Get real, Americans! | You have been ripped off! | By Mary Pitt
12/27/07 "ICH" -- -- At long last, the age-old problem of health care for the poor and near-poor is being discussed in open forum. The problem has existed since the ethos of class differentiation was begun with the invention of wampum. In this modern age, it is only through the acivities of individual greed that it continues, despite the glaring fact that one solution is the only alternative.
Mitt Romney's Massachusetts experiment has already been exposed as a failure as will be any other program for "mandatory insurance". As with the assistance that is provided to the elderly holders of policies for Medicare Part D, recipients of the plan must be totally destitute in order to be free of the required "deductible and co-payment" muddle. Even if they have "insurance coverage" they still cannot afford the cash outlay that is necessary in order to obtain the necessary treatment.
..
Half a century ago, a good businessman named Henry Kaiser joined other automobile and equipment manufacturers in ceasing the making of their former product in order to make the needed equipment that the country needed in order to effectively engage in World War II. He built huge shipyards on the West Coast and people poured in from all over the beleaguered nation to work in them. Soon it was apparent that these folks were physically devastated by the medical neglect, malnutrition, and other maladies inflicted by the Great Depression. The absenteeism troubled him until he reached one infallible conclusion: "It is less costly to keep people healthy than to get them well once they become ill."
...
There are many arguments from those who oppose the Universal Health Care plans as proposed by Dennis Kucinich and others. One is that it would raise taxes. Horrors! Have you computed the amount that you pay in insurance premiums each year? The insurance companies have been "taxing" you for half a century and you take it in stride. The added taxes to cover your health care would not be likely to be more than you are paying now to the insurance company and the coverage would be better.
Another is that it would "destroy an industry". Perhaps an unfeeling industry should be brought to account for the exhorbitant profits that they have amassed as the result of denying care, requiring co-payments and deductibles to deter people from fully utilizing their benefits, and refusing coverage to "high-risk individuals". Let them go back to insuring lives and property, cars, houses, and business liabilities.
The third argument against free universal health care is that it would cost too much. This argument is the least effective when viewed in the light of realism. The insurance companies declare an annual profit of some Ten Billion Dollars! How many of the 40% of Americans without adequate health care could be kept healthy by the addition of that amount to be paid to physicians, hospitals, and pharmacists?
...
... As they "cream the market", insuring only the healthy and discontinuing coverage for those with serious illnesses, those left uninsured must liquidate their homes and other assets to pay for their own medical care until they are destitute and qualify for Medicaid and welfare.
That is why our nation, which spends more for health care than any other can only rank 45th in the quality of care. Those who can afford it have access to the most modern technology and life-saving procedures where those who cannot are left with medical care that is reminiscent of the nineteenth century. This is the great shame of our vaunted democracy where we expound that "all men are created equal". The big lie is exposed when you learn that the rich get the best while the poor are shunted aside to die of neglect. When a plan is suggested that would care for the poor while costing the rich no more, we owe it to ourselves to give it serious consideration.
Monday, December 31, 2007
2002: combined profits of top 10 drug companies EXCEEDED combined profits of other 490 Fortune 500 companies
How Scientific Is Modern Medicine? | By Dana Ullman, North Atlantic Books | Posted on December 3, 2007, Printed on December 30, 2007 | http://www.alternet.org/story/68065/
...
The following is an excerpt from The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy, by Dana Ullman.
...
In 2002, the combined profits ($35.9 billion) of the ten largest drug companies in the Fortune 500 were more than the combined profits ($33.7 billion) of the remaining 490 companies together (Angell, 2004, 11).1 The only reason these drug companies did not maintain this shocking financial advantage is that the oil companies' profits have increased considerably with the Iraq War, thus raising the 490 non-drug companies' profits slightly higher. But then again, one would assume that the profits of 490 of the largest companies in the world would be substantially more than just ten companies in one commercial field. This economic information is important, even essential, because learning how to separate the "science" of medicine from the business of medicine has never been more difficult. The combined efforts of the drug companies and the medical profession, which together may be called the "medicalindustrial complex," have been wonderfully effective in convincing consumers worldwide that modern medicine is the most scientific discipline that has ever existed. Before discussing homeopathy, it is important, if not necessary, to raise basic questions about what "scientific"medicine is -- and is not.
Physicians today rarely run drug companies. Instead, businessmen run them. It is, therefore, not surprising that Marcia Angell,MD, a Harvard professor of medicine and former editor of the famed New England Journal of Medicine , wrote:
Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs. ... Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the U.S. Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself. (Levi, 2006)
There is big big money to be made in drug sales, and brilliant marketing has led too many of us to ignore or excuse this bully side of medicine.
...
Sadly and strangely, physicians do not see that there is something fundamentally wrong with the present medical model. Instead, once an old drug is found to be ineffective or dangerous, doctors and drug companies simply assert the "scientifically proven" efficacy of a new drug. Despite this recurrent pattern, doctors are prescribing drugs at record-breaking rates:
- In 2005 the volume of prescription drugs sold in the U.S. was equal to 12.3 drugs for every man, woman, and child in that year alone (compared to 1994, when 7.9 prescription drugs per year were on average purchased by every American). (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2006)
- According to a 2005 study, 44 percent of all Americans take at least one prescription drug and 17 percent take three or more prescription drugs (This number increased 40 percent between 1994 and 2000). ( Medscape , 2005)
...
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
nation’s second-largest physician group - endorsed a single-payer health-care system yesterday
Tuesday, December 4, 2007 by The Philadelphia Inquirer | American College of Physicians Endorse Single-Payer | by Stacey Burling
The Philadelphia-based American College of Physicians - the nation’s second-largest physician group - endorsed a single-payer health-care system yesterday.
But the organization stopped short of saying that a single-payer system like Medicare, in which the government would get and pay most bills, is the best way to achieve universal health coverage.
..
After analyzing health care in the United States and 12 other industrialized countries, the group concluded that universal coverage had been successfully achieved elsewhere through single-payer and pluralistic systems.
Either could work here, the report said. The pluralistic system gives consumers more choice, but also leads to higher administrative costs and inequalities. Because it is what the United States already has, it is less of a political challenge. “It’s like remodeling your house to make it better for your whole family,” Dale said.
Single-payer has lower administrative costs, but is not politically popular, he said. “I’m not a political analyst. I’m just a doctor,” Dale said. “But I think there will probably be resistance to that. That’s why we don’t have it now.” He said his group added it to its proposal to “heighten the debate.” ...
The Philadelphia-based American College of Physicians - the nation’s second-largest physician group - endorsed a single-payer health-care system yesterday.
But the organization stopped short of saying that a single-payer system like Medicare, in which the government would get and pay most bills, is the best way to achieve universal health coverage.
..
After analyzing health care in the United States and 12 other industrialized countries, the group concluded that universal coverage had been successfully achieved elsewhere through single-payer and pluralistic systems.
Either could work here, the report said. The pluralistic system gives consumers more choice, but also leads to higher administrative costs and inequalities. Because it is what the United States already has, it is less of a political challenge. “It’s like remodeling your house to make it better for your whole family,” Dale said.
Single-payer has lower administrative costs, but is not politically popular, he said. “I’m not a political analyst. I’m just a doctor,” Dale said. “But I think there will probably be resistance to that. That’s why we don’t have it now.” He said his group added it to its proposal to “heighten the debate.” ...
Monday, December 3, 2007
FDA so underfunded, consumers are put at risk
Report: FDA so underfunded, consumers are put at risk | Updated 21h 11m ago | By Julie Schmit, USA TODAY
The Food and Drug Administration is so underfunded and understaffed that it's putting U.S. consumers at risk in terms of food and drug safety, an advisory panel to the FDA says in a report to be discussed Monday.
The report — developed in the past year by experts from academia, industry and other government agencies — delivers a scathing review of the state of the FDA, which regulates 80% of the nation's food, its drugs, vaccines and medical devices.
The report details a "plethora of inadequacies" in the agency, including:
•Inadequate inspections of manufacturers, noting that foodmakers, for example, are inspected about once every 10 years.
•A "badly broken" food-import system and food supply "that grows riskier each year." In the past 35 years, FDA inspections of the food supply have dropped 78% due to soaring numbers of products and inadequate FDA funding.
..
William Hubbard, a former FDA associate commissioner who supports the Coalition for a Stronger FDA, says the report stands out because of the "intensity of the feelings" expressed by the subcommittee.
"These people were horrified by what they found," he says. While the subcommittee was supposed to look ahead to where the FDA needs to be, Hubbard says it came away concluding that "it cannot even do its job now."
The Food and Drug Administration is so underfunded and understaffed that it's putting U.S. consumers at risk in terms of food and drug safety, an advisory panel to the FDA says in a report to be discussed Monday.
The report — developed in the past year by experts from academia, industry and other government agencies — delivers a scathing review of the state of the FDA, which regulates 80% of the nation's food, its drugs, vaccines and medical devices.
The report details a "plethora of inadequacies" in the agency, including:
•Inadequate inspections of manufacturers, noting that foodmakers, for example, are inspected about once every 10 years.
•A "badly broken" food-import system and food supply "that grows riskier each year." In the past 35 years, FDA inspections of the food supply have dropped 78% due to soaring numbers of products and inadequate FDA funding.
..
William Hubbard, a former FDA associate commissioner who supports the Coalition for a Stronger FDA, says the report stands out because of the "intensity of the feelings" expressed by the subcommittee.
"These people were horrified by what they found," he says. While the subcommittee was supposed to look ahead to where the FDA needs to be, Hubbard says it came away concluding that "it cannot even do its job now."
healthy people could choose not to buy insurance — then sign up for it if they developed health problems later
Mandates and Mudslinging | By PAUL KRUGMAN | Published: November 30, 2007
From the beginning, advocates of universal health care were troubled by the incompleteness of Barack Obama’s plan, which unlike those of his Democratic rivals wouldn’t cover everyone. But they were willing to cut Mr. Obama slack on the issue, assuming that in the end he would do the right thing.
...
The central question is whether there should be a health insurance “mandate” — a requirement that everyone sign up for health insurance, even if they don’t think they need it. The Edwards and Clinton plans have mandates; the Obama plan has one for children, but not for adults.
Why have a mandate? The whole point of a universal health insurance system is that everyone pays in, even if they’re currently healthy, and in return everyone has insurance coverage if and when they need it.
And it’s not just a matter of principle. As a practical matter, letting people opt out if they don’t feel like buying insurance would make insurance substantially more expensive for everyone else.
Here’s why: under the Obama plan, as it now stands, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance — then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. Insurance companies couldn’t turn them away, because Mr. Obama’s plan, like those of his rivals, requires that insurers offer the same policy to everyone. ...
From the beginning, advocates of universal health care were troubled by the incompleteness of Barack Obama’s plan, which unlike those of his Democratic rivals wouldn’t cover everyone. But they were willing to cut Mr. Obama slack on the issue, assuming that in the end he would do the right thing.
...
The central question is whether there should be a health insurance “mandate” — a requirement that everyone sign up for health insurance, even if they don’t think they need it. The Edwards and Clinton plans have mandates; the Obama plan has one for children, but not for adults.
Why have a mandate? The whole point of a universal health insurance system is that everyone pays in, even if they’re currently healthy, and in return everyone has insurance coverage if and when they need it.
And it’s not just a matter of principle. As a practical matter, letting people opt out if they don’t feel like buying insurance would make insurance substantially more expensive for everyone else.
Here’s why: under the Obama plan, as it now stands, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance — then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. Insurance companies couldn’t turn them away, because Mr. Obama’s plan, like those of his rivals, requires that insurers offer the same policy to everyone. ...
Trimming the salt content in processed and restaurant foods by half could save up to 150,000 lives a year ...
UPDATE 1-US FDA mulls stricter regulation of salt in food | Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:18pm EST | By Kim Dixon
COLLEGE PARK, Md., Nov 29 (Reuters) - Public health advocates on Thursday called for tighter restrictions on salt content in food, arguing that cutting the nutrient's overuse by most Americans could save thousands of lives annually.
...
Trimming the salt content in processed and restaurant foods by half could save up to 150,000 lives a year by reducing heart-related disease, according to the consumer group, whose petition to the FDA prompted the public hearing.
"I am sure no one would tolerate so many deaths from airline crashes, so why tolerate it from food?" Dr. Stephen Havas, vice president for science and public health at the American Medical Association, said.
The CSPI, backed by several public health groups, wants the FDA to beef up labeling, require manufacturers to cut salt in packaged foods, and revoke salt's "generally recognized as safe" status, subjecting it to stricter regulations as a food additive. ...
COLLEGE PARK, Md., Nov 29 (Reuters) - Public health advocates on Thursday called for tighter restrictions on salt content in food, arguing that cutting the nutrient's overuse by most Americans could save thousands of lives annually.
...
Trimming the salt content in processed and restaurant foods by half could save up to 150,000 lives a year by reducing heart-related disease, according to the consumer group, whose petition to the FDA prompted the public hearing.
"I am sure no one would tolerate so many deaths from airline crashes, so why tolerate it from food?" Dr. Stephen Havas, vice president for science and public health at the American Medical Association, said.
The CSPI, backed by several public health groups, wants the FDA to beef up labeling, require manufacturers to cut salt in packaged foods, and revoke salt's "generally recognized as safe" status, subjecting it to stricter regulations as a food additive. ...
Saturday, December 1, 2007
27% interest on the portion of your medical bill not covered by insurance? That's what some Americans are facing ...
Medical Bills On SteroidsDECEMBER 3, 2007 | The Business Week -- News You Need to Know | Harry Mauer & Cristina Linblad
How would you like to pay 27% interest on the portion of your medical bill not covered by insurance? That's what some Americans are facing. Hospitals and other health-care providers are converting bills of uninsured and underinsured patients into consumer debts in a bid to boost payment. Finance outfits, including big banks and credit-card companies, acquire the debts for a discount, then charge double-digit rates on past due bills. Hospitals get paid quickly, but the practice can leave lower-income patients in a worse financial bind.
How would you like to pay 27% interest on the portion of your medical bill not covered by insurance? That's what some Americans are facing. Hospitals and other health-care providers are converting bills of uninsured and underinsured patients into consumer debts in a bid to boost payment. Finance outfits, including big banks and credit-card companies, acquire the debts for a discount, then charge double-digit rates on past due bills. Hospitals get paid quickly, but the practice can leave lower-income patients in a worse financial bind.
hardly an anomaly: Medicare pays more than double for oxygen equipment ... $8,280 vs. $3,500
Golden Opportunities | Oxygen Suppliers Fight to Keep a Medicare Boon | By CHARLES DUHIGG | Published: November 30, 2007
Millions of people with respiratory diseases have relied on oxygen equipment, delivered to their homes, to help them breathe. A basic setup, including three years of deliveries of small oxygen tanks, can be bought from pharmacies and other retailers for as little as $3,500, or about $100 a month.
Unless, that is, the buyer is Medicare, the government health care program for older Americans.
Despite enormous buying power, Medicare pays far more. Rather than buy oxygen equipment outright, Medicare rents it for 36 months before patients take ownership, and pays for a variety of services that critics say are often unnecessary.
The total cost to taxpayers and patients is as much as $8,280, or more than double what somebody might spend at a drugstore.
The high expense of oxygen equipment — which cost Medicare over $1.8 billion last year — is hardly an anomaly.
Medicare spends billions of dollars each year on products and services that are available at far lower prices from retail pharmacies and online stores, according to an analysis of federal data by The New York Times. The government agency has paid above-market costs for dozens of items, a comparison of Medicare figures with retail catalogs finds.
For example, last year Medicare spent more than $21 million on pumps to help older and disabled men attain erections, paying about $450 for the same device that is available online for as little as $108. Even for a simple walking cane, which can be purchased online for about $11, the government pays $20, according to government data.
These widespread price discrepancies, including those for oxygen services, have been noted in dozens of regulatory reports.
But when officials and politicians have tried to cut these costs, they have often encountered a powerful foe: the companies that sell these devices, who ask their elderly customers to serve, in effect, as unpaid lobbyists, calling and writing to their representatives in Congress, protesting at rallies, and even participating in political attacks against individual lawmakers who take on the issue.
Millions of people with respiratory diseases have relied on oxygen equipment, delivered to their homes, to help them breathe. A basic setup, including three years of deliveries of small oxygen tanks, can be bought from pharmacies and other retailers for as little as $3,500, or about $100 a month.
Unless, that is, the buyer is Medicare, the government health care program for older Americans.
Despite enormous buying power, Medicare pays far more. Rather than buy oxygen equipment outright, Medicare rents it for 36 months before patients take ownership, and pays for a variety of services that critics say are often unnecessary.
The total cost to taxpayers and patients is as much as $8,280, or more than double what somebody might spend at a drugstore.
The high expense of oxygen equipment — which cost Medicare over $1.8 billion last year — is hardly an anomaly.
Medicare spends billions of dollars each year on products and services that are available at far lower prices from retail pharmacies and online stores, according to an analysis of federal data by The New York Times. The government agency has paid above-market costs for dozens of items, a comparison of Medicare figures with retail catalogs finds.
For example, last year Medicare spent more than $21 million on pumps to help older and disabled men attain erections, paying about $450 for the same device that is available online for as little as $108. Even for a simple walking cane, which can be purchased online for about $11, the government pays $20, according to government data.
These widespread price discrepancies, including those for oxygen services, have been noted in dozens of regulatory reports.
But when officials and politicians have tried to cut these costs, they have often encountered a powerful foe: the companies that sell these devices, who ask their elderly customers to serve, in effect, as unpaid lobbyists, calling and writing to their representatives in Congress, protesting at rallies, and even participating in political attacks against individual lawmakers who take on the issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)