Re: [QUAD-L] Re: Medicare Racketeers
If Canadian or British health care was based on Medicare as a model, they would both have a surplus. Nobody ever wants to discuss Germany's healthcare or Sweden, or Denmark, or even Japan. These are all successful and their life expectancy is higher than Americans. America is the only country where a triage question includes insurance type. To say socialized medicine doesn't work is simply denying reality. A major outlay of funds for hospitals is to keep huge legal staffs on hand, not just for lawsuits, but to find new ways to force money out of insurance and Medicare. Insurance companies and Medicare hire lawyers to avoid paying medical costs and create new codes every few years so nobody understands them in time to bill them properly for 6 months. With all the lawyers involved, how about we cut all health care payments to lawyers by 10 percent until the budget is balanced. I also think a jury should be able to fine people and their lawyers that bring frivolous lawsuits against Dr.s and hospitals. Ask any doctor and they will tell you that malpractice insurance is a major health care cost. we are at a point where we will need to decide if we want a healths system or feed an insurance parasite. Some studies have concluded that between 40-65 percent of health care is just insurance. We are SHEEP! john - Original Message From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: quad-list@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 9:57:00 AM Subject: 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 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
[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
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 vot
Re: [QUAD-L] Re: Medicare Racketeers
wat danar u drinkin the kool-aid?
Eric W Rudd
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; quad-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 8:34 PM
Subject: [QUAD-L] Re: Medicare Racketeers
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 override a veto in the
Senate.
Next week, these 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.
Medical Record
Senate vote to invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed on HR. 6331 fell short
of the 60 votes needed. Yea votes indicate support for passage of HR. 6331. No
votes indicate opposition. Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada,
voted No to preserve the right to bring the bill up for a vote again (Roll Call
vote on HR. 6331
(http://www.kintera.org/TR.asp?a=hhKWI5OFLdIPKcJ&s=qtJ3JcMJJbKWJ7MSF&m=guKSIaMVKkL2F&af=y),
June 2008).
"On average, [Medicare Advantage] organizations' self-reported actual profit
margin was 5.1 percent of total revenue, which is approximately $1.14 billion
more in profits in 2005 than [Medicare Advantage] organizations projected"
("Medicare Advantage Organizations: Actual Expenses and Profits Compared to
Projections for 2005
(http://www.kintera.org/TR.asp?a=kkI2JePRKgLWImI&s=qt
[QUAD-L] Re: Medicare Racketeers
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 override a veto in the
Senate.
Next week, these 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.
Medical Record
Senate vote to invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed on HR. 6331 fell
short of the 60 votes needed. Yea votes indicate support for passage of HR.
6331.
No votes indicate opposition. Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat of
Nevada, voted No to preserve the right to bring the bill up for a vote again
(Roll
Call vote on HR. 6331
(http://www.kintera.org/TR.asp?a=hhKWI5OFLdIPKcJ&s=qtJ3JcMJJbKWJ7MSF&m=guKSIaMVKkL2F&af=y),
June 2008).
"On average, [Medicare Advantage] organizations' self-reported actual profit
margin was 5.1 percent of total revenue, which is approximately $1.14
billion more in profits in 2005 than [Medicare Advantage] organizations
projected"
("Medicare Advantage Organizations: Actual Expenses and Profits Compared to
Projections for 2005
(http://www.kintera.org/TR.asp?a=kkI2JePRKgLWImI&s=qtJ3JcMJJbKWJ7MSF&m=guKSIaMVKkL2F&af=y),"
Government Accountability Office, June
2008).
"I am an elder advocate with an Area Agency on Aging. Even though several
Medicare Advantage plans, including four PFFS plans, are listed as plans
accepted in our county, that is actually not the case. Once a beneficiary
enrolls
in one of these Advantage plans, they find out that providers in this county
actually do not accept the plans. If the beneficiary cannot see a provider in
this county, they are forced to leave the county to find providers. Som
