industry! What have you wrought now?!

My weekly letter to the reps....I understand the benefit of private industry - but when it begins to destabilize the ecosystem and all that lives within in...I have to ask myself, at what cost progress?

October 1, 2007

I hope you took the time to watch Oprah’s wonderful discussion on healthcare in America. She asked Americans to consider who we are – we, the people. Not we, the corporation.

After much thought, I decided that I am sick of corporations deciding every aspect of American life. We are force-fed products, politics, and belief systems through the media. Consumerism is destroying our environment, driving the population toward bankruptcy, creating world instability, and driving wars through our practice of cultural imperialism, largely driven by corporate invasion of global markets against the prevailing wishes of the populace.

I expect my leaders to resolve this problem or maybe they shouldn’t be my leaders anymore. I did not send anyone to Washington, D.C., to get big, fat corporate paychecks. I sent you to ensure my freedom and access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (please note that “wealth” is not listed in the Declaration as a fundamental necessity of the human experience). The article below, and so many other sources of information, have told me that Congress is no longer protecting my issues – but those of Big Business, who, as I said above, no longer represent me, my family, or my future and may, in fact, be a threat to all three.

From the Los Angeles Times

The White House vs. mother's milk
The report released in April by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, a unit within the Health and Human Services Department, supports the claims made in the original ad campaign -- and then some. It assessed the research designs, methods and results of 9,000 studies, dating from 1966 to May 2006, on the health implications of breast- versus formula-feeding. The report concluded that there is a substantially greater risk of severe lower respiratory (72% higher), intestinal (64% higher) and middle-ear infections (23% to 50% higher) for formula-fed babies. Sudden infant death is 36% more likely among formula-fed babies."The problem with the formula companies is that they're marketing a product clearly inferior to breast milk," Gartner said. No formula can compete, nutritionally or immunologically, with something produced by eons of natural selection and tailored to the precise needs of human infants and their mothers. Women who do not breast-feed put their babies at risk…No mother should feel guilty. But she should feel angry that she wasn't told, in some clear, graphic and unmistakable way, what the health risks of formula-feeding are. The terrible thing is that our government had the information and for political and economic reasons chose -- and still chooses -- to keep that knowledge to itself.

Ay Carumba! Enough! Enough, enough, enough! Is the wealth of a few really worth the lives and health of the many?!

We Interrupt Our Other Topic Posting for this Announcement

20/20 is full of single-sided CRAP!

I had high hopes. I watched expecting a fair-minded view. But they failed to deliver. Instead, they preached the for-profit line. Here were inconsistencies I noticed:

1. The two doctors who preached THE DOCTRINE OF COMPETITION were both in single-service care practice. You only need Lasix once, maybe twice. Emergency services ARE NOT primary care services.

2. The doctors offices shown are both in extremely wealthy regions of the country.

3. They interviewed only 1 doctor from Canada, no citizens, and failed to cite the studies indicating that less than half the population would eliminate their system and a statistically insignificant number would trade our system for theirs.

4. He implied that white people are "healthy" people - he basically negated anything other than race as a reason for longevity...and English people of color outlive our people of color, but he forgot to mention that detail.

5. He did not interview anyone who HAS CANCER on an HSA to discuss their perspective. He only spoke with well people.

6. He claimed the problem is that 'people don't know what things cost'. Since law requires itemized billing, this is straight-out falsehood.

In short, I hope you enjoyed your propaganda served light. And now you still have to decide - since you know that you can't afford a $10,000-$20,000 up-front cost for life-saving treatment, do you believe that health should follow wealth? Does Paris Hilton deserve liver transplants after years of drug use while your child doesn't get a new heart for a congenital defect because your pocketbook shows that you don't have $150,000 for the surgery?

It's your call.

This Week in Healthcare Alley

Few issues matter more to me on personal and professional levels than this one. I understand every person's right to choose in this country and I respect it. I merely want the majority to weigh in and select an option rather than a privileged few in backdoor talks. The issue affects the very people least likely to show up at those "summits." In some ways, I feel this issue has more immediate imporance than the war in Iraq - since it directly affects an even greater number of Americans (I'm sure that's an inflammatory statement and I apologize.)

"Consumer Reports
September 2007
Are you really covered?

Why 4 in 10 Americans can't depend on their health insurance

You might think that you don't have to worry about paying for medical care if you have health insurance. But you would be wrong.

From escalating medical debt to postponed retirement, our exclusive national survey of working-age adults shows the depth of jitters even for those lucky enough to have insurance through their jobs or families:

* 29 percent of people who had health insurance were "underinsured," with coverage so meager they often postponed medical care because of costs.

* 49 percent overall, and 43 percent of people with insurance, said they were "somewhat" to "completely" unprepared to cope with a costly medical emergency over the coming year.

* 20 percent of people said they were so disappointed with their HMO or PPO that they wanted to switch plans.

* 16 percent had no health plan at all, including many working respondents whose jobs didn't offer insurance, or who couldn't afford the premiums or deductibles of the available plan.

Insured but not covered

Our survey found evidence of the increasing frailty of our system of health insurance almost everywhere we looked.

Between 2001 and 2005, the percentage of middle-income families - those who earn between $40,000 and $80,000 for a family of four – who had job-based health coverage dropped by 4 percentage points. Half lost benefits because their employers dropped health insurance altogether or quit offering dependent coverage. But 15 percent gave up their employer-based insurance because they could no longer afford the premiums.

But even those who have managed to hang on to insurance have found it more difficult to pay their medical bills.

In our survey, the median household income of respondents who were underinsured was $58,950, well above the U.S. median; 22 percent lived in households making more than $100,000 per year.

An explanation isn't difficult to find: Health plans are offloading more and more expenses onto consumers. Co-pays and deductibles have risen steadily in the past several years.

This combination of deductibles and co-pays can quickly add up to serious bills in the case of a major illness. A 2006 study found that 10 percent of insured patients with cancer had out-of-pocket expenses of more than $18,500.

How to pay?

Consumers faced with higher health costs have to find the money somewhere, and many in our survey found that tough to do. Overall, 37 percent said their health insurance and checking accounts together weren't enough to pay for their medical expenses over the previous year. But 59 percent of underinsured respondents fell in that category. They had to raid their retirement accounts, run up creditcard balances, and borrow from friends and family to pay their medical bills. Twenty-seven percent said they were still in debt todoctors and hospitals, and 3 percent said medical bills had forced them to declare bankruptcy.

Almost 4 in 10 underinsured respondents deferred needed auto or home repairs. Almost 3 in 10 said they made decisions such as changing jobs, postponing retirement, or changing their marital status mainly to preserve access to health insurance.

But the most worrisome result of underinsurance is reduced access the health care itself. Forty-three percent of underinsured respondents said they had postponed going to the doctor because they couldn't afford it, and 28 percent had put off filling prescriptions."

This is a middle class and above issue. We're the ones suffering. If we don't come up with a solution, 40% of the middle class could face a financial crisis caused by health care costs. These crises drive persons of middle class education and occupation into bankruptcy and poverty.

There are solutions. Other countries have found them (Germany has had public healthcare since 1883 - and they have a good system, healthy populace, and release new drugs every year). Our answer doesn't have to be exactly the same, but we do need to stop relying on corporate money engines to make a decision. Like the environment, corporations will likely fail to respond until a crisis drives public sentiment. That crisis will be the lives of our parents and our children - are we willing to make that sacrifice?

When forced to choose between life-saving care and wealth-dependent healthcare, please choose life...whatever solution you feel best represents that option. Write your representatives today: www.usa.gov 'Contact Your Representatives'

P.S. For those of you in California, I would urge you to write your senators and reject AB 8 - mandated health insurance. As you know, mandating insurance is meaningless legislation - we have the highest number of uninsured drivers in the union despite the highest penalties for driving uninsured...the legislation will mean higher costs, not lower costs, and it does nothing to correct the access and bankruptcy problems. You may not support single payor options - but mandating families in financial crisis to further slip down the slope in order to avoid criminality is just WRONG on every level.

On Cultural Imperialism

I read a quote by an international leader whose name I've long forgotten. He called America the "great anti-culture." As I sat on the train yesterday, I thought about his statement while forced to listen to a woman detail the experience of her friend the stripper at a club the last night. The woman was crude and her language made me squirm almost as much as the stripper had during the described lap dance.

I felt imposed upon. I was forced to listen to this. And then I thought about the many nations we have invaded with our anti-culture and forced to listen to our crude tails of irresponsible sex and wanton greed. We've invaded their homes without pausing to ask permission...attacked at the youngest element to ensure "brand loyalty" and "maximum impressionability." We replaced their music with our technological noise; their dancing with our rampant sexuality; their community with our "mass communication"; their identity with our peer pressure. We blast our television and its advertising on every airwave. The Internet is riddled with our insistence that the whole world buy more and more and more of our experience. And the part of us we push on other cultures? It's not the kind America, the good America, the family-values America. We push our worst America - full of irresponsibility, risky behavior, lawlessness, and base language.

We're wrong. Just as wrong as that woman was to force her night on the rest of us. We didn't begrudge her or judge her friend - we just wanted the freedom NOT to relive an event we'd never chosen.

I am often amazed by the bigotry practiced by the so-called "ideal" set in society. I was recently in a situation full of upscale and admired adults where I was the only religious person in the group. I was ridiculed, mocked, and derided at least daily. They were "disgusted" by my bigotry - though it wasn't me who judged any of them. They pressured and fixed "mixed" drinks to trick me into drinking alcohol I didn't want to take. They told me I'd never find happiness if I chose my path. They pointed to the media - that HBO has prostitutes having sex in prime time and pornography is seen as something fun to do at a dinner party and they claimed this is what America is - and so I was just old-fashioned and ridiculous. In time, I started to cave and once they had "won", the whole group was gone. They weren't trying to help me acclimate - just validate themselves. They created a moral and ethical crisis in my life for very little more than their own ego. I was mocked as much for becoming like them as I had been for remaining distinct. In the end, I put myself back together (It's interesting to note that while this group remained awful, my church group showed up and said little more than "whoever you choose to be we want you to be happy with it" while they helped me) and learned a valuable lesson....anyone selling something is just trying to help themselves.

There's a parallel here with the way the U.S. functions in the world. We take our ideas to every corner of the world and convince the rest of the world "if they want to be rich and happy like the U.S." then they have to buy every bit of propaganda and product we force into their world. And many, many, many people fall into the same trap that caught me. In the end, they have loads of product they never asked to own and very little of the promised freedom and happiness we pretended came in the package.

An excellent example of this came in the 1970s when Nestle sent boxes of infant formula to 3rd world nations. Their advertising campaign claimed that the U.S. had stopped breastfeeding and was using formula and their babies weren't dying. Nestle neglected to mention that we also had vaccinations and safe water in the U.S. Millions of women stopped breastfeeding and used the free product. Then the bill came...and millions of children suffered the consequence of Nestles push to "Americanize" infant feeding. I went to one of these countries a few years ago. And I heard the propaganda repeated back to me when I met women who refused to breastfeed their infants and preferred to mix 1/2-strength formula and watch their babies grow ill - because "this is how American women feed their babies. Given that breastfeeding rates are now back above 50% in the U.S., the propaganda is false - but permeating. Our desire to sell our culture and our product has cost thousands, if not millions, of lives in the developing world.

This is the way we practice imperialism in the world - taking over product by product and many people resent our approach. They should. We're wrong. The rest of the world has reason to hate us. I may not always agree with the method of protest, but I can't fault the reasoning. It is simply wrong to force ideals on other people, especially on children, for the simple purpose of "improving quartile gains."

Many people insist that Big Business will take responsibility for itself and should be left to practice anywhere, anyway. When we look around and see the environmental and financial damage that the greed of business has created recently, I would imagine people would begin to grow uncomfortable with the idea of free reign, irresponsible business. And then I would hope that the people could see that even the Middle East has a point - America should mind its own business.

If it's in the NY Times....

Today's letter to my representatives (with the NYT editorial at the end):

America can do better! We are a nation for the people and yet we're letting the people down by preferring the big business of insurance over the health of our own population.
Story of the week: A friend told me today that her 87 year old grandmother fell and broke a bone as well as detached her retina. Because she has reached her "payout limit" for the year, the doctors were not able to admit her to the hospital for observation and treatment. She underwent 2 painful operations as an outpatient and was only given outpatient pain medications and minimal monitoring (only her family who are not trained medical practitioners).

Our nation owes this woman more than a risky procedure and being tossed on the street to care for herself. Our entire charter claims that we, the people, are self-governed. Not CEOs. Not healthcare analysts. I'm sure her doctors wanted to do more - but they are now under the constraints of our organizations. It's sad. It's wrong. There's no other argument.

If other nations can do this, so can we. If the businessman who have figured out business ventures in hundreds of countries without violating tax or trade laws would help us in figuring out healthcare, we'd be the best system in the industrialized world, not the worst.

_________________________________________________________


08/12/07 NY Times Editorial

Editorial World's Best Medical Care?

Published: August 12, 2007

Many Americans are under the delusion that we have "the best health care system in the world," as President Bush sees it, or provide the "best medical care in the world," as Rudolph Giuliani declared last week. That may be true at many top medical centers. But the disturbing truth is that this country lags well behind other advanced nations in delivering timely and effective care.

Michael Moore struck a nerve in his new documentary, "Sicko," when he extolled the virtues of the government-run health care systems in France, England, Canada and even Cuba while deploring the failures of the largely private insurance system in this country. There is no question that Mr. Moore overstated his case by making foreign systems look almost flawless. But there is a growing body of evidence that, by an array of pertinent yardsticks, the United States is a laggard not a leader in providing good medical care.

Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th. More recently, the highly regarded Commonwealth Fund has pioneered in comparing the United States with other advanced nations through surveys of patients and doctors and analysis of other data. Its latest report, issued in May, ranked the United States last or next-to-last compared with five other nations - Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom - on most measures of performance, including quality of care and access to it. Other comparative studies also put the United States in a relatively bad light.

Insurance coverage. All other major industrialized nations provide universal health coverage, and most of them have comprehensive benefit packages with no cost-sharing by the patients. The United States, to its shame, has some 45 million people without health insurance and many more millions who have poor coverage. Although the president has blithely said that these people can always get treatment in an emergency room, many studies have shown that people without insurance postpone treatment until a minor illness becomes worse, harming their own health and imposing greater costs.

Access. Citizens abroad often face long waits before they can get to see a specialist or undergo elective surgery. Americans typically get prompter attention, although Germany does better. The real barriers here are the costs facing low-income people without insurance or with skimpy coverage. But even Americans with above-average incomes find it more difficult than their counterparts abroad to get care on nights or weekends without going to an emergency room, and many report having to wait six days or more for an appointment with their own doctors.

Fairness. The United States ranks dead last on almost all measures of equity because we have the greatest disparity in the quality of care given to richer and poorer citizens. Americans with below-average incomes are much less likely than their counterparts in other industrialized nations to see a doctor when sick, to fill prescriptions or to get needed tests and follow-up care.

Healthy lives. We have known for years that America has a high infant mortality rate, so it is no surprise that we rank last among 23 nations by that yardstick. But the problem is much broader. We rank near the bottom in healthy life expectancy at age 60, and 15th among 19 countries in deaths from a wide range of illnesses that would not have been fatal if treated with timely and effective care. The good news is that we have done a better job than other industrialized nations in reducing smoking. The bad news is that our obesity epidemic is the worst in the world.

Quality. In a comparison with five other countries, the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States first in providing the "right care" for a given condition as defined by standard clinical guidelines and gave it especially high marks for preventive care, like Pap smears and mammograms to detect early-stage cancers, and blood tests and cholesterol checks for hypertensive patients. But we scored poorly in coordinating the care of chronically ill patients, in protecting the safety of patients, and in meeting their needs and preferences, which drove our overall quality rating down to last place. American doctors and hospitals kill patients through surgical and medical mistakes more often than their counterparts in other industrialized nations.

Life and death. In a comparison of five countries, the United States had the best survival rate for breast cancer, second best for cervical cancer and childhood leukemia, worst for kidney transplants, and almost-worst for liver transplants and colorectal cancer. In an eight-country comparison, the United States ranked last in years of potential life lost to circulatory diseases, respiratory diseases and diabetes and had the second highest death rate from bronchitis, asthma and emphysema. Although several factors can affect these results, it seems likely that the quality of care delivered was a significant contributor.

Patient satisfaction. Despite the declarations of their political leaders, many Americans hold surprisingly negative views of their health care system. Polls in Europe and North America seven to nine years ago found that only 40 percent of Americans were satisfied with the nation's health care system, placing us 14th out of 17 countries. In recent Commonwealth Fund surveys of five countries, American attitudes stand out as the most negative, with a third of the adults surveyed calling for rebuilding the entire system, compared with only 13 percent who feel that way in Britain and 14 percent in Canada.

That may be because Americans face higher out-of-pocket costs than citizens elsewhere, are less apt to have a long-term doctor, less able to see a doctor on the same day when sick, and less apt to get their questions answered or receive clear instructions from a doctor. On the other hand, Gallup polls in recent years have shown that three-quarters of the respondents in the United States, in Canada and in Britain rate their personal care as excellent or good, so it could be hard to motivate these people for the wholesale change sought by the disaffected.

Use of information technology. Shockingly, despite our vaunted prowess in computers, software and the Internet, much of our health care system is still operating in the dark ages of paper records and handwritten scrawls. American primary care doctors lag years behind doctors in other advanced nations in adopting electronic medical records or prescribing medications electronically. This makes it harder to coordinate care, spot errors and adhere to standard clinical guidelines.

Top-of-the-line care. Despite our poor showing in many international comparisons, it is doubtful that many Americans, faced with a life-threatening illness, would rather be treated elsewhere. We tend to think that our very best medical centers are the best in the world. But whether this is a realistic assessment or merely a cultural preference for the home team is difficult to say. Only when better measures of clinical excellence are developed will discerning medical shoppers know for sure who is the best of the best.
*
With health care emerging as a major issue in the presidential campaign and in Congress, it will be important to get beyond empty boasts that this country has "the best health care system in the world" and turn instead to fixing its very real defects. The main goal should be to reduce the huge number of uninsured, who are a major reason for our poor standing globally. But there is also plenty of room to improve our coordination of care, our use of computerized records, communications between doctors and patients, and dozens of other factors that impair the quality of care. The world's most powerful economy should be able to provide a health care system that really is the best.

Today's Quote

Robert Jackson

"The price of freedom of religion, or of speech, or of the press, is that we must put up with a good deal of rubbish."

Now if people would just get together in communities to discuss what they hear...give their brains a chance to process...we'd have democracy again....

A Great Quote

"We are guilty of many errors and many faults, but our worst crime is abandoning the children, neglecting the foundation of life. Many of the things we need can wait. The child cannot. Right now is the time his bones are being formed, his blood is being made and his senses are being developed. To him we cannot answer "Tomorrow". His name is "Today"."

Gabriela Mistral, 1948

And that's what I call fabulous....today's children have lost so much of what was wonderful. Parents are frequently not committed enough to what's best for them. Multiple avenues of child research say that intact families are a necessity for healthy children...what about healthcare?....a good political system....financial integrity....sufficient discipline to pay attention and achieve in school....when do we start to care for the children?

Occasionally, the moral argument is the only argument worth making

When I talk to business-minded people, they preach the bottom line with as many fear tactics as they can muster (Note: Michael Moore is currently under federal investigation for taking 9/11 victims to Cuba to receive a service and thus violated a trade embargo). Their message, "You will lose everything if you oppose the status quo." I don't know enough to know what's true about it all, but I do know that the same people who claim we can't give healthcare to everyone have also figured out how to skirt the tax lax, outsource America, and maintain businesses in different regions of the world without violating laws or trade agreements in any of the varied political systems. I think if they really wanted to do so, they could figure out an economically sound means to create a healthy population.

So, why universal healthcare? Why should YOU have to pay for EVERYONE's health?

It's the right thing to do.

That's it. The whole story. Nothing else matters. We'll figure out the details once we all decide to make a choice for moralistic reason. Once upon a time, four friends sat at a pub in Boston. They dreamed up a country*....and the noblemen of their own country laughed and said they'd go bankrupt, starve to death, amount to nothing!

America amounted to something. It's high time she amounted to a little more.

I think we should all start sending our healthcare bills to the White House and refusing to pay. We could write, "Please forward to my representatives. Thank you." on the invoice. It's such a great idea for a modern-day Boston Tea Party.**

*A country, I remind the reader, that the founding fathers predicted could stand only as long as its people governed themselves with righteous principles.

**And, yes, we do have taxation without representation. Unless the average middle class family is currently funding campaigns and hiring lobbyists without my knowledge.