Posts Tagged ‘ Reform ’

Obama Fights Back As Bid to Reform Us Healthcare Stalls

October 23, 2010
By

President Barack Obama has become mired in a frenzied fight over US healthcare reform as Republicans scent a devastating political victory that could hobble his presidency.

Obama yesterday lashed out at critics of his ailing push to provide coverage for America’s 46 million uninsured people by saying that his critics were resorting to “outlandish rumors” and “misleading information” to scupper his plans.

But Sarah Palin, the Republican’s former vice-presidential candidate, raised the temperature in the debate by declaring Obama’s plans “downright evil” and accusing him of introducing a care rationing system that could threaten her own mentally handicapped child.

“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down’s syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide… whether they are worthy of healthcare,” she wrote on her Facebook page.

Palin’s astonishing comments were an incendiary contribution to a national debate that is threatening to spill over into civil disorder. Scores of “town hall” public meetings held by Democratic politicians in recent days have been disrupted by Republican supporters or protesters linked to groups funded by the healthcare industry. Some meetings have been canceled out of a fear of violence. In Missouri six people were arrested at one event. A group of supporters even hung an effigy of a Democratic congressman outside his office; another Democrat has received death threats.

The efforts have prompted Obama’s own campaigning body, Organizing for America, which grew out of his presidential campaign, to promise to turn up to public meetings to provide a voice in favour of reform. Several union groups have also vowed to follow suit. In a memo sent to union activists by John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO union group, he called on members to go to the meetings to oppose the Republicans.

The tactics of Republicans, conservative protest groups and healthcare lobbyist-linked organisations have been decried by many commentators. Though Republican leaders and other conservatives have claimed the protests are a genuine outburst of anti-healthcare reform feeling, there have been instances of activists being caught red-handed.

One woman who protested at a public meeting held by Wisconsin congressman Steve Kagen, a Democrat, had said she was “just a mom” but turned out to be a former senior Republican party official. “They’ve become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems,” said Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein.

But the tactics have been a political success. Obama’s hitherto matchless sense of political timing appears to have run into a wall when it comes to healthcare. He vowed to get new legislation passed by August. That failed, despite Congress being controlled by Democrats.

Obama also vowed to make a “public option” (a government-run public health insurance program) part of any reform package. But that also looks increasingly unlikely. It has raised the prospect that Obama may eventually be defeated on healthcare in the same way Bill Clinton was in the early 1990s.

“If they defeat him, it’s going to be bad. He is being outfoxed by a Republican party that should be outnumbered,” said Shaun Bowler, professor of political science at the University of California.

Obama is suffering from the political impact. His popularity ratings have been on a steady downwards track ever since he began his massive push on healthcare. A recent Quinnipiac University poll showed his approval rating had fallen to just 50%, shaving seven points from his figures in June. A CNN poll also showed a steady decline, pegging his approval at 56%, which was seven points off his standing in April.

It is a far cry from his first 100 days in office when he soaked up press plaudits for broad-ranging reform of government and foreign policy. His second 100 days have seen harsh political realities intrude as he has become tied to the economic crisis and the fierce Republican-led backlash over healthcare.

“It is the first time he has seemed to be weak,” said Bowler. “He has started to seem like any other president. The shine has come off.”

Ironically, Obama’s main problems lie with his own party and with his desire to reach consensus on the healthcare issue rather than to dictate a reform program. He has insisted on Republican involvement in the drafting of new legislation. He has also paid heed to the “Blue Dog” group of Democratic politicians who represent conservative-leaning electorates and who have pushed aggressively for him to water down his healthcare proposals by, among other things, taking out the public option.

At the same time, as anti-lobbying watchdog groups have pointed out, money has been flowing to the group’s members from the healthcare industry in the form of campaign contributions. Blue Dog Democrats have collected more money than any other congressional grouping this year, with more than half the cash coming from healthcare businesses or the insurance and financial services sector.

But perhaps the most surprising thing about the whole debate is that the appetite for health reform remains extremely popular with most Americans, even as Obama’s poll numbers sink and the fight with Republicans and the healthcare industry grows uglier and uglier. One recent poll showed that 62% of Americans favored a public option and 61% supported higher taxes on the wealthy in order to pay for it.

The path to reform

■ Democrats have vowed to keep holding town hall meetings despite the many and vocal public disruptions. They have decided to mobilize Obama’s own supporters and union activists to attend the meetings, which will go on through August.

■ Republicans and groups linked to lobbyists for the healthcare industry will keep up the pressure on the airwaves and by turning up to Democrat meetings.

■ Congress reconvenes on 8 September; healthcare legislation will be the top priority. Both Houses of Congress will try to draw up legislation, though it is almost certain to be watered down heavily watered down by Republicans and conservative Democrats.

■ Obama will finally have to make a brutal decision: accept a diluted version of his plans, or abandon compromise and force through what he wants.

An Open Letter To President Obama On Health Care Reform And What It Means To My Family

October 6, 2010
By

Mr. President:

I know that you are a very busy man so I will try to keep my questions about health care reform and the recently passed legislation as short and simple as possible.

- I could ask you why you think this is a good piece of legislation even though I truly believe that it will be a failure and will come very close to bankrupting the country. The basis for my conclusion has nothing to do with political partisanship (in fact, I have never voted for a Republican for national office in my life.) From my perspective, “Obama Care” never effectively addressed the root causes of our escalating health care costs: Americans eat too much of the wrong kinds of food, they exercise far too little, they are overweight, they smoke too much, and they are getting older. This legislation does not address these causes, it just raises taxes and moves money around within the bureaucracy. I could ask you about this but I will not.

- I could ask you why you have not stepped forward and denounced those in your party that have likened Americans like myself, i.e. those that have legitimate and honest concerns about this health care reform bill, to the racists who fought against the civil rights movement from the 1960s. I thought that we lived in a free country where citizens could freely address their elected representatives without being slurred in the most debasing way possible, just for having a different opinion. Your lack of fortitude to oppose those Democrats who frequently use the term “racist” to malign myself and those Americans expressing their honest opposition, cheapens the bravery and contributions of those from long ago that fought actual racism. I could ask you about this but I will not.

- I could ask you why you felt it necessary to pass this legislation by the back door called reconciliation. This is a major, major issue in the country that will affect every American for decades to come. Sneaking it in the back door, without using the traditional, time honored method of passing laws in his country, belittles the approach and makes it look like it was forced through without the full weight of the democratic process behind it. I could ask you about this but I will not.

Here is what I will ask you about. But first, some background facts:

- Let me reiterate that both my wife and myself have never voted for a Republican for national office in our lives.

- We both spent several decades of our lives working hard for AT&T, retiring several years ago, secure in our thinking that AT&T’s promise of health care benefits and coverage for our long years of service was a good bet.

- We both try to eat well, we exercise at our local YMCA on an almost daily basis, neither of us smoke, and we rarely drink. In other words, we take personal responsibility for our health and our health care.
One reason for our personal responsibility behavior is that we are on a high deductible insurance plan with AT&T. We are each responsible for the first $1,200 of our annual health care costs before we get any insurance coverage at all. However, for this personal responsibility, we also pay nothing in annual premiums.

- During the debate leading up to the passage of health care reform, you reiterated more than once that those of us that currently had health care coverage would be able to keep it. However, in a recent article in Fortune magazine, the CEO of AT&T, Randall Stephenson, was interviewed (several pages of the article are attached). Towards the end of the interview, he was explicitly asked whether AT&T would consider dropping health care insurance coverage for its employees and retirees. His response made it clear that this was a very viable option for two reasons. First, from a business profitability perspective, under the new health care reform law, “you’re better off paying the government a fine and dropping health care coverage for your employees”, improving AT&Ts bottom line. Second, he talks about “economic gravity” which appears to be code words for “if others in his industry do it, AT&T will have no choice but to do it also.”

Thus, a few quick questions for you:

1) Were you just naive when you made the comments that we could all keep our current health care insurance, not realizing the simple fact that companies are in business to make money and if this bill makes it easier for them to make more money by not insuring their workforce, that is what they will do? Or were you being disingenuous, knowing that this would happen and deliberately misinforming the country to help get your health care reform bill passed? Naive or disingenuous, in either case you will be making millions of American voters unhappy in November and in 2012 when we are forced out of our current health care coverage and will blame you for either ignorance or arrogance in this situation.

2) I am 57 years old and my wife is 56 years old and if Mr. Stephenson does decide to terminate AT&T’s health care coverage for employees and retirees, where do you suggest that my wife and I get coverage? What insurance company is going to want to pick us up, and millions of other older Americans who lost their coverage, at our ages even though we are both healthy and taking personal responsibility for our continued good health?

3) If we are forced out onto the market for health care insurance coverage, our new coverage is likely going to be much more expensive. Our annual health care costs will go from a maximum of $1,200 each to a minimum of several thousand dollars each. Is this how you planned to reduce health care costs for middle class America? Is so, then you need to explain the math to me. Maximum of $1,200 to a minimum of several thousand dollars, does not make sense out here in the real world. How does this reduce the escalating health care costs for the 90% of Americans that already had health care insurance prior to the passage of this bill?

Thus, I am not going to ask you about why you and the rest of Congress did not address the root causes of high health care costs in your legislating process. I am not going to ask why you have sat back and been silent while those Americans with legitimate and honest dissent against this bill have been likened to racists by members of your party. I thought you represented all Americans, not just those that agreed with your policies. I will not ask you about why you did not have the courage and guts to pass this legislation the right way, through the front door like every other piece of legislation, but instead snuck it through the back door of reconciliation.

However, I will ask you or your staff to contact me and explain where and how I can get health care coverage at my age if AT&T and the rest of corporate America decides it is a better economic choice to pay a government fine than to cover their employees and retirees with health insurance. I will ask you to explain whether you were naive or disingenuous when explaining that we would be able to keep our current health insurance coverage. And finally, please explain how paying no more than $1,200 a year under my current coverage (with many years paying nothing for coverage during healthy years) is a better deal then finding new coverage at my age and paying several thousand dollars a year for the privilege.

Although I have written to the White House many times, I have never received any answer to my questions on a wide variety of topics even though you promised to have the most open and responsive administration of all time. That has not happened yet. However, in this case I do require, in fact I demand specific answers to my three questions above. For your political sake I hope to receive those answers before early November and certainly before 2012.

Thank you for your time,

Walter “Bruno” Korschek

[Follow up note: a month after sending this to the White House, no answers to the questions have been received or even a simple confirmation that this letter was received has been forthcoming from the Obama adminstration.]

By: Bruno Korschek

Walter “Bruno” Korschek is the author of the book, “Love My Country, Loathe My Government – Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom and Destroying The American Political Class,” which is available at www.loathemygovernment.com and online at Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Our daily dialog on freedom in America can be joined at www.loathemygovernment.blogspot.com.

Health Courts-the Hottest Buzz Word In Health Care Reform

September 11, 2010
By

It is not clear who first suggested this not-so-new proposal. It has been kicking around for at least a decade. In any event the medical malpractice insurance lobby is currently pushing for it. Thus we need to examine the implications for attorneys and those of their clients who have a legitimate claim for medical and/or nursing malpractice. As with any pitch to modify the way of doing things in our society, we first need to identify who the proponents of such change are and evaluate the impact of their goals. In this case we are seeing activity coming from the medical malpractice insurance lobby who are setting up shop state legislatures across the country because the new health insurance reform act provides $50 million to each state to set up pilot programs for reducing medical mistakes. Obviously med mal insurers are more interested in reducing the financial impact that it has on them. Thus we can surmise that the health court idea the way these insurance companies propose it is geared for reducing the payout for medical and nursing negligence with no concern for justice or malpractice prevention.On the other hand, there is a non-profit organization called “Common Good” (CG) whose stated mission is as follows:

“Common Good is a non-profit, non-partisan legal reform coalition dedicated to restoring common sense to America. By conducting polls, hosting forums, and engaging with leaders in health care, education, law, business, and public policy from across the country, Common Good is developing practical solutions to restore reliability to our legal system and minimize the impact of legal fear in American life.”It is not clear what the founders’ real agenda is since they state that they are “non-partisan”.

However, when we take a closer look at why CG is advocating for the formation of health courts, we see a different approach. They have pointed out that the legal system is the failure touting statistics like less than 20% of all malpractice cases have merit and that some 86% of the real victims never actually file suit. They cite the 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study as the authoritative source for these outlandish claims. The answer to these problems, says CG is to establish health courts in every state. There would be a local review board in every jurisdiction to consisting of medical experts who would review and evaluate the circumstances leading to the injury. In clear and uncontestable cases, the provider would be ordered to pay damages according to a compensation schedule. In this scenario the review board would also have the power to dismiss any case that it deemed has no merit. It seems that this proposal would virtually take medical and nursing malpractice out of the legal system altogether except for one shot at an appeal before a federal judge. The problem with relying on such statistics is that most cases settle prior to trial and the details are usually secret as a condition of the settlement.

Therefore, we have no way of knowing what the real percentages are.In general, the idea of specialty courts to handle specific problems, whereby judges develop expertise in adjudicating a certain type of case, is not new. We currently have in most jurisdictions divisions dealing solely with juveniles, families, matrimonial issues, mental health determinations, probate and the like. Thus, it would be a good idea to establish separate divisions for health care issues, which would not require restructuring the entire legal system. Judges should be required to demonstrate expertise in understanding standards of care. There would also have to be patient safety standards written into the legislation addressing certain problems including but not limited to the following:

1. Prevention of falls;

2. Prevention of bedsores;

3. Reasonable response time to patient calls for assistance;

4. Minimum nurse staffing requirements;

5. Minimum number of hours per day of direct patient care;

6. Medication administration safety protocols;

7. Patient identification procedures prior to surgery;

8. Medical equipment being in working order at all times.

Moreover, we need more stringent rules in error reporting requirements and full disclosure to patients or their significant others when a mistake has caused injury or death.In conclusion, if the goal for the common good is really to provide more accurate ways of identifying victims, providing fair compensation and preventing future never events, then there must be a more efficient way of defining standards of care and identifying whenever there is a breach. There must also be a reasonable limit placed on the time for completion of discovery. Having cases adjudicated by a medical expert panel without regard to the rules of evidence would be grossly unfair to both sides. There must be an opportunity for the parties to examine the evidence before presentation before the court. The proponents of tort reform operating from the standpoint that lawyers and lawsuits are to blame for runaway health care costs would do well to remember that the plaintiff lawyers have to invest thousands of dollars just to determine whether a case has any merit and that a trial will cost about $200,000. That serves as enough deterrent to keep away from frivolous claims.

By: Moshe Sharon

Thomas A. Sharon, R.N., M.P.H.

Internationally Known Nursing & Patient Safety Expert.

Tom Sharon has been helping litigation lawyers turn medical law suits into settlements with incredible consistency and success over more than 25 years. His results are unparalleled in the industry:

* 1,250 cases reviewed; 1,215 cases settled*
* 35 court appearances; 32 successful verdicts

Is Health Care Reform Good or Bad

September 10, 2010
By

Health care facilities have become a necessity in these modern times. However, due to the ever rising population, health care has become very expensive. This has resulted in very few high earning people having sufficient health insurance. A large number of people in the European countries do not have health coverage which is necessary to keep the high medical costs under control. Is the health care reform good for doctors and insurance companies? Many experts say yes to the answer of this question while some other critics feel that health care reform is bad for doctors. So, let us discuss the health care reform pros and cons in the next paragraph.

Are The Healthcare Reforms Useful?

The discussion on is health care reform good or bad has put forth some advantages and disadvantages of the same. The best thing about the health care reforms is that each and every legal citizen of the United States of America will get a health insurance policy. This will help him cope with the fast increasing costs of health care. This move can be more beneficial for those people who are suffering from diseases and disorders whose treatment cost and medicinal expenses are too high. Health insurance plans will give you more relevant information.

The answer to the question – is health care reform good or bad? Is a big YES, considering the rules and regulations which have been imposed for providing health insurance in the United States. Earlier, it used to often happen that insurance companies would deny payment to sick individuals on some grounds making the health cover useless. Health insurance denial practices had also reduced faith over insurance among common people. However, due to the new provisions,even those who have lost their jobs will be able to take advantage of the health coverage facility. The health care bill is expected to benefit around ninety five percent of all legal US citizens. At the same time, health care reform good for insurance companies considering the fact that the provisions in the bill will make the insurance companies increase the quality of their products and services which will in turn help them get more and more customers. Parents who have health insurance can also provide its benefits to their children as per the provisions of the health care bill.

Is health care reform good or bad for the government? Many economists believe that the government will have to work hard on raising the huge money to provide health coverage facility to millions of residents. This can put a tremendous strain on its finances considering the fact that the dark clouds of economic recession have just disappeared. The government may consider increasing taxes on high net worth individuals to fund the health insurance scheme. Several other businesses may also be taxed. Also, those who do not want health coverage might have to pay a larger amount in taxes as compared to those who opt for it. However, thinking on the whole, this is certainly a commendable job done by the government as it takes care of people of all economic sections of the society. The opposition to the health care bill can be reduced by systematically explaining to the people the importance of the bill by holding seminars and open discussions.

Hopefully, this article on is health care reform good or bad must have answered almost all your questions. Health care reforms are the need of the hour and must be implemented in the financially backward nations to help people live a better life free from diseases and ailments. Collective efforts in this matter can alone help avoid controversies and help people live a longer and happier life.

Obama Launches Campaign Urging Congress to Pass Healthcare Reform

May 24, 2010
By

President Barack Obama has launched a vigorous campaign to force an overhaul of healthcare through Congress within weeks, and extend affordable medical insurance to all Americans, as the centerpiece of his domestic agenda is threatened by Republicans exploiting divisions in the president’s party and rising public anxiety over the cost of reform.

Obama has accused his opponents of playing the politics of “delay and defeat” as he urges Congress to pass legislation before it goes into recess next month out of concern that if the process drags on late into the year public and congressional support will further erode. The Republicans are now openly attempting to stall the reforms and have said that they see an opportunity to deliver Obama a damaging political defeat.

The president has gone on the offensive by lobbying members of Congress and by appealing directly to the voters in warning that the existing system “works for the insurance and drug companies” while ordinary people face escalating insurance premiums.

“The need for reform is urgent and it is indisputable,” Obama said. “We’ve talked this problem to death, year after year.”

Several bills working their way through Congress would expand health insurance through a new government scheme that would ensure 97% of the population is covered. An estimated 47 million Americans, one in six of the population, is without health coverage. The legislation would subsidize premiums for those on low incomes.

Under a bill before the House of Representatives, the new scheme would in part be paid for with a tax surcharge of between 1% and 5% on high earners. Employers will also be required to provide health benefits to workers or pay the government to do so.

But the process is running in to problems. Six senators, three of them Democrats, have written to Obama urging him to slow passage of the legislation and win the agreement of both parties. One of the senators, Joe Lieberman, described the reforms as “enormous and complicated” and said they shouldn’t be rushed.

Even in the House of Representatives there are signs that doubts are beginning to set in over warnings about cost.

Obama has said he will not sign any healthcare bill that raises the deficit and has argued that reform can be paid for in part by reducing the escalating cost of treatment through the power of the government to negotiate preferential prices with drug companies.

But the president was delivered a significant blow last week when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) director, Doug Elmendorf, warned that far from saving money, the proposed reforms would add $239bn to the national debt over ten years.

That has proven to be particularly sensitive in the present economic climate with opinion polls showing that public support for Obama on healthcare reform has slumped to less than 50% in part over concerns at the cost.

The president’s position was not helped when a meeting of governors also raised concerns about being landed with the cost of underwriting insurance for the poor.

Then yesterday a hospital Obama has praised as an example of affordable quality healthcare, the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, came out against his plan.

“The proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable healthcare for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite,” the hospital said.

The Republicans have pounced on the concerns. The Huffington Post published what it said is a private Republican party memo outlining strategies to defeat Obama’s proposals through delay. These include a publicity campaign that claims the reforms will deepen the national debt, that the president is endangering healthcare and the economy by experimenting with change, and that the government will take over control of patient care and medicines.

Some Republicans sense Obama is on the back foot. Senator Jim DeMint was recorded in a conference call discussion saying that Republicans should block healthcare reform to undermine the president.

“If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him,” he said.

The president responded directly to DeMint by accusing some Republicans of playing with an issue as important as healthcare in order to try and regain control of Congress at the next election.

“Think about that. This isn’t about me. This isn’t about politics. This is about a healthcare system that is breaking America’s families, breaking America’s businesses and breaking America’s economy. And we can’t afford the politics of delay and defeat when it comes to healthcare, not this time, not now,” he said.

Obama has also come under criticism for not going to Congress with a detailed plan and instead relying on members to shape the legislation, apparently out of a wish to avoid President Bill Clinton’s mistake in trying to impose healthcare reform and watching it fail.

Obama warned that his opponents are attempting to repeat the strategy.

“They explicitly went after the Clintons, said we’re not going to get this done. So it was a pure political play, a show of strength by the Republicans that helped them regain the House. I think there are folks who think that we should try to dust off that old playbook,” he said.

Public Backlash Stalls Obama’s Attempt to Reform System

May 22, 2010
By

The White House is being forced to rethink its health reform strategy in the face of one of the biggest public backlashes in the US in the last two decades. Barack Obama, who appears to have been caught off guard by the ferocity of public opposition, went back on the road today to address his critics at a town hall meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

The president expressed his determination to pass a health bill this year and turned on insurance companies funding critical television advertisements.

“We have a healthcare system that too often works better for the insurance industry than the American people,” he said. He denounced the companies for trying to scare people and said that there had been “wild misrepresentations” of his plan. Tempers have flared across the country as irate voters have disrupted public meetings held by Democratic members of Congress.

Health reform, which would extend coverage to about 50 million uninsured people, is regarded by Obama as the single most important piece of legislation of his first term in office.

The White House, against a backdrop of falling poll figures, is trying to reshape its campaign to come up with a sharper message and has launched a website devoted to trying to explain Obama’s proposals.

Although he is to go on holiday this month in New England, Obama is to spend much of the rest of this month and next trying to regain lost ground. He had set October as the target for having a health reform bill passed by the House and Senate and sitting on his desk for his signature.

Steve Clemons, a director at the Washington thinktank the New America Foundation, said today: “I think the White House underestimated the extent of the organisation of the opposition. They felt the opposition would be in Washington and did not anticipate the public would take on Obama as ferociously as they have.”

Clemons said the White House had also underestimated how sophisticated the opposition had become, especially in mobilizing people, compared with the opposition to the Clinton health plan in the early 1990s. He added: “I do not know if Obama can win. It is up in the air.”

As part of the Obama counter-offensive, new television advertisements countering critics of the proposed changes are due to be aired shortly. Healthcare is swamping news coverage.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs today played down the level of opposition. “Just because somebody can yell at a healthcare town hall meeting I think is indicative only of one’s personal lung capacity,” he said.

Democratic members of Congress have been asked by their leadership to go out to sell reform over the August recess but many are canceling plans to hold public meetings after seeing television footage of colleagues being shouted down. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, described the disruptions as “unAmerican”.

Democratic senator Arlen Specter, who in April defected from the Republicans, held a public meeting in Pennsylvania today which turned into a shouting match, with most of those called to speak denouncing Obama’s plan.

Obama May Drop Nhs-style Provision From Healthcare Reform Plan

May 21, 2010
By

The Obama administration yesterday held out the prospect of abandoning a contentious government-run alternative to private healthcare provision as it struggles with increasingly vitriolic opposition to reform of America’s medical system.

Barack Obama has been taken by surprise by the ferocity of the Republicans’ response. Yesterday he attacked “scare tactics” for using “wild misrepresentations” to discredit his plans.

The White House’s plan to broaden access and cut the cost of healthcare includes a public option, running parallel private provision, in an effort to provide choice for patients. This has been the target of ire from conservatives who object in principle to government involvement.

Obama’s health secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, indicated yesterday that the plans could be subject to revision. She described government involvement as “not the essential element” and raised the possibility of replacing it with provision by non-profit co-operatives.

“I think there will be a competitor to private insurers,” she said. “That’s really the essential part, is you don’t turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing. We need some choices, we need some competition.”

White House allies have been barracked by angry crowds at town hall-style meetings with constituents across the US. To the alarm of Democrats, the language used in the debate has become increasingly inflammatory with talk by conservatives of government-backed “death panels” determining the fate of human life.

The NHS has become a target in the debate, with the arguments spilling over into British politics. At the weekend, Gordon Brown stepped up his attack on David Cameron over the NHS, branding the Conservatives “two faced”. Brown insisted that criticism of the health service by two Tory MEPs had revealed the “truth” about the party’s attitude. Lord Mandelson also attacked the Tory leader for saying one thing in public, and another in private.

In a New York Times opinion piece, Obama wrote there was “broad agreement” in Congress for 80% of what he wanted to do and that 14,000 Americans were losing healthcare coverage every day as premiums skyrocketed and the recession bit into peoples’ ability to pay.

He wrote: “The cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain. But for all the scare tactics out there, what’s truly scary – truly risky – is the prospect of doing nothing.”

Government provision is a significant element of the White House’s plan, although it is far from the only reform on the table. Democrats want to stop private insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions and prevent them from capping the amount of coverage provided to individuals. There are moves afoot to cut the cost of medicines, particularly for elderly patients.

But the public option has been at the core of Republican opposition to what they see as “socialized” coverage.

“The fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the US Senate for the public option, and there never have been,” Kent Conrad, a senior Republican senator, told Fox News. “So to continue to chase that rabbit is, I think, a wasted effort.”

Another issue of deep contention is a clause offering patients and their families the option of receiving end-of-life counseling in cases of terminal illness. Such sessions were termed “death panels” by the former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin.

In an unusually personal response, Obama told a crowd in Colorado on Saturday that he knew the trauma of terminal illness only too well, citing the recent death of his grandmother. He said it was “simply dishonest” to suggest that Democrats are pushing for change “so that they can go round pulling the plug on grandma”.

Texas Emergency Care Physicians Affected By Healthcare Reform

May 19, 2010
By

Urgent Care Review

The older the American demographic grows, the need for Emergency and Urgent care also grows. The present physician deficiency in the U.S. is expected to get worse over time. Other issues are amplifying this shortage as well, including the shrinking economy and the recent signed into law health care reform. As is the case elsewhere in the country, Emergency Medicine in Texas is going through many of the same hardships as other specialties. For many of the 2500+ Texas emergency doctors the future is uncertain. Of those twenty five hundred plus physicians, 2316 are M.D.’s and 323 are D.O.’s. While there may be some differences in training, both M.D.’s and D.O.’s are equally accredited and eligible to become an Emergency Medicine physician. An Emergency Medicine physician typically has at least 10-12 years of education including a bachelors degree (undergraduate) in a health related or science related field, a medical doctorate (graduate, M.D. or D.O.), and an accredited Emergency Medicine residency (post-graduate).

Primary Care Shortage leads to Emergency Physician shortage

According to a media release by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, Urgent care physicians will have ample of work to be had from Medicare, but they may not choose it. Medicare offers lower fees than private insurance so Primary Care physicians are less likely to take on new Medicaid patients. As a result, up to a third of all Medicare patients may not be able to find a Primary Care physician at all and may be turning to Emergency medicine care as a last alternative.

Some geographic areas are hit harder than others by these these figures, such as Arizona. In some areas of the sandy state, Primary Care physician-to-citizen ratio is less than 6 doctors per 10k people, according to a study by St. Lukes. The result of many more individuals not having access to general care will be an amplified use of Emergency Room and Urgent Care E.R.’s. Naturally, Emergency and Urgent Care physicians are going to have their caseloads full if this trend goes without a solution for much longer.

Weakened Economy results in Crowded Clinics

As the failing economy runs its path; many patients are without available and affordable health benefits. Insurance policies are being terminated at an astonishing rate, and citizens receiving COBRA policies are also running out of options. With the axe coming down on inexpensive healthcare, many individuals have determined they must do without appropriate preventative doctor visits. As you might ascertain, when the level of the issue can no longer be ignored with rest and over the counter remedies, and starts to intensely interfere with daily routines, the ER may be the last place to turn to. Through the stock market crash, the housing bust, and record breaking unemployment records, emergency rooms and Urgent Care clinics are filling up faster than ever.

Baby Boomers in the ER

Another factor in the uprising of Urgent Care incidents in the United States is in response to another socioeconomic group that cannot be ignored. The baby boomers will account for an enormous increase of the 65 and older demographic. This group statistically requires considerably more assets, personnel, specialists, and physician care. They need hospital and Emergency services more and more often than any other age group.

Can Health Care Reform Solve ER problems?

Whether the health reform will crush us or not is neither here nor there. Although it has voted on and been signed into law, the key changes are not set to go into full effect until 2014. The repercussions of this reform may not be fully understood for a while after that. Emergency & Urgent Care facilities overcrowding is a serious problem, given the raising number of elderly patients, uninsured patients, and underinsured patients. If the health insurance reform doesn’t resolve the problems it promises, then the tribulations cannot be anticipated to get better. Emergency room overcrowding is no unforseen problem. What the health reform should address is the loss of ER facilities. Between 1993 and 2003, the continental United States lost over 400 Emergency Medicine facilities. What can uninsured patients do? Besides hoping that an ambulance can get them or their loved ones to the nearest ER institution in time, they can’t do much other than just that, hope.. In that same time frame, ER visits dramatically increased by over 25%. Physicians in these situations will without a doubt have their caseload cut out for them.

Even with the health reform conclusively passed into effect its outcome on our health insurance programs is not known. By 2014 their will be an expansion in the induction into healthcare programs. This exansion when, combined with the long term aging of the population, should push demand for services and therefore cost higher. However, no one yet knows what will happen to remuneration rates from Medicare and this new program. The doubt is will there be rate a cut of reimbursement rates for different specialties by Medicare and this new program that may conversely become a factor decreasing the earnings of all specialties including Emergency Medicine & Urgent Care, and related specialties / subspecialties.

By: Cory Ellerd

Pathology Jobs and
California Emergency Jobs and New York Emergency Jobs

Health Care Reform: Ten Facts

May 16, 2010
By

Now that health care reform is law I think it’s important that we move past the political rhetoric and look at the real facts of what this reform means to the lives of average Americans.

#1 Extends Coverage To 32 Million More Americans

Because of this bill 32 million of our fellow Americans will have health insurance coverage. While our country still will be short of true universal coverage, we will be a lot closer to that goal(we should be up to 95% coverage because of it.)

#2 Reduces The Deficit By $1.3 Trillion

Over the next 10 years the deficit will be reduced by $130 billion because of this bill. That’s very impressive and it should be something that anyone who is concerned about the deficit is excited about. The news is even better over the longer term as it will cut the deficit by $1.3 trillion over the next 20 years.

#3 Expands Medicare Coverage

Contrary to the lies spread over the last year this bill will actually expand Medicare coverage. It will close the “Donut Hole” and it will let those on Medicare visit the doctor without having to pay any co-pay at all.

#4 Extends Coverage To Young Adults

Young adults often fall through the cracks with the old system. This health care bill goes a long way towards fixing that problem by extending family health insurance coverage to young adults up through age 26.

#5 Denying Coverage Based On “Pre-Existing Conditions” Is Illegal

Prior to this bill it was perfectly legal for a health insurance company to deny coverage because of a “pre-existing condition.” This meant, for example, that a newborn baby could be denied coverage because the baby was born with a heart condition. Because of this bill that will no longer be legal.

#6 The Biggest Tax Cut For Small Businesses In History

New tax credits to help small businesses pay for the health insurance of their employees (they will cover up to 50% of the cost) will save small business a huge amount of money on their taxes making this the biggest tax cut for small businesses in US history.

#7 Bans Health Insurance Companies From Dropping People Who Get Sick

What’s the point of having health insurance if they can cut your coverage when you need it most? Thankfully because of this bill we no longer need to ask that question.

#8 Bans Lifetime Limits

Many people have gone bankrupt due to medical expenses because of health insurance companies having a “lifetime limit” on how much they would pay out. Again, what’s the point of health insurance if it may not be there for you when you need it most? This bill bans these lifetime limits.

#9 Free Preventative Care

There will be no co-pays on preventative care with new private health insurance plans because of this bill. This should encourage people to visit the doctor more often which should help to prevent illnesses before they occur.

#10 New Limits On Health Insurance Company Profits

Because of this bill health insurance companies will be required to spend at least 85% of the premiums they collect on actual health coverage (rather than on profits, lobbying, and advertising.)

Health Care Reform: Ten Facts

May 13, 2010
By

Now that health care reform is law I think it’s important that we move past the political rhetoric and look at the real facts of what this reform means to the lives of average Americans.

#1 Extends Coverage To 32 Million More Americans

Because of this bill 32 million of our fellow Americans will have health insurance coverage. While our country still will be short of true universal coverage, we will be a lot closer to that goal(we should be up to 95% coverage because of it.)

#2 Reduces The Deficit By $1.3 Trillion

Over the next 10 years the deficit will be reduced by $130 billion because of this bill. That’s very impressive and it should be something that anyone who is concerned about the deficit is excited about. The news is even better over the longer term as it will cut the deficit by $1.3 trillion over the next 20 years.

#3 Expands Medicare Coverage

Contrary to the lies spread over the last year this bill will actually expand Medicare coverage. It will close the “Donut Hole” and it will let those on Medicare visit the doctor without having to pay any co-pay at all.

#4 Extends Coverage To Young Adults

Young adults often fall through the cracks with the old system. This health care bill goes a long way towards fixing that problem by extending family health insurance coverage to young adults up through age 26.

#5 Denying Coverage Based On “Pre-Existing Conditions” Is Illegal

Prior to this bill it was perfectly legal for a health insurance company to deny coverage because of a “pre-existing condition.” This meant, for example, that a newborn baby could be denied coverage because the baby was born with a heart condition. Because of this bill that will no longer be legal.

#6 The Biggest Tax Cut For Small Businesses In History

New tax credits to help small businesses pay for the health insurance of their employees (they will cover up to 50% of the cost) will save small business a huge amount of money on their taxes making this the biggest tax cut for small businesses in US history.

#7 Bans Health Insurance Companies From Dropping People Who Get Sick

What’s the point of having health insurance if they can cut your coverage when you need it most? Thankfully because of this bill we no longer need to ask that question.

#8 Bans Lifetime Limits

Many people have gone bankrupt due to medical expenses because of health insurance companies having a “lifetime limit” on how much they would pay out. Again, what’s the point of health insurance if it may not be there for you when you need it most? This bill bans these lifetime limits.

#9 Free Preventative Care

There will be no co-pays on preventative care with new private health insurance plans because of this bill. This should encourage people to visit the doctor more often which should help to prevent illnesses before they occur.

#10 New Limits On Health Insurance Company Profits

Because of this bill health insurance companies will be required to spend at least 85% of the premiums they collect on actual health coverage (rather than on profits, lobbying, and advertising.)

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Local Events, Concerts, Tickets
Events by Eventful