ArloNet News and Announcements

We have to have a new health-care bill as soon as possible. The insurance companies are killing us the way it is. They are the ones pulling the plug on Grannies (and everyone else) all over the country, by rationing care for profit.

That said: I want to make sure that any new bill does not limit the definition of medical services to what the insurance companies, doctors and government (The FDA, AMA, WHO etc.) have defined as legitimate health care, and is not simply more or better access to the same old stuff. I want to remain free to use herbs, vitamins, minerals and other natural treatments now being outlawed by Codex Alimentarius and other organizations with ties to the World Health Organization and the USA.

I believe there are people of good will who have bad ideas, who would limit the freedoms we have to use or have access to natural medicines and healthy food. Federal and state organizations with connections to multinational corporations are trying to protect me from myself with no credible evidence that I need protection other than from them or their profits. I do not want to have to prove to some authority that my health care regimen is not harmful. This IS still the USA where you should not have to prove you are innocent. Let the science do the math. I do not want doctors acting on behalf of Big Pharma to be my only recourse to health care.

It's simply not enough for the president to say we can keep our insurance if we want to, or join some new public option, without the guarantee of freedom to become healthy in a way we are free to choose. As it is now, I pay for health insurance (by law) that I refuse to use. For example, the insurance companies will not pay for the kind of dental work I want (removing toxic metals, root canals etc. all of which has been proven to my satisfaction to cause catastrophic illness like cancer). Not only that, but the government has just recently determined that the use of mercury in fillings is safe! Anyone (with no vested interests) who investigates this will come to another conclusion.

The effect is that I have to pay twice for the kind of dental health care I want - once to insurance companies, and also to the doctors I actually want to use. If I had cancer, I would certainly not choose to be treated in the USA where the percentage of real recovery is far better in other countries. Will the health care of my kids and grand kids be in some way dependent upon their being vaccinated against diseases where the vaccinations have, in the past, killed more people than the disease they were vaccinating against?

Real reform requires a paradigm shift in our thinking. We must realize that the bottom of the health care reform food chain is FOOD. As long as big money (Monsanto, Big Agra, Big Pharma, Big Soy, Corn, Coke, and Pepsi etc.) keeps us from healthy, real food, natural medicines, and family farms growing organic foods, we will become sicker and sicker ourselves, and more profitable to others.

To sum it up: Will the new health care reform, do more than just recycle the same bad health care to more people for less money? Now is a chance to do more than what's being debated on TV. No one, politically on the right or left or anywhere near the middle has addressed my concerns.

I hope I Die before I get Old!

Nor have they mine, Arlo. And I agree completely that a pardigm shift is the only logical remedy. Not an instant cure, but one which is heading in the right direction at least, one which will continue to bear fruit for seasons to come. I think of this paradigm shift like a river, a big ol' lazy river flowing along in a certain direction......it is the wrong direction. Government programs are created to serve as channel markers along the river to confine traffic to deep water. When a new sandbar builds up, they erect a new channel marker. Total waste of time, throwing money and work away........erect all the channel markers they want, the river is still flowing in the WRONG DIRECTION!!! And this vision of drastically transforming our way of thinking is not limited to health care......I'm not sure if it was Pete or someone else who said that the only way we can achieve any kind of lasting peace is to shift the paradigm, reprogram our brains to utilize non-violent techniques to deal with disagreements, to create and cultivate a culture of peace, a mindset of peace, as opposed to the mindset of war which is still the paradigm within which most of our world exists. We must somehow, someway change the direction the river flows and stop wasting time installing more and more useless channel markers.

Nothing never changes.....IMO there is always going to be bad health care insurance, every two years co-pays a doctor's visits and prescriptions go skyrocketing high. This leaves a person with no money in their wallets! I personally do not have the 100% health care insurance Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts. Their co-pays for meds, emergency room visits, family physicians, psychiatrists, and social workers are too freakin' high. With the treatment for my bipolar I spend a total of $200 a month in which I have mentioned above, so outrageous.The government should pay more attention to the disabled who make very little income help them pay for their care with reasonable insurance care with co-pays to doctors, meds, and most of all hospital care. In the past and present I have noticed disabled people got taken to small claims court from their doctors because they hard a hard time keeping money in the pot with a tiny monthly income, how sick is that? No shame whatsoever!
Just my two cents.

As usual, the folkslinger is right on point. The health care debate seems to have centered on a debate about health INSURANCE, not health CARE. There needs to be a dramatic retooling of the entire health care delivery model in this country, to include food companies, doctors, government agencies, insurance companies, employers, schools, hospitals, etc., and to provide various health care delivery options such as herbal medicine, acupuncture, natural healing, etc. to all who choose them. I doubt if I will ever see this in my lifetime, but there's always hope.

Anyway, I'm surprised that Obama's opponents at the town-hall meetings haven't yet come up with a new song, although maybe it's because it's well ahead of the season:

"Grandma Got Run Over by a Health Plan" (sung to the tune of "Grandma
Got Run Over by a Reindeer")!

I'm a grandpa myself now, but I won't start worrying until Obama appoints Dr. Kervorkian as Secretary of Health and Human Services.


mikey

That's a lot to think about, Arlo.



And that is an excellent summary.

I actually found it very funny in Obama's speech where the analogy he made was how Government Health Care will create competition in the Health Insurance market. He was trying to convince his audience that competition in the Health Care industry would be a good thing for the public. He said, after all that's what competition is all about, to reduce costs. Then he gave the most amazing analogy that completely makes the case against Government run anything. He said "just look at FedEx and UPS, they are both very competitive and they are always doing well, it's the Post Office that's always in trouble." Hello Mr President, that's what we who oppose your government take over of our health care have been trying to tell you. Thank you for making our point so brilliantly!

I agree something needs to be done - but from what I have seen - and I've actually looked at some of the actual reform bill, there's a lot of "ominous" stuff in there if you can actually get past all the legal mumbo jumbo. If you haven't looked at the bill... http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

Good bedtime reading... well, maybe.... just don't blame me if you have nightmares.

I agree with both Arlo & the Wiz. I don't think Obamas gonna do it right, but then again the only ones that may have the right idea are Arlo or the Wiz. I am so scared the new health plan could deny coverage for the chronically ill, the elderly and force those who can't afford health insurance plus those who can't get it due to having a pre-existing condition to have to pay a penalty they can't afford. Good luck with the new health plan.

Like the banking problem, this one is also a hydra.
Sometimes when fighting a hydra, you may need to kill one head at a time before you go after the heart of the beast.

Arlo..You are so right on and I can't agree with you more as I have been arguing the same thing for the most part. I just wish or hope the folks in Washington are hearing it. Although I am glad that reform is being debated I am afraid if not fearful that it may not get us on the right track. I want change just as much as anybody but where I would really like to see it is with the health insurance companies. I have been dealing with Hemochromotosis and quit honestly not only can it be quite painful but can really leave me feeling very sick sometimes. Anyhow, one of the treatments is the drawing of blood several times a month to lower the iron in the blood system. When I was having what I call the "blood lettings" the amount of times my doctor prescribed I was feeling very well and relatively living with no pain. But my insurance stepped in and said that I am having it done too often and thus refused several treatments. Needless to say the results have had a negative effect on me and I am in a full frontal attack with the insurance company now with the assistance of my physician. Looks like we are going to win the battle with coverage but why should I have to go through all of the hassle just to get the right treatment? Why should the insurance company be telling the doctors how to treat their patience without if consulting the physician that is involved in my case? Anyhow, right on....Let's hope that wisdom prevails and we get a bill that not only reforms but provides individual freedom as well.
-Eric

Just a short story: When I taught in a small school district in Northern Wisconsin, I had amazing health insurance. It covered everything without question: dentist and drugs included. I only needed to pay a $350 deductible for my family. This great coverage for all the teachers/staff created a huge financial burden on the district. And every year the costs went up. And great programs for kids were cut, so the teachers/staff could maintain this coverage. Why? Overuse. Teachers were rushing their own children to the emergency room for slight fevers or back aches. The number of pills some of the older staff were on was just crazy. People went to the doctor for the craziest things just because they could. It wasn't necessary for them to take any personal responsibility for their health because drugs and quick fixes were less work and as far as they were concerned "Free."
With all this being said, if there is nothing in this bill that encourages some personal responsibility and alternatives to conventional care, overuse will run rampant .Thus creating a huge financial burden on the government/tax payers and our American society in general. The American public must question this bill (or lack thereof) and we can't all just be cheerleaders for the current administration just because that's popular right now.

In addition to the humanitarion side of things, my understanding on at least part of Obama's motivation is what health care has done and is doing to the nations economy. With health care at 17% of gdp, and rising at a faster percentage than just about anything else in the economy. He is convinced that getting a handle on it is needed to get a handle on the economic health of the country going forward.
The problems are deep, multi-faceted and systemic.
Many of the concerns that have been voiced here can be things that contribute to the fiscal side of the problem as well as the human side.
I think that once we start down the road of fixing the fiscal side of things, we can then attempt to repair and reform much of the other. It seems to me from what I've gleened this may be his master plan.
This concept may actually be easier to do with the financial industry, since the taxpayers are saving the system, than it may be with various facets of the health care industry....perhaps most noteably big pharma.
The good news is we have started to work on both of these related issues, the bad news is the obvious enormity of the problems and the power of a variety of special interests that will resist changes that will benefit the average american.

Republicans have been opposing government funded health care for a long time now.



With this kind of ingrained opposition it is a rum bet that the kinds of concerns Arlo voices can be heard above the din of a party trying desperately to be relevant and using any means fair or foul to enrage their base.

As Larry said, a hydra head. Even if the money chain were taken out of the picture (it's real but for the sake of parsimony), alternative medicines or any medicine requires actuarial relationships before insurance companies will touch them. Otherwise it is like handing someone a shiny new guitar without strings. They've no clue what to do.

Then there is the FDA. I can't defend government incompetence or any large organization for that, but the relationship of the FDA tests, the vendor submitted documentation and the test results to those actuarials may be indirect but strongly coupled.

The only way I know to avoid a double pay (one for insurance you have to have to be in business and one for the resources you trust) is to have an entirely different insurance company that all parties trust and that insurance company has to have a legal means to include alternative medicines. If there is yet another money cabal that ensures the FDA can't do that (eg, members of WHO, a relationship to the UN, and a UN treaty or other international agreement that is influential over the US Congress such that the FDA is instructed not to include studies of alternative medicines), then that needs to be exposed.

With the media having concentrated in a few wealthy hands (that crack in the door), that's a tall order. It's not just that they aren't discussing Arlo's concerns, they aren't concerned with his concerns or anyone else's for that matter.

We seem to be headed toward a class confrontation in this country. The head of the class is revolting against the tyrrany of the back of the class that took over the top of the food chain. Issues like race, socialism, etc., are the glaze to keep anyone from realizing just how real and imminent that confrontation is.

The congressional town halls are just starting here in North Alabama. They are disagreeable now. As the summer goes on, they may become moreso as the ultra right and their well-funded PR organizations keep dropping more incindiary issues unrelated to health care into the discourse for the sake of enraging their constituents.

It's not about health care now. It's about creating a state of agitation that cascades from issue to issue to rob the administration of the consent of the governed. It's the same old game of "let's you and him fight" for the sake of overturning consensus.

To understand the Codex Alimentarius refererence:



One source concerned with the relationships among these organizations is Ron Paul. He is quoted in the controversy section of the wikipedia article expressing the concern that the European Union reliance on the Codex guidelines may be replicated and enforced in the US although he mistakenly refers to the Codex as regulations which they are not.

I know some one who has dual citizenship in Canada & the US. They go to Canada for major health care.

In the USA, the health care insurance companies hold all of the cards and have most of our government, Republican, Democrat, whatever, in their collective pocket. If you stay within the parameters of your coverage, among other things, the insurance companies:

-determine the fees they pay the doctors.
-determine your copay.
-determine the treatment they will or will not cover.
-determine what illnesses/injuries/etc. they will or will not cover.
-determine who they will or will not cover.
-limit the doctors you can see on their insurance plans.
-decide what drugs they will cover.
-can deny or approve almost everything at their own discretion.

Sounds a lot like the banking/credit card businesses, doesn't it? Hardly regulated at all.

Doctors and health care professionals do not determine any of this. Suits in offices do. Doctors and HC professionals have to work within the parameters that the insurance companies establish. There won't be much of a change even if health care reform is implemented unless we go to a single payer system. That doesn't seem very likely. If you watched that Bill Moyers link to the very end (in the "Sign of The Times" thread) you'll see why. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi1acHg3mhw Our government is so intertwined with big business & corporate America that it's one big corrupt slime ball.

Massachusetts Senator Tsongas said she got a call from an 85 year old constituent who said that he worked in support of health care reform when Harry Truman was president! That's over sixty years ago! And we've got legislators and folks saying that we shouldn't rush into this?!! Sixty years, man!!!

No, I don't think we'll get what we need right off (if ever) if a health care reform bill passes. My own opinion is to at least get something started. Get the motor running and then do the tune up! Otherwise, this is just going to peter out like all the other times it has and it'll be another sixty years, and another, and another.

Here, the main health insurance, for everybody, is a public compulsory insurance (called Social Security).
The financing is directly taken from the salary, according to a percentage of the salary, and there is a free insurance for people who have no incomes.
It covers generally 80 % of the health care and it can be 100 % for serious or long-term illnesses. On the other hand some medicines called "comfort medicines" are less or not repaid , I think it should be, because some are natural medicines which proved their effectiveness.
Most of people take out a private complementary insurance to have a 100 % coverage.
There are no refund for alternative medicines except for the consultation if the practitioner you see, is a doctor.
Health care are the same for everybody (whatever the age ), we can choose our doctor, hospital or clinic and the area .. at least so far and I hope that it is going to continue, because there have been a deficit for several years, and they took some measures: referring doctor , less refund for some medicines…..
Nevertheless, I think that the most of people are satisfied with this system even if it has inconveniences and limits. The profit is that everybody can have access to health care.

Tim Bray in Canada passed this on so we can understand the basics of the Canadian health system. It doesn't address Arlo's concerns but it may help dispel some of the fear.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health-care-abroad-canada/

Personally, I think that if the majority of the legislators and public look for an "all or nothing" ending, then we will wind up with the nothing. A compromise is better than nothing. But the fear mongers and unthinking reactionaries, along with the media focusing on them, are pushing the prospect of some kind of reform to the edge of that abyss.

Too many dogs fighting over the same bone, even if that bone at this point is only a theoretical, imaginary bone..........

Prayers just said for ya. Good luck with the hemo problem...

I seen your inter view on CNN the other night. Very impressive. What we need with your views on health care is to get you up at these town halls then maybe we can get something done for a change.

The people of the US both republican and liberal love you and hang onto every word you say. Your presence and known ability for the truth may get these people to stop these protests and screaming to disrupt the progress that is trying to be accomplished.

A rant...

A question raised is do we have a right to health care. A right by birth? A right by citizenship? A right by … consent of the governed?

We choose to have universal health care because it is the right thing to do. The shelving of services by access to capital is the same in medicine as it is in music. That won’t change. On the other hand,

Childhood diseases can be better managed.

The old do not die without counsel or medicine.

The young can start a family sure that every new member gets nine months of prenatal care.

There is less fear. There is less violence. There is a better chance for every citizen to live a healthier, more productive, more fulfilled life.

What else are we doing with our money that is as important as THAT?

It’s a simple question.

Dr. Andrew Weil

has a couple of good articles on Huffingtonpost.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-we ... 54227.html

I just got an email from an unemployed friend of mine living in California. He had no insurance and a very large abdominal hernia. The surgeon and the hospital refused him surgery unless he had insurance. He applied to the county for insurance on the "expedited track".It took five weeks (35 days to the calendrically impaired)! In the meantime, he said his intestines kept falling through his abdominal muscle wall about 25 time a day. Fortunately, he had the surgery and is now on the mend. He's one of the "lucky" ones. But to have to jump through hoops to have necessary surgery is insane.

i registered here after seeing a piece about you (arlo)
on cnn which ended with the (i'm paraphrasing here)
tagline: "He is opposed to healthcare reform."

i came here to get an accurate idea of your views on the matter.

no surprise, your views were simplified and misrepresented by
the interviewer. (am i mistaken, or was the interviewer daryn
kagan?)

Why thank you Cheryl. But, I can thank my ancestors for my condition as it is a rare hereditary disease however, if not managed properly can be very adverse. I just got to get with an insurance policy that understands the condition and is willing to work with me instead of writing me off. Which is what it feels like sometimes that they, my insurance provider, look at me and figure that I am going to be a burden on the system so do the minimum. I didn't ask for this disease it was handed down to me. This is why I say that there is need for health care reform. I am rambling..Health care is a very sensitive subject, In any case I do thank you for your prayers. Let’s all hope that this healthcare issue gets all worked out and we have something that just doesn't work for a small percentage of people but for everybody. Not saying that I am for or against just for reform. Many thanks again.
-Eric

Uh, oh! Now it looks like the public option is off the table, as well. What do we have left? Hmmmmm..... let me think. Could it be the "same ol' same old"?

Wait! The public option is back on the table! Maybe.

This is getting worse than all of the nutritional thingies that keep changing. "Eggs are good for you. No, they're bad! They're good for you again!" Then there's the butter vs. margerine! Same game, different deal.

Thinking too much or too little is dangerous! I mean, what does that leave us?

Stuck in the middle with you.

point taken.....i think.

No, that would be Judy.

You may hafta explain that one to Len!

maybe you ought nota... imagination deprived

Now I have that song stuck in my head...

Am I stuck in the middle with everyone? Would that make Larry and Arnie everyone's front and back halves then?

I'm getting dizzy.......

There are six sides if one has to choose sides assuming this is a cubist affair.

Are you talking Picasso Cubism or the idiosyncrasies some one from Cuba? (I think I may have just terminated another thread)

I find that interesting considering many from here opt to go to the US for health matters to circumvent the agonizing long waits here.

Our health care system is based more socialistic system than the US. Or at least that is the appearance.

We have two heavy tax basis as a dipping fund for it. The GST (Goods and Services tax) and the HST (Harmonized Sales Tax ).
So it ‘aint’ free. Although it probably does not cost a much as the US.
But then the population here is much less.

However, with our health care we run into the problrm of the whole system bogging down.

It is not uncommon for someone needing lets say an MRI or some sort of other diagonosti for a serious condition to go on a waiting list for many months to over a year.

They can in some circumstances opt to pay for it themselves out of their pocket and have it done much sooner
Problem then is we make a two tier system. Those that can afford it go to the head of the line, the ones that can not spare the extra cost can wait.

As an example; several weeks ago there was a young man that arrived at the local Emerg. with breathing problems. His waiting time was to be at least 12 hours plus.
He left................he died several hours after.

The ER doctors in this country are now admitting that people are dying in ERs because of the system. The ones on the health care front line know the screw ups but unfortunately have very little control.
I can only imagine how frustrating it must be.




Yes, I could not absolutely agree more. As far as I am concerned the same philosophy should apply North of the 49th parallel also.

I just really hate like Hell to see an old person, young person or poor person denied health care because of insurance company profits or stupidity of politicians and I don’t care what side of the border it is.


Ron

Who is Picasso and what is he doing in my cube, Atropos?

I didn't know the Moirae were Arlo fans, and, BTW, aren't you a chick in a well-hung sheet?

How to pay for the public option, that is the nut of the thing. The fear mongering will lose to compassion.

As Fate would have it, I'm not a "chick" and wasn't talking about that kind of thread. Besides, Mom told me never to run with scissors!

Dennis Kucinich on the health care "debate":

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuse ... =506394143

Arlo as usual you make more sense than most of the people who think about this stuff for a living. I said it before here and it never changes:
Capitalism has no soul. It exists for the purpose of generating and expanding capital. Doesn't matter if it's health care, food, or some of the music generated by Hollywood and Orlando hitmakers.

A small correction, and I may be wrong, but I don't think so...in our great Commonwealth (?), ...(MA) dental insurance is not required by law...though regular health insurance is and MASSHealth (the "state" AKA government run plan) may have some dental coverage. My dental insurance stinks. It will let me go to whoever I want to do whatever I want them to,....but it pays such a small amount it's almost a joke when you get the bill.

I agree with Kucinich. I don't know how to square that with Arlo's point about choosing kinds of health care.

Governments run systems by "systematizing" them. One face of that is bureaucracy, another is the standards for transactable products. Arlo cited the Codex Alimentarius (sounds like a spook but it's a book) as an example of such. How to get an expanded definition that includes alternative medicines if the individual so chooses is important to expanding not just the coverage but the types available. That expands freedom. America as I know it is a country that expands freedom for its citizens. Otherwise, we become a nanny nation.

Health care reform is bigger than the coverage, but what is most important is that we finally move away from a system where having coverage is used as the whip to keep people at work and turn it into the nourishment that enables them TO work.

The fact that America has such a hard time understanding that boggles.

Anthony Weiner makes the case for Medicare for Everyone to a stunned Java Joe. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LX0nPFKkow&feature=related If you like part 1, be sure to watch part 2. Even Joe admits at the end that, though he disagrees with Weiner, he appreciates the clarity with which he states the case. For this kind of discussion, very little in the way of raised voices. (!)

Hello, I’m new here and registered at this site because I enjoyed reading some independent thought on the health care reform issue.

Some thoughts of my own, if I may.

“Real reform requires a paradigm shift in our thinking.” Definitely. I would perhaps take it a little farther than food and suggest that considering what happens on the cellular level would be appropriate. (Lewis Thomas, Lives of a Cell makes interesting reading) Healing takes place in individual cells. We can support that process but we cannot create it. Antibiotics kill bacteria, but the cells damaged by the bacteria have to ultimately heal themselves. All any responsible health care practitioner can do is provide the best possible healing environment. This should include many types of treatment modalities. We have a whole host of options we didn’t have 50 years ago, which means that we can do an amazing number of things to and for people. The trick is to know the difference between doing something to someone, and doing something for someone. There is also the little matter of educating the American public (who seem, by and large, in terms of health care, to think that everything should be done to/for everyone) as to the difference.

And we want the government involved?

Could be, maybe, because they are self-employed in the US and can't afford to pay for health insurance. There are instances here of people who sell insurance yet can't afford their own.

And as for the government running or regulating it, well, right now it is for-profit big businesses running the health care system in The States. Are they more trust worthy than the government (not that either is)? They're in it for the money. The bottom line is not health care but profit! Think they're looking out for you? Yeah, right! It's the government regs that keep companies from manufacturing and selling crap that could be harmful or dangerous. Think we'd have car seat restraints if it were left up to Detroit? If the tobacco industry had no government intervention they'd be telling you that cigs are good for you (in fact, they did!).

Yeah, the government stickin' their nose in things can go overboard. But take away some of the regs that have actually been beneficial and, oh my friggin' powers that be, you'd hear the wailing and moaning coming from sea to polluted sea. There's got to be a happy medium. The biggest problem is that everybody thinks that this is Burger King and wants it done their way or none at all. And, I repeat, that will most likely result in the latter.

Arlo,

I applaud you!(yes,again)I could'nt agree with you MORE!!
I have health crae coverage(if you can call it that)thru my job.
It's no picnic! I truly believe this whole issue is really about the health
INSURANCE,not Health CARE! It seems to me,that the big pharmos and the Health care Ins.co's are More concerned about the dollars they can make and get,then the lives they can save.
I think the powers that be(the pres.&gov't)need to Reform the Insurance companies first,then deal with the rest of this Paradigm!
JMHO! Be Well!

Just curious, 12bar. If you had to pick one or the other as they are today, which health care system would you choose, Canada's or the USA's?

Welcome--hope you'll stick around and get to know us, and we you. We may not be what you're looking for, though--we're not a health-care issue community, though it's something some of us are interested in discussing with our friends.

Just speaking for myself, I don't want Corporate America involved by their refusing to pay for alternative treatments, as my UnitedHealthCare does now, and then taking a big chunk of my money that should be going to pay the healthcare providers they will let me see. I'd rather my $800+/month went to a single-payer system, (And I doubt it would be that pricey, but if so, I would be no worse off.)

Canada or US? Here's the latest Harris Poll:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris ... sp?PID=927

Welcome to the site. Like my dr says Medicare is just trying to have certain drs under them so they can get the big $$$ off them...

Big $$$ Cheryl??? I was under the impression that doctors in Pixley still got paid in chickens, apple pies and firewood

Just for information to those who cheered me up these past months, the new test scans are back and all results are normal. I'll be recovering some physical conditioning (sitting on butt for six months deconditions), but otherwise, the chemo is done until the cancer comes back (no cure for NHL) and I can resume normal activities.

If anything I do is actually normal.

Thanks for the Blundervibes and conversations! This is a good community. I'll gather up a chicken, two moon pies and some old Macs to send to the health care center.

Apples? Macintoshes ARE firewood.

Good to hear that Len! ( Larry now delves into awkward and scary 250 pound guy happy dance.......everybody please stand back)

That's what I've been saying!:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/200 ... ackoflogic

Greater than great news Len!! Blundervibes still transmitting ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

I think they also accept eggs, child labor and moonshine

They probably still do lol. The reason I list my location as Pixley is my friend in town & I would call town Hooterville and the county Pixley lol. I just saw an ad on tv explaining that Obamas new health care could have some bad repercussions like it is in some countries with socialized medicine. LIke people have to wait along time before being approved for life saving surgeries and things and meanwhile they die. A woman from Canada had to come here to get her surgery cuz she couldn't get it there in enough time. I'd always heard they had better healthcare. I sure hope we don't get that way here. Yes, we need to make the healthcare better but... Obama, think first when doing your healthcare thing honey. I don't wanna be denied medical care cuz you socialized it...

Michael Jackson had a 24/7 $150,000 a month personal doctor and look what happened to him......socialized health care might of saved his life

On the other hand, it could fund those community health clinics being stripped by the economic crises in California. Those work pretty well. There are opportunities to get systems in place that enable us to spot disease trends before they become epidemics.

We don't have to do this the way other countries do it. We can think innovatively if we will just stop shouting and posturing (the academic 'we'). We should stop being fearful and start thinking about the world 'the way it oughta be'.

Look at the good work done by the GC members. Is the GC a 'socialist' organization? Yes. It is. It's also small and it's local but would anyone here say 'it can't work because the lines to get in are too long'?

Wonderful, fabulous new, Len! Now it's time to start packing for October ...

Len wrote:

"Look at the good work done by the GC members. Is the GC a 'socialist' organization? Yes. It is. It's also small and it's local but would anyone here say 'it can't work because the lines to get in are too long'?"


Great point Len. Although I might suggest that many of those who are against Obama's health care reform would say that "it won't work because the folks in the line's hair is too long......

Wonderful news. Good for you, Len!

Congratulations, Len.

Sometimes folks are taught to just not trust certain words without considering the concepts behind them, and where they may already apply in their own lives.
Socialism can be a scare word to some people.
As has been alluded to here before, almost anything the government does could be considered on some level to be socialism.
Our defense is socialized.
Our highway system is as well.
Medicaid-medicare. Nasa.
The postal service.
With an item that is one sixth of gross domestic product and rising, and leaving many people wanting, why a socialist option in place for health care? As it turns out, we pay for it anyway by subsidizing medical care for the uninsured. I understand it's always scary when the goverment gets it's hooks into stuff, but could they do worse than AIG, GM, Bank of America etc.?
Read the article above that I posted about a lack of logic,facts and fear regarding this "debate".

One aspect of govPhobia is the fact that the government just like a corporation is a hydra and each head is not equally smart or competent. Over the career I've had many different gov customers from NASA to HUD skipping through all three branches of the military as well. The policies are there but it always comes down to the competence of the individual civil servants and contractors. It's the old 'don't mistake stupid for malice' adage. Some days these people get up on the wrong side of the bed too.

Overall, almost everyone I ever worked with was trying to do their jobs in or out of government and industry and while yes, I've seen some unbelievably corrupt operations (and health care is a fat juicy morsel for the system gamers, beware beware), most of the time it was paperwork and tedium that made them go south.

We are already paying for the uninsured as Larry says. We can do that better with systems such as community health clinics which have been underfunded for some time. The rub here is these are just more non-profits and the bitch about these is that they have to managed by professional organizations that can easily hide the corruption given non-profit status. In some ways, treating the health care reform as just a few tweaks here and there in budgeting could be a devolutionary step.

The longer I look at it, while it would be the biggest leap, the single payer system is the best solution for all of the problems if you try to solve them all at once. It is way easier to manage that even if it is a system of private contractors managed by government organizations (eg, the Medicare model).

It still doesn't address the challenge of alternative care in systems where everyone pays in but some have to double pay to get their choice of care. On the other hand, under a government managed system, eligible health care resources become a matter of managed policy instead of the labyrinthe of medical organizations that tightly control the types of care that can be provided by controlling the medical schools, their curricula and admissions as well as the conference-led standards organizations that tend to be made up of the most political among them. Politically, it is easier to change the direction of a few legislators than doctors. Unfortunately, that is how the insurance companies got the lock-in they enjoy now.

There is no getting around the People vs InsuranceOrgs aspect of this reform.

Great news Len , am glad for you that everything is going well. For the healthcare option , i dont want the system of the USA , neather Canada . I think whe have a much better system over here . I dont want to say that it is perfect but it is better . Its far more a social system and payable for everyone . Can enybody tell me why American people are so afraid of the word ' socialism '?

One theory is it is a result of the work of a PR firm that was hired during the Truman administration. In 1947 (there is that year again), Truman was fighting for.... tada... health care reform. The PR firm coined the term "socialized medicine" as part of the campaign against Truman's efforts. Likely they were piggybacking on the fears of the National Socialist Party during the war. That's the simplest application of semiotics to a campaign. It's a good field to be acquainted with these days if you need to sort facts and near facts being presented during campaigns of any kind.

BTW while here, there is an alternative thought that addresses Arlo's concerns about the manipulation of currency and the grab for value by the manipulators that has resulted in the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few while reducing the currency value for the majority. It is called "natual money" and is based on the old notion of having a physical correlate for value. Here's the fun part that the 'slinger might enjoy: one of the very first examples of this was put to work by a man named "Joseph": the one with the coat, not the one in Utah.

For the seven bad years, Joseph set up exchanges based on the corn stored. If you brought corn, you got script. If you made bread from corn, you could get corn scripts. (if you listen to too many ABBA songs you get corn, but I digress).



Should I give'em my name, Bubba?

I suppose what I was saying before, and what Len has been saying, is that any government run thing that divides and doles out resources could be called a socialist program.
The negative conotation of the word my come from extreme capitalists that fear that there will be less profiting from the system and then make their voices heard. There is fear mongering injected into the debate with the likes of "death panels" and losses of certain personal choices or freedoms. Those that have empires and wealth to protect might speak the loudest, if only by proxy. And much as the neo-cons got many simple folk to votes against their own interests with thier "family values" dogma, the same kinda of baloney is being served up for this debate.
Many of the neo-con base and some that side with them are like devout sports fans cheering on a winless team, simply because it's their team and they are lifetime fans.It is easy for the spin doctors to whip the uninformed and the downright clueless up into a frenzy.

Right, Larry, and it's a "Let's you and him fight" strategy that keeps our attention away from the Oz behind the screen. In a way, our political parties, the various isms, etc., are just thought killers. They don't mean that much.

Our money system is set up to create valueless values and that enables those who neither spin nor reap to own the fruits thereof and ensure we have to work to produce what we need without ever owning any of it. It sounds marxist or socialist and that is exactly wrong.

Here is a good description of how that works.



I don't predict a future for this concept of natural money being the cynic I am, but as a model it does help to clarify how all that money which vanished could do that... and I am not from Brooklyn.

natural money as a concept(without reading the stuff you provided links for) will probably only work when the entire world is at the point of having to work or fight for basic human needs like food and water.Like the times in the past where just having those things meant wealth.

Gessel makes interesting predictions. One is that once a country switches over to a natural money currency, other countries are forced to do it inevitably. I'm not sure how that works but imagine say China doing this. As it is, the world currencies based on the US dollar force the US to keep raising its debt ceiling and at some point, that has to crash catastrophically pulling China down with us.

I'm not sure if there is enough baby in that bathwater but in pursuit of alternatives and to answer some of Arlo's concerns that kicked off these threads, this is one model to compare the rest against.

a little out of sync with the thread...sorry!
wanted to say also, glad things are going well with you len!

Thanks to all for the good wishes.

My surprise was how much rage I am suddenly feeling now that the survival pressure is off. Three years since the diagnosis and now months of treatment compounded by some business blows along the way made me very focused on keeping attitude up and eyes forward. Once they said "Ok, you're fine for now but this kind comes back sooner or later", I suddenly dropped into a very angry depressed mood. It seems contradictory but there it is.

It will pass and it's under control but it took me by surprise. How strange we are as critters... As I said elsewhere, I feel like Cyclops about to lose the glasses. Maybe it is just an internal pressure to get things done now that I have a dramatic proof that time slips away fast. As Rob said quoting Dustin Hoffman, at 20 you can double it and its ok, at forty the same, but not at 80... or 55. The trick it seems is to stay on point and still smile.

I miss the days as a restaurant troubadour, yes I do.

You, too, can join this Facebook group (see below). It follows the "logic" we've been seeing lately. It's how firefighting used to be in this country until the you-know-who's got government involved, for the silly reason that if your neighbor's house was allowed to burn, it might send a spark to your house, too. (Kind of like communicable diseases?) If your house was on fire and the fire truck came but then they saw that you didn't have the sticker in the window proving that you'd paid your fee, they would just keep driving.

1 Million Strong Against our SOCIALIST Fire Departments


For too long now, fire departments across the United States have been socialist organizations, resulting in taxes on the American people.

FACT: Most Americans never use the socialized services of the fire department. The Obama administration has been very clear about keeping the status quo when it comes to taxpayer-funded fire departments.

It is time to open the fire department up to private industry. We have the best fire departments in the world in the US, but that doesn't mean that anyone (even non-US citizens) should be able to dial up and have fires put out, etc. There are private companies (Halliburtion, Etc.) who could step in tomorrow and take over every fire department in America and charge the consumer directly.

This is AMERICA. NO FREE FIRE SAFETY.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in asbestos and carrying a fire hose."

Please tell everyone you know about this group!

(Edited to say, I had a great picture to post with this, but it says "[img] is OFF" and I can't see a way to do that.)

Danged commie fire fighters......let's privatize it all!!! Law enforcement, education, social security (Bush's crowning revelation), religion (no conflict between church and state there), the judiciary (oh yeah, half of them are already privatized), the military......capitalism is so fair and efficient, let's just make everything "for profit" and, as we have recently seen, the market will work everything out perfectly for us......

Actual straight question. No sarcasm, etc. applies: If you're physically able to, why not pick it up again?

I am a Biochemical researcher, specializing in Natural Products and Protein Chemistry. I do agree with some of this stuff. BUT, I dont see a huge problem with the way health care is given. Let me explain. I see much use in herbs and things like that. BUT, I dont think this is reason to discount modern medicine. It is currently the best method to treat illness. If these herbs and such were as good at curing illness as people might think, why are they not used by the industry? A common answer would be to protect the profit of big Pharma. But I see this is wrong. Where do most drugs come from if you trace back where they or their derivatives where discoverd? Herbs. So if they worked as well as people think, big pharma would extract these drugs and give them to patiens in a pure form, which is always much more safe.

It is not like they are trying to keep them away from you because they want you to use their products only. Probably, they dont use them because much research has been done, and either, you actually are using a derivative ( much better) of the drug in the herb, or it was not as viable a drug candidate as they hoped.

I know there is a big push for natural is better. Here is a good example. i will use a recreational drug, and a common statement I have heard. There is Psilocybin Mushrooms and LSD. Many proponents of recreational drugs draw the line at 'natural' drugs, saying they are from the earth and are therefore safer. This is a VERY common misunderstanding. They woul say leave LSD alone and use Mushrooms if you decide to use. Actually, the two compounds are very similar and one is no more toxic than the other. In all actuality, a close relative of LSD is found in a type of vine.

My point is most drugs are better versions of drugs found in plants, or are the same drug that is in your favorite herbal remedy. If you had to choose between Smoking Marijuana and being given pure THC to smoke, the wise choice would be pure THC, there is less plant matter, and it would be much safer to use. Similarly, if you were given the choice between an herb and the pure chemical in a pill., the smart choice is the pure chemical. There could be other chemicals in the herb that you should not take.



Anyway, back onto health care.

I see huge problems with insurance companies and the like. I can see how they are pretty bad companies, but at the same time they are companies. If you were a business owner, would you want the government to tell you that you had to make a bad business decision? The government telling insurance companies that they must take people with preexisting conditions is not right. How can they knowingly do something that is going to drive them under? But people have the right to healthcare... Its a tough issue. If this happened, the cost of a regular guy to have insurance would skyrocket.

Now what about a one payer option. I dont see how this will ever work. NOTHING the government has done in this respect has ever worked. I think the government should give tax incentives to businesses who offer health insurance to their employees at low cost. But why dont the democrats not want to do this? well, this is money that does not go into the FEDs pockets. If they gave tax breaks, they would lose money for all their other projects....

Also, I am not a big fan of this sudden attack on tobbacco. I think people should do whatever they want. The government has no right to tell me what I can and cannot do to my body. BUT, if I smoke ciggarettes my whole life, and I put next to nothing into the system, when I get lung cancer, you guys should not be responsible for my health problems. It is not fair that your Social Security is used up by me, so when you have problems you have no money.

I am not saying this is not a trickey problem.. And I am not saying that we dont have room to improve with medicine. But, America has the best healthcare in the world.... I am talking baout medicine. People form all over the world come here for our medicine. Also, Canada is supposed to have awesome social healthcare... More people die from cancer there than in the USA.

Captain Zap: In retrospect, my answer to that question is too off topic. Like that guy standing on the road, it's too late to give 'em my name.

rcp6 - You have some ideas that are simply not supported by real science. Synthetic reproductions of natural products rarely (if ever) work as well as those found in nature. That's really last century science, where we are taught that vitamins and minerals extracted from natural sources are more effective than consuming real foods. Simply untrue, so consume multi-vitamin pills at your own risk. Real foods and healthy life-style have been shown to be far more effective (generally with few exceptions) at maintaining health and well being. The exceptions would be where it isn't practical or easy to get what your body needs. Vitamin D3, for example would best become a part of you through exposure to sunlight without sunscreen (over 50% of your body for more than 15 minutes a day). That's not easy in Alaska, so D3 from other natural sources would be better than nothing.

These days, you can't hardly find real foods anyway so it may be a moot point well taken. In fact, synthetic reproductions have recently shown to actually cause disease. In estrogen replacement therapy, for example, the synthetic hormone has now been proven beyond doubt to cause a big increase in risk of breast cancer and yet it is STILL being prescribed by doctors.

Trying to ascribe motive is a losing game so I wouldn't be betting the farm on the profit motive or whatever else big pharma is doing. On the other hand, any group of people spending over a million dollars a day to prevent real change in health care can't be trusted to be motive-free!

You are right (in my estimation) that modern science of medicine is great when you get in a car wreak and need immediate care for catastrophic illness (cutting and pasting), But, for the best medical outcomes you may want to be in another country. That's why the USA is like 32nd on the list of healthcare around the world.

If you'd like, you may want to check some other sources than med school for your own information. I'd start with the Weston A. Price Foundation for some valuable info. http://www.westonaprice.org/

All the best,
adg

I wanted to pass along this letter written by my friend John McCutcheon, folksinger, writer and storyteller, dealing with the subject at hand.......


Random Acts of Outrage

As we teeter on the brink of the first major health care overhaul since Medicare was created we, as a country, are as indecisive as Brett Favre about what we want to do. We know that over 40 million people have no health insurance…and more of the newly unemployed are swelling those ranks. We know that insurance companies only make money by denying coverage. We know that anyone with any kind of pre-existing condition is not going to get individual coverage. We know that insurance providers are already making decisions about our care. We know that insurance costs are rising at an alarming…and unsustainable…rate. And yet a substantial number of people think “the market should take care of things.” Sheesh!

Friends, let’s be clear. People without health care coverage live sicker and die sooner. They put off routine tests that could save their lives. More and more people are treating emergency rooms like primary care facilities. And we pay for that coverage for those folks. Our system is not the envy of the world, nor does it provide the best care in the world. (The World Health Organization lists the US as 37th, just edging out Slovenia and Cuba!) We neglect preventive care, fail to introduce any reasonable cost controls, and refuse to face the difficult issue of malpractice reform.

As I travel around the world I’ve made friends in countries far and wide. And every one of those countries has a national health plan. Do I hear complaints? Sure. Would any of these folks I’ve talked to trade their system for ours? Not a one. We trust the government to execute wars, to maintain infrastructure, to provide policing and firefighting personnel and equipment, to provide for us in our old age…with Social Security and Medicare, a government single-payer health plan. We decry paying taxes but are willing to pony up endlessly to the insurance giants and hope we are not denied the coverage we believe we have. When is someone going to cry “uncle?”

There have been a lot of lies and misconceptions lofted into the current debate about how to cure our health care ills. “Death panels,” rationing, the elimination of an appeals process…let’s start talking about how to fix a system that is broken and not get swamped by ideological posturing and fabrication.

And, oh, that fabrication was the least of it. Now people are showing up with guns at public events holding signs that quote Jefferson, “Time to water the tree of liberty!” Those who know the full quote “…with the blood of patriots and tyrants” could not help be outraged at the perversion of democracy their presence portends. Democracy and the democratic process is a robust and often rough-and-tumble discussion of ideas. Weapons…and the intimidation they introduce…have no place in that discussion or that process. So let’s have an energetic debate. But let’s leave the knee-jerk ideology, the lies, the lobbyists, and, for God’s sake, the guns at the door. Let’s not get any sicker than we already are.

A side note: Average life expectancy during the Roman Empire and Medieval Britain was 20 to 30 years. Early 20th century was 30 to 40. World average is currently 67. Granted, the increase is most likely not due to any one thing but greater knowledge and improvements in awareness, hygiene, medicine and nutrition contributed much to the increase.

Hi Captain Zap,

I apologize for not getting back sooner. Had something going on here.

Wow, what a question. To be honest I'm not really sure.
I guess that would depend on my financial status.
If I was substantially well off I would without a doubt choose the US system.

If I was in the ranks of the poorer then I would have to choose the Canadian and hope I did not require any medical or diagnostic attention in a short period of time or did not have a serious condition.

Many years ago the Canadian system was excellent. However over the years it has become somewhat very less than it was.

I can see in years to come there is a chance it will be profit driven.
In fact I guess it is safe to say there are those that are testing the water now.

The Health care system is a big issue here. The health care workers are not at all happy with the system. However it is the politicians and suits that make the decisions.

It's a very emotional issue.

My personal view is quite simple.
Profit should not be considered before peoples well being.
Anyone requiring medical attention should have access to it, regardless of race, color, creed or financial status.

Anyone following these things to any degree can certainly become disillusioned in the 'system'.

Amen to that, brother. That's what it all boils down to.

The folks who say that the US Constitution has nothing about "the right to health care" miss the point. The founding fathers didn't have to put that in the Constitution. But they did consider that, no matter how good the country might get to be, there's always room for improvement. We seem to have lost the sense of community in our every day lives. Sure, folks get together and help in times of great crisis but that seems short lived and soon forgotten. Four years since Katrina and the Gulf Coast is still a mess, New Orleans all but forgotten in the public eye.

The Constitution was made to be changed and this country was founded to be improved upon and make life better, not for just an elite few, but for everyone. And universal health care would do just that.

Captain Zap wrote:

"A side note: Average life expectancy during the Roman Empire and Medieval Britain was 20 to 30 years. Early 20th century was 30 to 40. World average is currently 67. Granted, the increase is most likely not due to any one thing but greater knowledge and improvements in awareness, hygiene, medicine and nutrition contributed much to the increase."





And that's an amazing thing......more precious time But in my life as a social worker, the discussion continuously comes up as to what is more important: adding more years to our life or adding more life to our years I envision a society that does both. It seems me (I loathe stereotyping, but...) that the folks who are rabidly frothing at the mouth in opposition to competent, fair and equal health care for every American would also be the same ones who would oppose most every other government social program that is designed to improve the quality of a person's existence. The notion that an individual lives in poverty because they are too lazy to work, or because of a mental disease or "moral character flaw" is as mythological as the misinformation being spread about the health care plan by its opponents. Those lazy, crazy and/or morally deficient individuals make up a tiny fraction of poor folks who are poor through no fault of their own. Maybe they were born poor or are too sick to work (don't forget that alcoholism and drug addiction ARE diseases!) or "just ol' plain down on their luck", as I could hear Woody sayin'......

The healthier the crowd, the healthier the individual. I'm for universal health care. Self-preservation, I call it.

When health care and the news are about profit, common good and common sense go to war with each other.

I have to disagree with most of what is being said about healthcare in the United States. What I DO agree with is that we need to do more for the poor...the TRULY poor, not those who chose cable TV, SUV's, and other "luxuries", but whine because they can't afford health insurance.

Insurance should remain a state issue as determined by the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1938. Health insurance is no different than any other form of insurance. Profitable? Yes, each State Department of Insurance requires that your insurance company remain profitable. To do this, they require insurance companies set reserves to pay future claims. The governement will have no such requirement. When claims get out of hand, the government (which is code for "you and me, brother") will require higher taxes and limit benefits. Pete Peterson, a former treasury official recently stated on the Diane Rheme show (NPR) that the only way to control costs is to set a budget and stay within that budget. That is a reasonable expectation, but that's not how insurance companies operate today. As costs escalate due to new technology, which is very expensive, the costs are added to future premiums, but insureds, especially in the employer-provided arena, are able to shop around for a better deal, or alter the plan to meet their own needs and budgets.

The rhetoric surrounding "you'll be able to keep your own insurance policy if you want" is also complete crap. Sure, you can keep it, but why would you (or your employer) continue to pay an insurance company when the "public option" is available at no additional costs. You're already paying the taxes to support that plan, why pay twice?

Another issue with the reform bill is that it would require insurance companies to provide coverage without regard to pre-existing conditions. Did we learn nothing in the recent mortgage crisis when sub-prime loans to people who couldn't qualify under the traditional lending underwriting rules that existed in all of the 20th century? Lenders "threw away the book" on rational underwriting to put more people in homes, employing more construction workers, selling more appliances, etc., only to see thi house of cards collapse on all of us. It felt good for a while, but that sense of euphoria was short lived.

The reform bill is froth with unrealistic expectations and needs to be massaged in a sensible fashion.

So your approach to universal coverage is inspection of the homes of the insured to verify they are impoverished and not profligate? If they agree to sell that property and give you the money, would you want to be the insurance parole officer? Outstanding.



That interests me. I manage a team that last week fielded the first CDC certified direct and cascade alert system for public health. It's taken two years and it cost six million to develop for the Department of Health in Puerto Rico. These systems enable early detection of epidemics as well as more effective application of the local health resources. The biggest benefactors are the local clinics that can go online with their encounter record keeping that enables better diagnosis faster. Those are your tax dollars at work. It will not raise the cost of your insurance. If it does not reduce it, then your insurance underwriters are fudging.

Care to figure out what the costs are for keeping that in paper?



If you don't get to choose the type of health care you get, why choose once? If the ration of services delivered for costs paid are less as with private insurance, why choose the private plan? Maybe your employer would like a better deal than that.



Health care is not condos. I think it morally indefensible to treat a person as if they were a risk for fire, burglary and default on a loan.

Certainly debate the bill, but do it realistically as you say.

Hey! That sounds like a good reason to support a single payer program!



I don't consider insuring a person with a pre-existing condition unrealistic. Rather it is more like the right thing to do.

Arlo - just read your August 13, 2009 message. I agree!! Can't tell you how much I appreciate hearing my own beliefs being stated. thank you.

Hahaha... well you don't hear FedEx and UPS complaining about the Post Office! No one in their right mind would change to a system that doesn't work as well just because it's cheaper... Oh wait - There's Walmart. Okay some would. But there's enough business out there to keep everyone happy and profitable. In addition, you are paying for everyone's healthcare any way you slice it. Hospitals charge insurance companies more for your care so they can cover the costs of serving those without it. So you end up not only paying for your neighbors health care, and on top of that you pay additional profit to the insurance companies who are now asking for 35 cents out of every dollar in profit! Even Las Vegas casinos keep their profit generally below 20%.

Hi—I’m new to the forum here, but I have been reading “over your shoulders” for a long time now. I’m injecting my thoughts here because health care is something I care deeply about. I have way more experience with the so-called health care community than I wish to have. Briefly, my husband has suffered two massive blood clots and has had three hiatal hernia surgeries with LOTS of complications. He is on all kinds of medications that interact with each other and cause all kinds of additional problems. His medical file is many hundreds of pages long and I won’t bore you with the gory details. Before all of this happened he was a weight lifter, a biker, a lover of the outdoors—generally a healthy person. That’s just one part of our story. In the beginning of this year, I was diagnosed with breast cancer. I have had two surgeries, and have just completed radiation treatments. It’s not fun.
However, through all of this we have been fortunate to have health insurance. And still we have had problems. It’s a full time job to keep up with all of the authorizations, explanations of benefits and all of the other crap that comes with health insurance. But if we didn’t have it, we probably wouldn’t be around to tell the story.
I believe with the late Senator Kennedy, that every American has the right to health care. It’s a moral issue. Every time someone has to decide whether to have cancer treatments or feed their family, we lose a little more of our humanity. And lately we don’t have a lot to spare.
I also agree that there are two separate issues here—one is about caring for people who are already sick. The other is about staying healthy by rethinking how we live and eat. I agree, Arlo, that it requires a paradigm shift. Most people roll their eyes and walk away when I get going about the loss of family farms, GMOs, “Round-up Ready” crops, corn syrup etc. but the discussion should be ongoing because we are killing ourselves slowly, with cheez product and grape flavored soda.
Both issues are complicated and both require us to do better. I don’t know the answer, but I do think that the current reform act is a step in the right direction. A baby step, but I’ll take it.
hrg
PS--Arlo, in your 2Cents thread, someone commented that your pop would be spinning to find out that you are a republican. I respectfully disagree. To me it seems like exactly the kind of thing that Woody would appreciate. I guess it's true that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree...

Welcome to the site. Prayers just said for you & your hubby. I would like to see all americans get healthcare. It's just I'm afraid Obama is not gonna get it right & we'll have where you have to wait for months for help or get denied because you have a chronic disease and they'd rather help the healthy ones first. So when ya do it Obama, do it right. I don't want to die cuz I had to wait months to get help or was denied it cuz I have a chronic disease...

My better half works in a doctor's office. For the record, she says that there are fewer hassles processing the Medicare claims than there are with the for-profit insurance companies. And, surprise! They usually get the government (Medicare) payments sooner than the for-profits as well. It seems to me that everybody who had their panties in a bunch are more worried about the "what if's" than looking forward to the "what can be's". I saw on the news tonight that there are an estimated 50,000,000 (Yeah! That's fifty million!) Americans without health insurance! Cut the crap and just do it!!! Otherwise, as in the past, nothing is going to get done!!!

Here is an insider look at health care rationing from the point of view of an oncologist working for the insurance company. It ain't pretty but it seems to be honest. Notice how 'generally acceptable practice' can squeeze out Arlo's point of view regarding alternatives. If the alternative providers don't have a chair at this table, their alternatives are never considered.

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/08/confessions-of-a-health-care-rationer

Thanks for the wishes Cheryl. All things considered, we are in a pretty good place. We are kind of "let go and let God" people (whomever he or she may be ). But I think that we are among the lucky ones really. Especially when I see what other people have to live with and through. I also hope that Obama does it right...For what it's worth, I do believe that he has good intentions. And that is the first time I have felt that way about a public official in quite awhile.
I think for most people some coverage will be better than what they have now, nothing. And I also think that regarding the whole healthy living/eating concept, well that is something everyone can change in little ways (a la Pete), until the government catches up.

I think Obama means well. But I'm afraid he won't do it right & we'll suffer because of it...

Please post your reply in the Blog-Forum.