Re: [QUAD-L] Re: Medicare Racketeers
Back in the 1960s, Claude Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies. The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: the father of Quebec medicare. Even this title seems modest; Castonguay's work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast. Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in crisis. We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it, says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice. _Canadian-Health-Care_ (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=299282509335931) Einstein once said The height of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Both the Canadian and the British national health care systems are literally medical disasters--and also monetary black holes. Plus they are losing all of their finest doctors who don't want to work for peanuts. Those who can afford it, seek medical care out of country. The US life expectancy just increased to 78 years; Canada's fell to 75 years and Britain's to 73 years. Does this not tell you that we are doing something right? In a message dated 6/27/2008 9:35:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bad news for persons with disabilities and elderly. In July 1, doctors will get a 10 percent payment cut, a disaster for both patients and doctors that the bill would have averted. None of the senators' excuses for this vote hold water: The bill was a partisan exercise. Not so. The bill passed 355 to 59, a veto-proof majority, in the House of Representatives. More Republicans voted for HR. 6331 than against it. President Bush would have vetoed it anyway. So what? If enough Republican senators put the interests of people with Medicare ahead of their loyalty to President Bush, there would have been enough votes to override a veto in the Senate. Senators will be back home attending fundraisers and marching in Independence Day parades. We need to tell them to show a little more independence from President Bush and a little more backbone to the insurance company lobbyists. Medicare belongs to the American people. It is not a racket for the insurance industry. Asclepios Your Weekly Medicare Consumer Advocacy Update Medicare Racketeers June 27, 2008; Volume 8, Issue 26 The Medicare bill defeated in the Senate last night would have improved coverage for mental health and preventive services and helped pay medical and drug costs for more people with Medicare living on fixed incomes. The Bush administration objected to these improvements, which were paid for with a modest cut to some of the excessive subsidies Medicare pays to insurance companies. Administration officials opposed this reduction in subsidies, they claim, because it would result in reduced benefits for people with Medicare enrolled in private health plans offered by these companies. Translation: No one gets better Medicare benefits unless our pals in the insurance industry get a cut off the top. It's as if the Medicare program had been taken over by Mafia goons. Numerous independent, nonpartisan studies have shown it cost taxpayers substantially more—about $1,000 a head, according to one study—to provide coverage through a Medicare private health plan instead of through Original Medicare. Just this week, the Government Accountability Office reported that, in 2005, insurance companies pocketed as profit $1.14 billion in subsidies that the companies had told Medicare would go toward medical benefits. Last night, 39 Republican senators joined President Bush in opposing HR. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act. As a result, the benefit improvements in HR. 6331 will not take effect, and on July 1, doctors will get a 10 percent payment cut, a disaster for both patients and doctors that the bill would have averted. None of the senators' excuses for this vote hold water: The bill was a partisan exercise. Not so. The bill passed 355 to 59, a veto-proof majority, in the House of Representatives. More Republicans voted for HR. 6331 than against it. President Bush would have vetoed it anyway. So what? If enough Republican senators put the interests of people with Medicare ahead of their loyalty to President Bush, there would have been enough votes to
[QUAD-L] Re: Medicare Racketeers
Editorial Worlds Best Medical Care? Published: August 12, 2007 Many Americans are under the delusion that we have the best health care system in the world, as President Bush sees it, or provide the best medical care in the world, as Rudolph Giuliani declared last week. That may be true at many top medical centers. But the disturbing truth is that this country lags well behind other advanced nations in delivering timely and effective care. Michael Moore struck a nerve in his new documentary, Sicko, when he extolled the virtues of the government-run health care systems in France, England, Canada and even Cuba while deploring the failures of the largely private insurance system in this country. There is no question that Mr. Moore overstated his case by making foreign systems look almost flawless. But there is a growing body of evidence that, by an array of pertinent yardsticks, the United States is a laggard not a leader in providing good medical care. Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th. More recently, the highly regarded Commonwealth Fund has pioneered in comparing the United States with other advanced nations through surveys of patients and doctors and analysis of other data. Its latest report, issued in May, ranked the United States last or next-to-last compared with five other nations Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom on most measures of performance, including quality of care and access to it. Other comparative studies also put the United States in a relatively bad light. Insurance coverage. All other major industrialized nations provide universal health coverage, and most of them have comprehensive benefit packages with no cost-sharing by the patients. The United States, to its shame, has some 45 million people without health insurance and many more millions who have poor coverage. Although the president has blithely said that these people can always get treatment in an emergency room, many studies have shown that people without insurance postpone treatment until a minor illness becomes worse, harming their own health and imposing greater costs. Access. Citizens abroad often face long waits before they can get to see a specialist or undergo elective surgery. Americans typically get prompter attention, although Germany does better. The real barriers here are the costs facing low-income people without insurance or with skimpy coverage. But even Americans with above-average incomes find it more difficult than their counterparts abroad to get care on nights or weekends without going to an emergency room, and many report having to wait six days or more for an appointment with their own doctors. Fairness. The United States ranks dead last on almost all measures of equity because we have the greatest disparity in the quality of care given to richer and poorer citizens. Americans with below-average incomes are much less likely than their counterparts in other industrialized nations to see a doctor when sick, to fill prescriptions or to get needed tests and follow-up care. Healthy lives. We have known for years that America has a high infant mortality rate, so it is no surprise that we rank last among 23 nations by that yardstick. But the problem is much broader. We rank near the bottom in healthy life expectancy at age 60, and 15th among 19 countries in deaths from a wide range of illnesses that would not have been fatal if treated with timely and effective care. The good news is that we have done a better job than other industrialized nations in reducing smoking. The bad news is that our obesity epidemic is the worst in the world. Quality. In a comparison with five other countries, the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States first in providing the right care for a given condition as defined by standard clinical guidelines and gave it especially high marks for preventive care, like Pap smears and mammograms to detect early-stage cancers, and blood tests and cholesterol checks for hypertensive patients. But we scored poorly in coordinating the care of chronically ill patients, in protecting the safety of patients, and in meeting their needs and preferences, which drove our overall quality rating down to last place. American doctors and hospitals kill patients through surgical and medical mistakes more often than their counterparts in other industrialized nations. Life and death. In a comparison of five countries, the United States had the best survival rate for breast cancer, second best for cervical cancer and childhood leukemia, worst for kidney transplants, and almost-worst for liver transplants and colorectal cancer. In an eight-country comparison, the United States ranked last in years of potential life lost to circulatory diseases, respiratory
[QUAD-L] Supra Pubic
I just had a supra pubic cath put in and I'm having a lot of leakage from my natural area if you know what I mean and was wondering how many others deal with this and what I can do. Any help is appreciated. Mark Jackson RollinOn No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.2/1523 - Release Date: 6/28/2008 7:00 AM
Re: [QUAD-L] Supra Pubic
Super glue? Dan At 11:38 AM 6/28/2008 -0500, Mark Jackson said something that elicited my response: I just had a supra pubic cath put in and I'm having a lot of leakage from my natural area if you know what I mean and was wondering how many others deal with this and what I can do. Any help is appreciated. Mark Jackson RollinOn No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.2/1523 - Release Date: 6/28/2008 7:00 AM
RE: [QUAD-L] Supra Pubic
Uh Ouch! Mark Jackson RollinOn _ From: Dan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 12:24 PM To: 'QUADLIST' Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] Supra Pubic Super glue? Dan At 11:38 AM 6/28/2008 -0500, Mark Jackson said something that elicited my response: I just had a supra pubic cath put in and I'm having a lot of leakage from my natural area if you know what I mean and was wondering how many others deal with this and what I can do. Any help is appreciated. Mark Jackson RollinOn No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.2/1523 - Release Date: 6/28/2008 7:00 AM No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.2/1523 - Release Date: 6/28/2008 7:00 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.2/1523 - Release Date: 6/28/2008 7:00 AM
RE: [QUAD-L] Supra Pubic
How much? I think a little is normal.. I've had a supra pubic catheter for a couple years now. If it's being caused by blockage you can flush it, I use saline and acetic acid. Carful though, make sure the person doing the flushing wears gloves and keeps it all as clean as possible as to prevent infection. If that didn't help it could be from either the balloon not being filled enough to create a good seal or improper placement of the balloon itself. Talk to your home health nurse and see what they think, you may need to see a urologist if nothing helps. Danny Espinoza 25/m/California Accident happened March 5th 2006 3 days before my birthday Occupation before accident - Network engineer / SR. Network security engineer Broke c2,c6,c7 and doner bone at c2 TBI from blood going to central cortex from spinal cord off a vent woohoo however only one diaphragm works right now due to asymmetric SCI http://spinalcordinjured.net http://www.myspace.com/dannylnx From: Mark Jackson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 10:52 AM To: 'Dan'; 'QUADLIST' Subject: RE: [QUAD-L] Supra Pubic Uh Ouch! Mark Jackson RollinOn _ From: Dan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 12:24 PM To: 'QUADLIST' Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] Supra Pubic Super glue? Dan At 11:38 AM 6/28/2008 -0500, Mark Jackson said something that elicited my response: I just had a supra pubic cath put in and I'm having a lot of leakage from my natural area if you know what I mean and was wondering how many others deal with this and what I can do. Any help is appreciated. Mark Jackson RollinOn No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.2/1523 - Release Date: 6/28/2008 7:00 AM No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.2/1523 - Release Date: 6/28/2008 7:00 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.2/1523 - Release Date: 6/28/2008 7:00 AM
Re: [QUAD-L] Supra Pubic
Hi Mark, I had the same problem when I first got my SP but it was partly because I had a pretty spastic bladder and my urologist started with a very small diameter catheter, a #10 French. I slowly moved up a size each week to a #12, #14, until settling on an #18. If you did the same, tt's possible your bladder is having spasms from recently being punctured and the small diameter of the catheter isn't enough to release pressure. That should subside as you get a larger catheter. Also, your sphincter muscle isn't accustomed to not opening whether because of using an intermittent or Foley/urethral catheter. That muscle has to chill. If you're only having small leaks, not big gushers from big spasms, you might be able to keep yourself dry by using the trick ladies have used for decades... a small inconspicuous pad may be enough to get you through a day without getting wet (possibly causing many other problems) until everything flows through the SP. (Those pads can hold an awful lot!) Good luck... and Welcome to the Club! Best regards, --Tod Mark Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just had a supra pubic cath put in and I'm having a lot of leakage from my natural area if you know what I mean and was wondering how many others deal with this and what I can do. Any help is appreciated. Mark Jackson RollinOn
[QUAD-L] NOT JUST Medicare Racketeers
Every time I have any procedure done my insurance company sends me an EOB, Explanation Of Benefits, that I usually read very closely even though I know everything has been covered. What has always made me furious is to see that a hospital, lab, doctor, etc. charges the allowable Medicare amount. BUT because of contracts the provider accepts the amount or percentage my insurance company agrees to pay for the service. This amount is very often approximately 10-15% of the amount charged. And this is the amount the doctor, lab or hospital considers acceptable for the services rendered. When I have a surgery with a one-month hospital stay and a hospital bill over $130,000 BUT the hospital was willing to accept $40,000, that tells me there's something wrong with our system! If I didn't have insurance I would be expected --no, *required*-- to pay the full amount. Medicare pays the full amount. But the hospital is simply gouging private payers and the Medicare system simply because it can. If a doctor is willing to accept 10% of what he/she charges, then THAT should be the amount he/she actually charges regardless of insurance, Medicare, or private pay. Otherwise, the only other explanation is that medical institutions are using private payers and Medicare to supplement that which they lose through contracting with insurance companies. Our health care system in the US would not be in nearly the trouble it is if the TRUE cost of services is being charged to those who need it. Also, those individuals without health insurance would be charged the TRUE amounts and would not be required to go bankrupt or pile mortgages on top of mortgages in order to cover themselves in a catastrophic incident. Just my opinion... so far very few have been able to argue convincingly to point out major problems in this point of view. Best regards All, --Tod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Back in the 1960s, Claude Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies. The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: the father of Quebec medicare. Even this title seems modest; Castonguay's work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast. Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in crisis. We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it, says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice. _Canadian-Health-Care_ (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=299282509335931) Einstein once said The height of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Both the Canadian and the British national health care systems are literally medical disasters--and also monetary black holes. Plus they are losing all of their finest doctors who don't want to work for peanuts. Those who can afford it, seek medical care out of country. The US life expectancy just increased to 78 years; Canada's fell to 75 years and Britain's to 73 years. Does this not tell you that we are doing something right? In a message dated 6/27/2008 9:35:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bad news for persons with disabilities and elderly. In July 1, doctors will get a 10 percent payment cut, a disaster for both patients and doctors that the bill would have averted. None of the senators' excuses for this vote hold water: The bill was a partisan exercise. Not so. The bill passed 355 to 59, a veto-proof majority, in the House of Representatives. More Republicans voted for HR. 6331 than against it. President Bush would have vetoed it anyway. So what? If enough Republican senators put the interests of people with Medicare ahead of their loyalty to President Bush, there would have been enough votes to override a veto in the Senate. Senators will be back home attending fundraisers and marching in Independence Day parades. We need to tell them to show a little more independence from President Bush and a little more backbone to the insurance company lobbyists. Medicare belongs to the American people. It is not a racket for the insurance industry. Asclepios Your Weekly Medicare Consumer Advocacy Update Medicare Racketeers June 27, 2008; Volume 8, Issue 26 The Medicare bill defeated in the Senate last night would
FW: [QUAD-L] Supra Pubic
My urologogist told me I would require to use two bags. Fortunately at some place he cauterized my urethra so there was no problem except for a short period around the point. He used a 24 French directly. Merrill -Original Message- From: Tod E. Santee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 5:42 PM To: Mark Jackson; 'QUADLIST' Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] Supra Pubic Hi Mark, I had the same problem when I first got my SP but it was partly because I had a pretty spastic bladder and my urologist started with a very small diameter catheter, a #10 French. I slowly moved up a size each week to a #12, #14, until settling on an #18. If you did the same, tt's possible your bladder is having spasms from recently being punctured and the small diameter of the catheter isn't enough to release pressure. That should subside as you get a larger catheter. Also, your sphincter muscle isn't accustomed to not opening whether because of using an intermittent or Foley/urethral catheter. That muscle has to chill. If you're only having small leaks, not big gushers from big spasms, you might be able to keep yourself dry by using the trick ladies have used for decades... a small inconspicuous pad may be enough to get you through a day without getting wet (possibly causing many other problems) until everything flows through the SP. (Those pads can hold an awful lot!) Good luck... and Welcome to the Club! Best regards, --Tod Mark Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just had a supra pubic cath put in and I'm having a lot of leakage from my natural area if you know what I mean and was wondering how many others deal with this and what I can do. Any help is appreciated. Mark Jackson RollinOn
