Healthcare and Soylent Green

[WhiskeyGirl]

The future of healthcare?  Didn't Michelle Obama work here?  Isn't this the old stomping grounds of some in the Obama Administration?

Chicago — The University of Chicago Medical Center, citing financial shortfalls, is closing its Women’s Health Center on 47th Street, which annually serves thousands of women on the South Side. Protests over the last two months forced UCMC to delay the official closing, but at present, rather than posting a new closing-date, the medical center is quietly dismantling the clinic piecemeal. The gynecology unit, for example, has been ‘transferred’ to the main medical center. By doing this, the administration hopes to ‘phase out’ the women’s clinic with as little public notice as possible.

UCMC has simultaneously opened a new clinic in the North Side Gold Coast neighborhood, the wealthiest community in Chicago. Whereas the medical center once claimed a commitment to serving its surrounding community, it is now brazenly withdrawing medical services from its impoverished neighbors in order to make them available to those with incomes and insurance-policies sufficient to cover the exorbitant cost of health-care.

Finally, Richard del Rio, representative for Graduate Students United, an unaffiliated union currently organizing students and adjunct faculty at University of Chicago, asked those present “to join us in condemning the landlords and the health barons,” those hospital administrators who, as good agents of capital, discard the physicians’ oath to ‘first, do no harm’ and instead shutter medical clinics for the indigent.

http://www.pww.org/article/view/16653

Isn't this the same hospital system engaging in a large building project? 

[crazybabyborg]

YOUR GRANDPA'S THE MOB!

[crazybabyborg]

Yeah, the dissenters at the townhall meetings are just loud, nazi, right winged extemists................


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/NJxmpTMGhU0&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/NJxmpTMGhU0&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;</a>

[WhiskeyGirl]

YOUR GRANDPA'S THE MOB!

Was this taken in speak easy or strip joint?  Where's Tony?

[SteveDinMD]

The following is from columnist Mark Steyn.  In the UK, dogs get better, more responsive health care than people.  It's just another day at the beach in the land of socialized medicine.   

Here's one of those anecdotal horror stories from Scotland's National Health Service that we are enjoined by American "reformers" to pay no heed to. From The Daily Record:

A mum suffering chest pains died in front of her young son hours after being sent home from hospital and told to take painkillers.

Debra Beavers, 39, phoned NHS 24 twice in two days before getting a hospital appointment. But a doctor gave what her family described as a cursory examination lasting 11 minutes, before advising her to buy over-the-counter medicine Ibuprofen...

Seven hours later, the mum-of-two collapsed and died from a heart attack in front of her 13-year-old boy.

It's one of those stories that has all the conventions of the genre: The perfunctory medical examination; the angry relatives; the government innovation intended to pass off an obstructive bureaucracy as a streamlined high-tech fast-track ("NHS 24" is some sort of 1-800 helpline). Indeed, in the end, it's all about the bureaucracy: The 1-800 guys don't think you're worth letting past the health-care rope line. So you call again, and ask again, and they say okay, we'll find you someone, but he can only spare 11 minutes of his busy time. And, while you're being carried out by the handles, the bureaucracy insists that all went swimmingly:

NHS 24 executive nurse director Eunice Muir said: "We can confirm Ms Beavers contacted NHS 24 and that her onward referral was managed safely and appropriately."

Phew! Thank goodness for that. In The Wall Street Journal, our old friend Theodore Dalrymple writes:

In the last few years, I have had the opportunity to compare the human and veterinary health services of Great Britain, and on the whole it is better to be a dog.

As a British dog, you get to choose (through an intermediary, I admit) your veterinarian. If you don’t like him, you can pick up your leash and go elsewhere, that very day if necessary. Any vet will see you straight away, there is no delay in such investigations as you may need, and treatment is immediate. There are no waiting lists for dogs, no operations postponed because something more important has come up, no appalling stories of dogs being made to wait for years because other dogs—or hamsters—come first.

The conditions in which you receive your treatment are much more pleasant than British humans have to endure. For one thing, there is no bureaucracy to be negotiated with the skill of a white-water canoeist; above all, the atmosphere is different. There is no tension, no feeling that one more patient will bring the whole system to the point of collapse, and all the staff go off with nervous breakdowns. In the waiting rooms, a perfect calm reigns; the patients’ relatives are not on the verge of hysteria, and do not suspect that the system is cheating their loved one, for economic reasons, of the treatment which he needs.

That's because, in their respective health systems, Fido is a valued client, and poor Debra Beavers wasn't.

[WhiskeyGirl]

The following is from columnist Mark Steyn.  In the UK, dogs get better, more responsive health care than people.  It's just another day at the beach in the land of socialized medicine.   

Here's one of those anecdotal horror stories from Scotland's National Health Service that we are enjoined by American "reformers" to pay no heed to. From The Daily Record:

A mum suffering chest pains died in front of her young son hours after being sent home from hospital and told to take painkillers.

Debra Beavers, 39, phoned NHS 24 twice in two days before getting a hospital appointment. But a doctor gave what her family described as a cursory examination lasting 11 minutes, before advising her to buy over-the-counter medicine Ibuprofen...

Seven hours later, the mum-of-two collapsed and died from a heart attack in front of her 13-year-old boy.

It's one of those stories that has all the conventions of the genre: The perfunctory medical examination; the angry relatives; the government innovation intended to pass off an obstructive bureaucracy as a streamlined high-tech fast-track ("NHS 24" is some sort of 1-800 helpline). Indeed, in the end, it's all about the bureaucracy: The 1-800 guys don't think you're worth letting past the health-care rope line. So you call again, and ask again, and they say okay, we'll find you someone, but he can only spare 11 minutes of his busy time. And, while you're being carried out by the handles, the bureaucracy insists that all went swimmingly:

NHS 24 executive nurse director Eunice Muir said: "We can confirm Ms Beavers contacted NHS 24 and that her onward referral was managed safely and appropriately."

Phew! Thank goodness for that. In The Wall Street Journal, our old friend Theodore Dalrymple writes:

In the last few years, I have had the opportunity to compare the human and veterinary health services of Great Britain, and on the whole it is better to be a dog.

As a British dog, you get to choose (through an intermediary, I admit) your veterinarian. If you don’t like him, you can pick up your leash and go elsewhere, that very day if necessary. Any vet will see you straight away, there is no delay in such investigations as you may need, and treatment is immediate. There are no waiting lists for dogs, no operations postponed because something more important has come up, no appalling stories of dogs being made to wait for years because other dogs—or hamsters—come first.

The conditions in which you receive your treatment are much more pleasant than British humans have to endure. For one thing, there is no bureaucracy to be negotiated with the skill of a white-water canoeist; above all, the atmosphere is different. There is no tension, no feeling that one more patient will bring the whole system to the point of collapse, and all the staff go off with nervous breakdowns. In the waiting rooms, a perfect calm reigns; the patients’ relatives are not on the verge of hysteria, and do not suspect that the system is cheating their loved one, for economic reasons, of the treatment which he needs.

That's because, in their respective health systems, Fido is a valued client, and poor Debra Beavers wasn't.

In the U.S., based on the phone systems already in use by Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security I expect that folks will have to listen and repond by pressing numbers on their phone for maybe 15-30 minutes before obtaining any useful help.  If they are lucky, the system won't hang up on them, and they won't be disconnect (and have to start over).  First, these folks need to have excellent hearing (Medicare doesn't pay for hearing aids), they have to have the use of their hands to dial the phone and push buttons, and they have to be able to listen once, often their are no repeats. 

If they ever get a human to help, they may be told over and over to wait 30 days after making a complaint.  After 30 days, they may have to wait another 30 days.  It's a waiting game, and the odds are stacked against them.

Hopefully, 1-800-CHEST-PAIN will be an improvement...

[crazybabyborg]

LIBERAL LIES ABOUT NATIONAL HEALTH CARE: FIRST IN A SERIES
by Ann Coulter
August 19, 2009

(1) National health care will punish the insurance companies.

You want to punish insurance companies? Make them compete.

As Adam Smith observed, whenever two businessmen meet, "the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." That's why we need a third, fourth and 45th competing insurance company that will undercut them by offering better service at a lower price.

Tiny little France and Germany have more competition among health insurers than the U.S. does right now. Amazingly, both of these socialist countries have less state regulation of health insurance than we do, and you can buy health insurance across regional lines -- unlike in the U.S., where a federal law allows states to ban interstate commerce in health insurance.

U.S. health insurance companies are often imperious, unresponsive consumer hellholes because they're a partial monopoly, protected from competition by government regulation. In some states, one big insurer will control 80 percent of the market. (Guess which party these big insurance companies favor? Big companies love big government.)

Liberals think they can improve the problem of a partial monopoly by turning it into a total monopoly. That's what single-payer health care is: "Single payer" means "single provider."

It's the famous liberal two-step: First screw something up, then claim that it's screwed up because there's not enough government oversight (it's the free market run wild!), and then step in and really screw it up in the name of "reform."

You could fix 90 percent of the problems with health insurance by ending the federal law allowing states to ban health insurance sales across state lines. But when John McCain called for ending the ban during the 2008 presidential campaign, he was attacked by Joe Biden -- another illustration of the ironclad Ann Coulter rule that the worst Republicans are still better than allegedly "conservative" Democrats.

(2) National health care will "increase competition and keep insurance companies honest" -- as President Barack Obama has said.
Government-provided health care isn't a competitor; it's a monopoly product paid for by the taxpayer. Consumers may be able to "choose" whether they take the service -- at least at first -- but every single one of us will be forced to buy it, under penalty of prison for tax evasion. It's like a new cable plan with a "yes" box, but no "no" box.
Obama himself compared national health care to the post office -- immediately conjuring images of a highly efficient and consumer-friendly work force -- which, like so many consumer-friendly shops, is closed by 2 p.m. on Saturdays, all Sundays and every conceivable holiday.

But what most people don't know -- including the president, apparently -- with certain narrow exceptions, competing with the post office is prohibited by law.

Expect the same with national health care. Liberals won't stop until they have total control. How else will they get you to pay for their sex-change operations?

(3) Insurance companies are denying legitimate claims because they are "villains."

Obama denounced the insurance companies in last Sunday's New York Times, saying: "A man lost his health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because the insurance company discovered that he had gallstones, which he hadn't known about when he applied for his policy. Because his treatment was delayed, he died."

Well, yeah. That and the cancer.

Assuming this is true -- which would distinguish it from every other story told by Democrats pushing national health care -- in a free market, such an insurance company couldn't stay in business. Other insurance companies would scream from the rooftops about their competitor's shoddy business practices, and customers would leave in droves.

If only customers had a choice! But we don't because of government regulation of health insurance.

Speaking of which, maybe if Mr. Gallstone's insurance company weren't required by law to cover early childhood development programs and sex-change operations, it wouldn't be forced to cut corners in the few areas not regulated by the government, such as cancer treatments for patients with gallstones.

(4) National health care will give Americans "basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable" -- as Barack Obama claimed in his op/ed in the Times.

You want to protect consumers? Do it the same way we protect consumers of dry cleaning, hamburgers and electricians: Give them the power to tell their insurance companies, "I'm taking my business elsewhere."

(5) Government intervention is the only way to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The only reason most "pre-existing" conditions aren't already covered is because of government regulations that shrink the insurance market to a microscopic size, which leads to fewer options in health insurance and a lot more uninsured people than would exist in a free market.

The free market has produced a dizzying array of insurance products in areas other than health. (Ironically, array-associated dizziness is not covered by most health plans.) Even insurance companies have "reinsurance" policies to cover catastrophic events occurring on the properties they insure, such as nuclear accidents, earthquakes and Michael Moore dropping in for a visit and breaking the couch.

If we had a free market in health insurance, it would be inexpensive and easy to buy insurance for "pre-existing" conditions before they exist, for example, insurance on unborn -- unconceived -- children and health insurance even when you don't have a job. The vast majority of "pre-existing" conditions that currently exist in a cramped, limited, heavily regulated insurance market would be "covered" conditions under a free market in health insurance.

I've hit my word limit on liberal lies about national health care without breaking a sweat. See this space next week for more lies in our continuing series.

http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=326

[Edward]

I have been reading some articles..
It really appears that the push for national health care really comes down to the new world order..
The world trade organization.. To control food
The world Health organization.. To control What happens with our body.
 
To control ... Not for yours and mine best interests..
It is about population control and mind control.. Through food and medical treatments.

[WhiskeyGirl]

Why doesn't healthcare reform include all providers?  Why doesn't everyone have access to FAIR prices for medical goods and services? 

There are laws to prevent windfall profits for oil companies...

Healthcare Providers Charge Uninsured Individuals 1000% Up More
Published on Aug 24, 2009

BestHealthcareRates.com states uninsured individuals, or those using out of network providers, are being billed up to 1000% more by medical providers than they would bill Medicare for the exact same procedure.

“This sort of abuse happens when people are without medical insurance or choose to use out-of-network healthcare providers. Even though our government has focused much of its attention on how much medical insurance companies pay, the real question is what are providers charging those who have no one to negotiate for them?” says Tom Carolan, director of Client Services at BestHealthcareRates.com.

http://www.rfpconnect.com/news/2009/8/24/healthcare-providers-charge-uninsured-individuals-1000-up-more

Insurance, either public, private, or group, get's you a hugh discount.

Why isn't the government reforming provider charges for out-of-network and uninsured folks?

Why doesn't everyone have access to FAIR pricing?

[WhiskeyGirl]

Insurance Industry May Benefit From Reform, Employees Attend Town Halls To Counter Criticism

"Lashed by liberals and threatened with more government regulation, the insurance industry nevertheless rallied its lobbying and grass-roots resources so successfully in the early stages of the healthcare overhaul deliberations that it is poised to reap a financial windfall," The Los Angeles Times reports. "The half-dozen leading overhaul proposals circulating in Congress would require all citizens to have health insurance, which would guarantee insurers tens of millions of new customers -- many of whom would get government subsidies to help pay the companies' premiums."

Linda Blumberg, a health policy analyst at the Urban Institute, says insurers "are going to have this very stable pool, they're going to have people getting subsidies to help them buy coverage...." Insurers have mobilized in opposition to the public option, lobbying on Capitol Hill, encouraging employees to speak out and launching local ad campaigns. "Recent support for the public option has declined, and the stock prices of health insurance firms have been rising."

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2009/August/24/Grass-Roots-Insurers.aspx

Hmmm...let me think about this...

I seem to RECALL that insurance companies, along with many other companies have outsourced many of their functions to businesses in foreign countries and foreign workers...

Hmmm...where might that be?  Who has the health insurance jobs that many Americans had years ago?  Customer service?  Claims?  Underwriting?  IT?

Workers in India?  Phillipines?  Jamaica?

How many insurance jobs have been offshored in the industry?  How many American workers are left?  Maybe these employees sent to Town Hall meetings are being flown in from foreign countries?

No jobs for you American worker.

[Deenie]

I have been reading some articles..
It really appears that the push for national health care really comes down to the new world order..
The world trade organization.. To control food
The world Health organization.. To control What happens with our body.
 
To control ... Not for yours and mine best interests..
It is about population control and mind control.. Through food and medical treatments.

Edward you need to watch (( Everyone Does)) the documentary called " Food Inc".
Monsanto is the core and keeper that needs to be destroyed .. since it is that they Destroy us one by one ....

[Edward]

That Avatar is HOT !! I like it..


I will look to see if I can find that video Food Inc.


It does appear they are out to do us in..One way or the other.. What goes into our mouths is a good place to start..

[Deenie]

I have a comment to offer out that does deal with " after" Health Care .. or After Life is over.

I lost my Dad in June 09. He was 77 yrs old. He died of a heart attack. He had no life insurance. He had medicare and paid a monthly premium to Blue Cross for extra coverage/meds. He never disclosed to me that he had health issues. He never told me anything.  He did though have a heart condition and he was being monitored by more than one Doc.

My Father had no will. He had no one dedicated to his personal finances nor anything for that matter. He never told me anything period about such things. That I believe is due to the era he was born in and how he was raised.  He should have been proactive though and shared with me his health issues. But its too late now ..so no meaning.

Where I am going with my post is Death. The Cost of Death.  Death is not cheap. Without insurance is it what it is. And its very expensive to DIE in the USA.
I was given quotes by the Funeral home. I asked so many questions because I have never ever planned a funeral in my life. IF I were to go with a full Funeral - that would be a day or a day and 1/2 visitation with service with a common casket. It would cost 7k. This is not including Burial. That would yet be another 900+ without head stone.  
This included Hearse and transportation to the Cemetery. My Father had a plot that was purchased by his parents in the 60's - a family plot. So that was there.
I opted for 1/2 day visitation with Service and to have my Father cremated. It was 5k.
I was given a bill that was to be paid within 30 days of Service - and or would have a 11 % interest rate attached after 30 days for the amount owed. How much did it cost to be cremated ? $200.00.
I was told by the funeral director you need to bring in clothing for your Father to wear for his showing. I spent more on his clothing to be shown for 4 hours than it cost for him to be cremated. I had to bring the funeral home " a full outfit" including boxers and socks.
I could have dug through my Fathers old clothing - but that is not right, not presentable for his last time seen by his family. Now for me to have him put into the plot that his family has owned since the 60's - it would cost me yet another 1k to bury him or more with a head stone. Where is My Dad now? Since I was fully responsible for his Funeral Costs.
He is in a box on my mantel in my living room.

Now what IF he would have been one that was terminally ill? With Bills beyond comprehension. Where is the line ? Where is the choice? No matter who you are, how old you are, If you know your Terminally ill and You have insurance - the Burden of what is left over Lets say to your spouse. Terminal Bills ..would that not be enough to want to die sooner than later. Its travesty.  Its all measured by personal experience - shared.

An article that I found within my local News - It is not only within my area, I know it is everywhere town USA.

BLOCKED WEBSITE



 

[Edward]

Ronald Regan 1961

Reagan said: "One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.”


Creating a national health care system has been a major priority for the left wing for over 50 years!


Reagan understood that schemes like Obama's are not about providing quality health care.

It is about statism. It is about government control and dependence. It is a threat to your freedom.

Regan said all of this before he was ever elected as Governor of California or president of the united states of America.


Statism..
The political expression of altruism is collectivism or statism, which holds that man's life and work belong to the state—to society, to the group.

[Edward]

Here is the story.. Today in the news they let the cat out of the bag.
They want to create a law that says if you do not purchase there health care system you will be fined and penalized.

This is an insurance companies dream come true..

Government fines and penalties are the worm hole for Americans who find themselves in financial in trouble. law created wormholes will be controlled by more bureaucracy which will be set up to control US. These people will have no heart or common sense as that is the same with all government controlled systems.
 

[Edward]

Families who fail to get health insurance could be fined up to $3,800 under a health care reform plan proposed by a top Senate negotiator.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee is leading talks among the "Gang of Six" senators to hammer out a bipartisan compromise, offered what he described on Tuesday as a "framework" and not a "final product."

[WhiskeyGirl]

Here is the story.. Today in the news they let the cat out of the bag.
They want to create a law that says if you do not purchase there health care system you will be fined and penalized.

This is an insurance companies dream come true..

Government fines and penalties are the worm hole for Americans who find themselves in financial in trouble. law created wormholes will be controlled by more bureaucracy which will be set up to control US. These people will have no heart or common sense as that is the same with all government controlled systems.

I don't think insurance companies in the individual and small group market will stay in the business with all the new regulations and government control - too much politics.

How do you price a policy for someone who already requires $10,000 a month in care?  Who's going to sign on to that policy to spread the expense (not risk, it's not 'if' but how much with many pre-existing conditions)?

How much will illegal immigrants pay for the free care they get?  Anyone closing the door?

[WhiskeyGirl]

"Baby denied medical treatment and handed back to his mother to die"

Baby Jayden was denied medical treatment and handed back to his mother to die – just because he was born two days before a 22-week limit when he could have been given a chance to live.

British medical guidelines say babies born before 22 weeks should not be given intensive care. If he’d arrived just 48 hours later they might have tried to save him.

“If they had tried and he’d lived just a day, I could have accepted that it wasn’t meant to be.

“But the doctors kept talking about my ‘miscarriage’. That ripped me to pieces.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/life-style/real-life/2009/09/09/baby-denied-medical-treatment-and-handed-back-to-his-mother-to-die-115875-21658263/

How would they know he was 'two' days short of 22 weeks?  Did they have an exact day of conception?

I wonder what guidelines are in the U.S.? 

[Edward]

World Briefing | HEALTH
Swine Flu Is Now in 33 Countries, W.H.O. Says

Swine flu has reached 33 countries, the World Health Organization said Wednesday, and there have been deaths in four nations: Mexico, the United States, Canada and Costa Rica. The agency, based in Geneva, is under pressure to change how it issues pandemic alerts, which go up as a new virus spreads even if it is relatively mild. But Dr. Sylvie Briand of the W.H.O.’s global flu program said it would be “not very helpful” to switch to alerts like those for hurricanes, which are based on wind speeds. A virus’s severity, she said, varies from country to country, depending on the population’s previous immunity, average age, the level of readiness of the health care system and the prevalence of diseases that could make people more vulnerable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/health/14briefs-flureport.html


This is what the game is all about.. The New World Order...
To control people through various world organizations.. Such as,
 
World Trade organization
World Bank
World Health organization

You just wait and see there will be a world water organization created


The health organization issue is being created with fine and penalty for such things as inoculations by government control.
You will have you children inoculated with what ever They Choose to put in there bodies or you will be fined and penalized or even worse your children will be taken away from you and you will be labeled an unfit parent.

What is in the inoculations ?? Anything they want to put in them including mind control drugs.

This is how they intend to control..

There are many people involved in this control of the masses project in our world today and they do not mind if the world population drops by a billion or 2

one way to do that is with long term time released inoculations.. They can control WHO they inoculate and who they do not they give one thing to one group and something else to another group..

Wake Up America.. Of course that is just my humble opinion.

[WhiskeyGirl]

What was the purpose of healthcare reform?  I look at the proposals, and I don't see anything positive about the reforms for those already insured.  I see things that go against common wisdom for lowering costs, and see hugh increases in expenses and no incentives for indiviudals to do their part to control costs.  Lots of tax increases for working folks, nothing in return except the expectation that the healthcare taxes/fees/premiums would rise higher than the current rate of healthcare inflation.  mo

Error No. 1: Obama and his advisers should have listened to immigration reform activists who suggested the White House should tackle immigration before health care. Otherwise, the activists warned, concerns that illegal immigrants would get benefits could trip up the health care effort.

Error No. 3: Because of Wilson's outburst, the White House has been bullied into lurching to the right just to quell the criticism over whether illegal immigrants will get health coverage.

So illegal immigrants could end up with fewer health care options than they have now. And we call this reform?

The most humanitarian thing the administration is prepared to do is to continue requiring hospitals to provide emergency care to illegal immigrants at taxpayer expense, which is the law anyway, and reimburse hospitals for that cost.

That's great. Emergency care is among the most expensive, and it would be so much cheaper to focus on prevention over treatment and pay for doctor visits as opposed to hospital stays. Don't look now, but the president's leadership skills are looking a bit sickly.

Was the 'real' purpose behind healthcare reform to provide coverage options for illegal aliens?  After reading the bill(s) and listening to the speeches, I believe that is the goal.  An open door for millions to come for care, and a blank check paid for by taxpayers.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/15/ED4219NE93.DTL#ixzz0RGwWe7Nq

Where were the planning meetings held?