GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS! Dear Rep. Kirk—I believe that your attitude and campaign against placing Guantanamo detainees on US soil is misleading and unworthy of a US Rep. and candidate for the US Senate.
1) You call them terrorists. HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY ARE TERRORISTS? Many of these detainees have been held 7 years without even a hearing. None of them have been convicted of any misdeeds or crimes. My guesstimates are that outside of a dozen or so they are not terrorists. The proper place for them would be POW’S. During WWII we had thousands of German POW’S at many locations in the US with very little trouble.
2) You are using scare tactics to peddle fear. Our maximum security prisons I believe are fully capable of handling such a small number of detainees the majority of whom should either be designated POW’S or sent home. At present the detainees are not allowed visitors. Thus your worries about detainee families and other visitors causing troubles in the location near the prison is groundless. I am surprised that you were unaware of the visitor policy.
3) I am hopeful you will reconsider your mistaken policy about the detainees and devote your efforts to positive policies that will benefit the nation.
Sincerely,
Robert Diogenes
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
WHAT DOES REP CAO'S VOTE TELL US?
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS? "I had to make a decision, and I felt that last night's decision (Health Reform bill) was the right decision for my district, even though it was not the popular decision for my party," Rep Cao, 42, said of his vote late Saturday. Rep Cao represents a low income district in New Orleans.
The Obama administration and Republican leaders, such as Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, lobbied Cao throughout Saturday. He made his decision as the voting came to a close and cast his "yes" vote as the Democrats passed the 218 votes needed for the bill to pass. The final tally was 220-215.
The first Vietnamese American in Congress, Cao fled Vietnam with two siblings when he was 8, according to his House website. Cao said he did not make any deals with President Obama in exchange for his vote. Cao has pushed for more aid to New Orleans to help the city recover after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and has supported Obama's actions to help Louisiana rebuild.
What does it tell us WHEN IT’S NEWS THAT A CONGRESSMAN VOTES HIS CONSCIENCE BY VOTING FOR A BILL THAT HE BELIEVES WILL HELP THE PEOPLE IN HIS DISTRICT DESPITE THE WISHES OF HIS PARTY? What does it tell us about a party that wants a congressman to vote against a bill that he feels will help the people in his district? What does it tell us about a Congress that is so absorbed in party warfare that it has forgotten the reason for its existence, namely to help the citizens? What does it tell us about a country whose citizens are so self centered they can only see their own selfish interests and never care or look at what’s best for the whole country?
In this particular case, though the idea applies to both parties, an examination state by state reveals that in states that that have the highest % of uninsured,their representatives are the strongest objectors to the health reform bill The Health Reform bill will make possible the purchase of insurance with gov’t help if necessary. These states are southern, mountain and Tx ,Ok, Ks. Statistics show that uninsured people are less healthy because they wait too long to seek medical help to avoid the cost. When they do seek medical help it is often in high cost emergency rooms. Harvard researchers published an article in the American Journal of Public Health. They said 45.000 people die each year as a result of not havinginsurance.
So why don't the representatives in these states vote for the Health Reform bill?
The Obama administration and Republican leaders, such as Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, lobbied Cao throughout Saturday. He made his decision as the voting came to a close and cast his "yes" vote as the Democrats passed the 218 votes needed for the bill to pass. The final tally was 220-215.
The first Vietnamese American in Congress, Cao fled Vietnam with two siblings when he was 8, according to his House website. Cao said he did not make any deals with President Obama in exchange for his vote. Cao has pushed for more aid to New Orleans to help the city recover after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and has supported Obama's actions to help Louisiana rebuild.
What does it tell us WHEN IT’S NEWS THAT A CONGRESSMAN VOTES HIS CONSCIENCE BY VOTING FOR A BILL THAT HE BELIEVES WILL HELP THE PEOPLE IN HIS DISTRICT DESPITE THE WISHES OF HIS PARTY? What does it tell us about a party that wants a congressman to vote against a bill that he feels will help the people in his district? What does it tell us about a Congress that is so absorbed in party warfare that it has forgotten the reason for its existence, namely to help the citizens? What does it tell us about a country whose citizens are so self centered they can only see their own selfish interests and never care or look at what’s best for the whole country?
In this particular case, though the idea applies to both parties, an examination state by state reveals that in states that that have the highest % of uninsured,their representatives are the strongest objectors to the health reform bill The Health Reform bill will make possible the purchase of insurance with gov’t help if necessary. These states are southern, mountain and Tx ,Ok, Ks. Statistics show that uninsured people are less healthy because they wait too long to seek medical help to avoid the cost. When they do seek medical help it is often in high cost emergency rooms. Harvard researchers published an article in the American Journal of Public Health. They said 45.000 people die each year as a result of not havinginsurance.
So why don't the representatives in these states vote for the Health Reform bill?
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Repulicans use Healthcare to score s coup!
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS!
The Republican party has an opportunity seize this moment and establish themselves as the leading party. As the discussions on healthcare reform continue it has become apparent that the public wants healthcare reform that will cover almost everyone and they want it at the lowest cost possible.
Republicans have come up with several good ideas, selling insurance across state lines, giving individuals the same tax breaks as those who get insurance thru their employers, tort reform to lessen Doctors insurance costs etc. These idea will help but are not sufficient for almost universal coverage at the lowest cost possible.
How to save BIG MONEY on healthcare REFORM!
Despite all the smoke and mirrors the best opinion shows that the public option saves money not costs money. The Urban Institute estimated that a gov’t insurance plan would save $224 to $400 billion over a period of 10 years. The private insurance co’s simply will not offer the low cost full coverage insurance plans that would reduce the subsidy for the uninsured and underinsured. The gov’t plan would. The Massachusetts experience using Heritage Foundation ideas with exchanges has covered over 97% of the people but at high cost. Yearly insurance plans run from $800 to $1,000 per month. The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed the money saving of public option plans by estimating that the cost of one of the proposed House plans would be reduced from $1.1 billion to only $800 billion, a saving of $300billion over a 10 yr period with a gov’t plan. The polls show 60% of the public want a gov’t option.
There is another important step we can take to reduce cost by an estimated $40 billion annually or $400 billion over a 10 year period.
According to Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler Physicians for a National Health Plan the public option misses at least 84 percent of the administrative savings available through a single payer, gov’t, healthcare plan. The public plan option would not do anything to streamline the administrative tasks and costs of hospitals, physicians offices, and nursing homes. They would still contend with multiple payers, and hence still need the complex cost tracking and billing apparatus that drives administrative costs. These unnecessary provider administrative costs account for the vast majority of bureaucratic waste. The Physician group research in California showed that now 31% of every health care $ was paid for administrative costs. This compared to 3% of medicare administrative costs. Hence, even if 95 percent of Americans who are currently privately insured were to join a public plan (and it had overhead costs at current Medicare levels), the savings on insurance overhead would amount to only 16 percent of the roughly $40 billion annually achievable through single payer. The PNHP single payer information is available at Tel 312-782-6006, info@pnhp.org.
I suggest that you introduce a single payer healthcare reform bill with a gov’t plan. Many liberal democrats will go along with you and you may take control of the healthcare reform debate and give the public what it wants.
The Republican party has an opportunity seize this moment and establish themselves as the leading party. As the discussions on healthcare reform continue it has become apparent that the public wants healthcare reform that will cover almost everyone and they want it at the lowest cost possible.
Republicans have come up with several good ideas, selling insurance across state lines, giving individuals the same tax breaks as those who get insurance thru their employers, tort reform to lessen Doctors insurance costs etc. These idea will help but are not sufficient for almost universal coverage at the lowest cost possible.
How to save BIG MONEY on healthcare REFORM!
Despite all the smoke and mirrors the best opinion shows that the public option saves money not costs money. The Urban Institute estimated that a gov’t insurance plan would save $224 to $400 billion over a period of 10 years. The private insurance co’s simply will not offer the low cost full coverage insurance plans that would reduce the subsidy for the uninsured and underinsured. The gov’t plan would. The Massachusetts experience using Heritage Foundation ideas with exchanges has covered over 97% of the people but at high cost. Yearly insurance plans run from $800 to $1,000 per month. The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed the money saving of public option plans by estimating that the cost of one of the proposed House plans would be reduced from $1.1 billion to only $800 billion, a saving of $300billion over a 10 yr period with a gov’t plan. The polls show 60% of the public want a gov’t option.
There is another important step we can take to reduce cost by an estimated $40 billion annually or $400 billion over a 10 year period.
According to Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler Physicians for a National Health Plan the public option misses at least 84 percent of the administrative savings available through a single payer, gov’t, healthcare plan. The public plan option would not do anything to streamline the administrative tasks and costs of hospitals, physicians offices, and nursing homes. They would still contend with multiple payers, and hence still need the complex cost tracking and billing apparatus that drives administrative costs. These unnecessary provider administrative costs account for the vast majority of bureaucratic waste. The Physician group research in California showed that now 31% of every health care $ was paid for administrative costs. This compared to 3% of medicare administrative costs. Hence, even if 95 percent of Americans who are currently privately insured were to join a public plan (and it had overhead costs at current Medicare levels), the savings on insurance overhead would amount to only 16 percent of the roughly $40 billion annually achievable through single payer. The PNHP single payer information is available at Tel 312-782-6006, info@pnhp.org.
I suggest that you introduce a single payer healthcare reform bill with a gov’t plan. Many liberal democrats will go along with you and you may take control of the healthcare reform debate and give the public what it wants.
Monday, October 26, 2009
HOW to SAVE MONEY on HEALTHCARE REFORM
GET THE FACS BEHIND THE NEWS! The Urban Institute estimated that a gov’t insurance plan would save $224 to $400 billion over a period of 10 years. The private insurance co’s simply will not offer the low cost full coverage insurance plans that would reduce the subsidy for the uninsured and underinsured. The gov’t plan would. The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed this by estimating that the cost of one of the proposed House plans would be reduced from $1.1 billion to only $800 billion, a saving of $300 billion over a 10 yr period with a gov’t plan.
There is another IMPORTANT step we can take to reduce cost by an estimated $40 billion annually or $400 billion over a 10 year period.
According to Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler Physicians for a National Health Plan the public option misses at least 84 percent of the administrative savings available through a single payer, gov’t, healthcare plan.
The public plan option would not do anything to streamline the administrative tasks (and costs) of hospitals, physicians offices, and nursing homes. They would still contend with multiple payers, and hence still need the complex cost tracking and billing apparatus that drives administrative costs. These unnecessary provider administrative costs account for the vast majority of bureaucratic waste. The Physician group research in California showed that now 31% of every health care $ was paid for administrative costs. This compared to 3% of medicare administrative costs. Hence, even if 95 percent of Americans who are currently privately insured were to join a public plan (and it had overhead costs at current Medicare levels), the savings on insurance overhead would amount to only 16 percent of the roughly $40 billion annually achievable through single payer.
If you are genuinely interested in healthcare reform at the lowest cost please check into single payer facts. The PNHP information is available
Tel 312-782-6006 info@pnhp.org
There is another IMPORTANT step we can take to reduce cost by an estimated $40 billion annually or $400 billion over a 10 year period.
According to Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler Physicians for a National Health Plan the public option misses at least 84 percent of the administrative savings available through a single payer, gov’t, healthcare plan.
The public plan option would not do anything to streamline the administrative tasks (and costs) of hospitals, physicians offices, and nursing homes. They would still contend with multiple payers, and hence still need the complex cost tracking and billing apparatus that drives administrative costs. These unnecessary provider administrative costs account for the vast majority of bureaucratic waste. The Physician group research in California showed that now 31% of every health care $ was paid for administrative costs. This compared to 3% of medicare administrative costs. Hence, even if 95 percent of Americans who are currently privately insured were to join a public plan (and it had overhead costs at current Medicare levels), the savings on insurance overhead would amount to only 16 percent of the roughly $40 billion annually achievable through single payer.
If you are genuinely interested in healthcare reform at the lowest cost please check into single payer facts. The PNHP information is available
Tel 312-782-6006 info@pnhp.org
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Is the US losing its COMPETITIVE EDGE?
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS A recent study by the Information Technology and Innovatioon Foundation, a nonpartisan reserch group,showed that the US economy's competitive position has rapidly declined the last 10 years
The report covered 40 countries and used 16 indcators to judge innovation and competitiveness. The report adjusted for the size of the economy and population of coutries The report ranked the US 6th for innovation and competitiveness. The report considered such areas as scientific researchers and spending on research, venture capital investment, and educational achievment. The report placed the American Economy last in advancement for the last 10 years
This report paralles the finding Of Prof. Michael Porter of Harvard a noted expert in competitiveness and very active in the OECD. The OECD, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an international non-gov’t and non-profit group dedicated to furthering growth and competitiveness completed Nov 08, 2009 a study of 144 nations for eleven categories from Institutions to Business Sophistication
Thirdly the National Academies considered the nation's leadiing science advisory group by many has also found that the US lead in science and technology was declining while other nations were advancing. China, Finland, Singapore, and Taiwan have policies that are designed to spur innovation thru an inerdisciplanary approach that includes abroad spectrum of different fields.
President Obama has said that future prosperity will depend on the United States becoming an “innovation economy.” The economic recovery package includes spending for areas favored by innovation policy advocates. Areas such as higher research and development spending. and funds for high-technology fields like electronic health records. However the US does not have a coordinated innovation program.
Many see these studies as a awake up call.
More results, the United States ranked sixth in venture capital investment (Sweden was first); fifth in corporate research and development spending (Japan led); and fourth in science and technology researchers (again, Sweden was first). Singapore ws the most innovative and competitive. Singapore started a national innovation strategy years ago. Singapore investing heavily and recruited leading scientists and technologists from around the world.
The study specifically recommendeds federal incentives for American companies to innovate at home, these range from research tax incentives to work force development tax credits. Public investments and regulatory incentives can accelerate the use of information technology in health care, energy systems, transportation, government and education.
The report covered 40 countries and used 16 indcators to judge innovation and competitiveness. The report adjusted for the size of the economy and population of coutries The report ranked the US 6th for innovation and competitiveness. The report considered such areas as scientific researchers and spending on research, venture capital investment, and educational achievment. The report placed the American Economy last in advancement for the last 10 years
This report paralles the finding Of Prof. Michael Porter of Harvard a noted expert in competitiveness and very active in the OECD. The OECD, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an international non-gov’t and non-profit group dedicated to furthering growth and competitiveness completed Nov 08, 2009 a study of 144 nations for eleven categories from Institutions to Business Sophistication
Thirdly the National Academies considered the nation's leadiing science advisory group by many has also found that the US lead in science and technology was declining while other nations were advancing. China, Finland, Singapore, and Taiwan have policies that are designed to spur innovation thru an inerdisciplanary approach that includes abroad spectrum of different fields.
President Obama has said that future prosperity will depend on the United States becoming an “innovation economy.” The economic recovery package includes spending for areas favored by innovation policy advocates. Areas such as higher research and development spending. and funds for high-technology fields like electronic health records. However the US does not have a coordinated innovation program.
Many see these studies as a awake up call.
More results, the United States ranked sixth in venture capital investment (Sweden was first); fifth in corporate research and development spending (Japan led); and fourth in science and technology researchers (again, Sweden was first). Singapore ws the most innovative and competitive. Singapore started a national innovation strategy years ago. Singapore investing heavily and recruited leading scientists and technologists from around the world.
The study specifically recommendeds federal incentives for American companies to innovate at home, these range from research tax incentives to work force development tax credits. Public investments and regulatory incentives can accelerate the use of information technology in health care, energy systems, transportation, government and education.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Sen Baucus from the State of Insurance
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS The Baucus health plan now before the Senate appears to be a big help for the insurance industry,(how about the public?) by requiring almost everyone to buy insurance, and to buy it without any competition. In addition the Baucus plan has the gov’t(you and me) paying a subsidy(money) to help people pay for their insurance. Pretty nifty if you are in the insurance business.
The Baucus plan does not have a Public Option to compete with the private insurance co’s and provide low cost insurance to people of limited means. Sen Baucus said that he could not get 60 votes in the Senate with a public option. Of course you can’t get 60 votes if you don’t even try, or maybe don’t want to try. The polls show about 66% of the public want a gov’t option. Coop and exchanges with private insurance co’s do not answer the need for competition and low cost insurance. The Massachusetts connector prices for an average family is $800 to $1,000 per month.
Bill Moyers on his tv program Oct 9th pointed out that Liz Fowler one of Sen Baucus main advisors worked for the Wellpoint Co. She is now a lobbyist for the healthcare industry. Bill also mentioned that the healthcare industry has given $1.5 million to Sen Baucus. In addition Bill said they have given many millions to other influential people.
Sen Burris of IL is right when he says that he will not vote for a healthcare bill without a public option. One hopes 59 other Senators vote the same way.
The Baucus plan does not have a Public Option to compete with the private insurance co’s and provide low cost insurance to people of limited means. Sen Baucus said that he could not get 60 votes in the Senate with a public option. Of course you can’t get 60 votes if you don’t even try, or maybe don’t want to try. The polls show about 66% of the public want a gov’t option. Coop and exchanges with private insurance co’s do not answer the need for competition and low cost insurance. The Massachusetts connector prices for an average family is $800 to $1,000 per month.
Bill Moyers on his tv program Oct 9th pointed out that Liz Fowler one of Sen Baucus main advisors worked for the Wellpoint Co. She is now a lobbyist for the healthcare industry. Bill also mentioned that the healthcare industry has given $1.5 million to Sen Baucus. In addition Bill said they have given many millions to other influential people.
Sen Burris of IL is right when he says that he will not vote for a healthcare bill without a public option. One hopes 59 other Senators vote the same way.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
COOPS, EXCHANGES DON’T WORK A look at Massachusetts. GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS Trudy Lieberman, a contributing editor to the Columbia Journalism Review, has done a stellar job of reporting on the Massachusetts initiative
She found that the Connector( MA exchange) had failed to create affordable insurance OPTIONS for the people in Massachusetts. Using a hypothetical family from Pittsfield in western Mass, Lieberman went shopping on the Connector website. She found that coverage for a 44-year-old couple with an income of $66,150, slightly over the eligibility limit for a state insurance subsidy, “All but three of the fourteen Connector policies cost at least $1,000 a month, or $12,000 a year—eighteen percent of their income.” The cheapest policy, at $820 a month, was no bargain. Yet according to the state’s own guidelines, a Pittsfield family with kids could only afford $364 in monthly premiums. Others point out that Mass has about 93% coverage at high cost. Costs have not been contained.
Like many ideas a health insurance exchange looks better on paper than in practice. When Massachusetts launched its health reform experiment in 2006, it relied heavily on Heritage Foundation policy prescriptions. Under then-Governor Mitt Romney, Massachusetts created a voluntary insurance exchange similar to the one Obama often promotes. Massachusetts outlines some basic requirements for plans that participate but it doesn’t set rates or reimbursement levels. And far from revolutionizing health care, the exchange—known in Massachusetts as the Connector—is demonstrating the limitations of relying solely on the market to solve the nation’s health care woes and rein in skyrocketing medical costs.
Prices vary by age. Lieberman found that if she changed the age of her Pittsfield family, the premiums jumped significantly. Lieberman reports that it’s not just consumers who are complaining. Insurance companies have failed to get the promised deluge of new customers, who’ve been deterred by the high prices.
In the reform bills currently pending in Congress, Democrats have modified the Connector model by introducing a public plan that would compete in the exchange to help keep costs down.
In WA State, which has one of the two regulated Co-Ops in the nation, Group Health Rates for me and my husband and daughter, which would include prescriptions, would be$614 a month or more, up to over $800 a month for a $500 deductible. At the $614/mo rate the deductible for the family would be $4,500.year. There is a 30% co- insurance after deductible, so I would be responsible for anything after the insurance paid 70%, plus the Rxs are paid at 30%-50% only. I would have to pay the balance. For my husband's asthma medication, which is non-generic, that would be over $100/month, every month, on top of the costs above. This plan does not include dental. I could get catastrophic coverage for a lot less for the family, but there would be no Rx coverage and really high deductibles.
She found that the Connector( MA exchange) had failed to create affordable insurance OPTIONS for the people in Massachusetts. Using a hypothetical family from Pittsfield in western Mass, Lieberman went shopping on the Connector website. She found that coverage for a 44-year-old couple with an income of $66,150, slightly over the eligibility limit for a state insurance subsidy, “All but three of the fourteen Connector policies cost at least $1,000 a month, or $12,000 a year—eighteen percent of their income.” The cheapest policy, at $820 a month, was no bargain. Yet according to the state’s own guidelines, a Pittsfield family with kids could only afford $364 in monthly premiums. Others point out that Mass has about 93% coverage at high cost. Costs have not been contained.
Like many ideas a health insurance exchange looks better on paper than in practice. When Massachusetts launched its health reform experiment in 2006, it relied heavily on Heritage Foundation policy prescriptions. Under then-Governor Mitt Romney, Massachusetts created a voluntary insurance exchange similar to the one Obama often promotes. Massachusetts outlines some basic requirements for plans that participate but it doesn’t set rates or reimbursement levels. And far from revolutionizing health care, the exchange—known in Massachusetts as the Connector—is demonstrating the limitations of relying solely on the market to solve the nation’s health care woes and rein in skyrocketing medical costs.
Prices vary by age. Lieberman found that if she changed the age of her Pittsfield family, the premiums jumped significantly. Lieberman reports that it’s not just consumers who are complaining. Insurance companies have failed to get the promised deluge of new customers, who’ve been deterred by the high prices.
In the reform bills currently pending in Congress, Democrats have modified the Connector model by introducing a public plan that would compete in the exchange to help keep costs down.
In WA State, which has one of the two regulated Co-Ops in the nation, Group Health Rates for me and my husband and daughter, which would include prescriptions, would be$614 a month or more, up to over $800 a month for a $500 deductible. At the $614/mo rate the deductible for the family would be $4,500.year. There is a 30% co- insurance after deductible, so I would be responsible for anything after the insurance paid 70%, plus the Rxs are paid at 30%-50% only. I would have to pay the balance. For my husband's asthma medication, which is non-generic, that would be over $100/month, every month, on top of the costs above. This plan does not include dental. I could get catastrophic coverage for a lot less for the family, but there would be no Rx coverage and really high deductibles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)