Hawaii Personal Injury Blog - public plan

Public Option Insurance Reform - Blind Medical Student Can See What Obama and Biden Can't

Wayne Parsons — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 03:05:50 GMT

Sorry but I have to say this.

The American public and the major media are showing their laziness and stupidity in the health - insurance - tort reform debate. If the subjects weren't so serious it would be funny. The public option is the only thing that will make health care honest. The health insurance industry has already destroyed the quality of our health care. They deny treatment, refuse to approve prescriptions, lower the doctor reimbursements to a level that degrade medical care and yet at these town hall meetings a bunch of screaming fanatics shout down the one thing that will restore health care in America: the public option.

I saw a Washington Post journalist say that he has no idea where the support for the town hall meetings or Obama hatred comes from. Read my Blog on this subject. There are over 100 right wing radical foundations and think tanks, working closely with Karl Rove and Grover Norquist to advance the interests of AIG insurance and the rich folks of the world, all at your expense.

The History Of Tort Reform - A Story of Corporate Greed And A Conspiracy Against Justice For The People by Wayne Parsons May 02, 2009 5:13 PM

Tort Reform Shows the Connection Between Big Insurance and the Republican Party by Wayne Parsons August 26, 2009 2:54 PM

Why? Because the insurance industry in total control and an "option" means that they will face "competition" if they try to screw you over. Simple. The American way. Why will no major media resource tell us this story? Check out my references and show me where I am wrong.

President Obama has turned his back on the real people, like his mother many years ago. He is caving in to the heavy weights in Washington, D.C. and his verbally feisty VP Biden is doing the same. The President is repeating his mistakes. He has confused lief at Punahou High School and Harvard Law School with being a true leader. I can say that. I contributed the legal maximum amount to their campaign last year.

Baucus and Reid and Polos and the President's team can't pass a Public Option for the health care bill. Why? Because insurance companies don't want it. So why are insurance companies calling the shots for this President of the people with the mandate and 75% of the people wanting a public option? Money. And money rules in the United States.

Read the following story from a blind medical student at Boston University. He speaks for all of us on this issue. Here is his voice:

It is time for our president to uphold his promises to those who elected him, not those with deeper pockets or shriller voices. If Mr. Obama wants to be "the last president to take on health care," we cannot let him compromise this opportunity away.

Editor's note: This is the campus perspective from our partners at UWire.com. Author Iyah ROM is a Boston University medical student.

Two years ago I had an accident-- I fell down a flight of stairs, landed on my head and as a result, am now legally blind. Why is this relevant? As a medical student, I had access to world-class care unlike most others.

That wasn't the case for Paul, a young man with diabetes I met shortly after my accident. He too lost his vision because-- like at least 46.3 million other Americans and 14,000 more each day-- he was uninsured and couldn't afford the insulin he so desperately needed.

And yet, as sad as this is to say, Paul may be relatively fortunate. A recent study in the American Journal of Public Health estimates that 45,000 Americans die each year simply because they lack health insurance.

We need reform. Desperately.

But in the two years since my accident, despite denying claims left and right, the insurance industry spent $16 million, drawn from premiums, on Congressional campaign contributions to fight health care reform legislation. This summer alone, they spent $1.4 million a day opposing reform through insidious and deceptive advertising and lobbying campaigns.

Insurance companies and the politicians who do their bidding, must be curtailed.

The potential loss of this monumental opportunity for meaningful health care reform poses a great threat to our generation.

But the purported goals of reform-- realizing universal access, "bending" the cost curve and improving quality-- have been obfuscated in Congress. And while these goals permeate President Barack Obama's rhetoric, his proposed plan lacks a robust public option truly open to all and the unapologetic regulatory framework necessary to eliminate malignant industry practices. Instead it contains individual mandates that will drive Americans into the arms of insurance companies-- which is just what they want!

Without real reform, premiums are projected to nearly double by 2020. I do not want to witness the 100th millionth uninsured person but I fear that the current legislation is inexorably wedded to maintaining the status quo. It would rest the future of health care on the free market that has already failed us.

As a national policy leader of the American Medical Student Association, I believe the best solution to our health care crisis is a unified, publicly financed, privately delivered system of guaranteed high quality health care for all. For this reason, I support Representative Anthony Weiner's (D-NY) single payer amendment.

At a minimum, a robust public option that is open to all and publicly financed must be incorporated into any health care reform legislation. Such a public-private hybrid is supported by 62.9 percent of physicians and 72 percent of Americans. The Commonwealth Fund estimates that this plan would save $3 trillion over 11 years. The public option currently in play in the House and the Senate will likely enroll less than five percent of Americans, and as such, will lack the power to be a major market force. "Reform" cannot perpetuate the status quo. Care must be more efficient and less costly. Outcomes must be improved and special interests made disinterested.

Every day, we see countless underinsured patients who are denied medically necessary care and who suffer preventable harm. Treatment decisions are too often driven by what's covered rather than what's necessary. The current system forces doctors to choose medications based on compensation-- not indication-- to anticipate a fight for each test or procedure, and, most disturbingly, to deny, or "ration," care based on ability to pay. As doctors we learn to game the system-- but in the process, we also feed its inefficiencies and drive the "cost curve" in the wrong direction.

We did not go to medical school to spend hours pleading with claims specialists for an ultrasound for a young mother with suspicious breast lumps, or for coverage of an essential, non-formulary drug for a hardworking father with multiple sclerosis.

We are trained in evidence-based medicine, not insurance-based medicine. We are not driven to don our white coats to tell a college student struggling with addiction that, "we're sorry, but your insurance only covers three days of in-patient substance abuse treatment; you have to go home now," knowing full well that she will likely return to substance abuse. We see patients discharged from the hospital just days after open-heart surgery, with nowhere to go, and nobody to care for them. It should not be a surprise to anyone that many such patients end up right back in the hospital.

And we certainly did not sign up to stand idly by, handcuffed by fragmentation, to watch people like Paul suffer unnecessary complications from preventable illnesses. Or to see people with costly conditions like another person I know, Jerome, 17, who have their coverage dumped for no apparent reason just when they need it most; Jerome has HIV.

Now is the time to push back. It is time for our president to uphold his promises to those who elected him, not those with deeper pockets or shriller voices. If Mr. Obama wants to be "the last president to take on health care," we cannot let him compromise this opportunity away.
The current proposals would undoubtedly have some marginal effect but would not suffice. We need a fundamental shift away from this failed structure.

All too often we hear our hopes for progress dismissed with a glib "can't happen." But as students and young professionals, we can, have, and will effect profound change. Let's ensure that the first steps to comprehensive reform, a strong public option, are not sacrificed. Our voices have the power to speak louder than the industries that have failed us, but we must act together and we must act now.

Ayah Romm is a medical student at Boston University. He sits on the Health Care for All Steering Campaign for the American Medical Student Association, and is also the Regional Director for New England (Region 1)

What do real doctors have to say to Iyah Romm?

Or tell me what you think about:

Tort Reform Has No Place In Health Care Reform by Wayne ParsonsSeptember 17, 2009 2:53 PM

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Obama Will Not Support Caps On Damages When A Doctor Or Hospital Negligently Injures A Patient

Wayne Parsons — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:11:02 GMT

Everyone knows that medical malpractice limitations supported by the insurance industry and doctors won't affect health insurance premiums at all. The California legislature passed a cap on damages when a doctor or hospital negligently injures a patient over 20 years ago (MICRA) and today the insurance company MIEC charges more for malpractice insurance to California doctors than it charges to Hawaii doctors. Hawaii has no caps on malpractice damages for avoidable medical errors. Texas also caved in to the lobbying pressure of doctors and insurance companies and they are now seeing that this bailout of insurance companies has no benefit to the health care system and only leaves housewives and children who are injured by avoidable medical errors to suffer without compensation while insurance executives and doctors sip champagne and stay in $1,500 hotel rooms with their undeserved spoils.

Obama says that he will not support any caps on damages for those are injured by negligent doctors. This is a huge victory for women and children who are most often punished by caps on damages and, I might say, it is a victory for both truth and common sense.

Good reading on the failure of tort reform in Texas to produce any of the results promised by doctors and insurance companies - and in fact to make things worse - is found in an article written by Mike Ferrara from Cherry Hill, NJ:

Texas Tort Reform is NOT a Model for Nationwide Health Care Reform by Mike Ferrara | September 07, 2009 8:24 PM

Another good article is: Obama's Medical Malpractice Solution by Jane Akre | September 11, 2009 7:24 PM

In the "Political Hotsheet" Blog at CBS News (9/14), Stephanie Condon wrote, "In his speech before Congress last week, President Obama attempted to win Republican support for his health care overhaul by agreeing to consider including medical malpractice reform in his plan. In an interview that aired on CBS' '60 Minutes' on Sunday the president shed some more light on what he meant -- and in which form he will not accept tort reform." Obama "clarified that he is so far not willing to consider capping malpractice judgments, a reform proposal consistently put forward by Republicans."

Fox News' Special Report reported that President Obama "is suggesting that something very important to his political opponents, malpractice law reform, might be on the table. ... The President favors some dry runs first, which Republicans say are unnecessary." Texas and California "have already taken action at the state level and it worked." Rep. Lamar Smith: "Texas passed tort reform in 2003, and premiums went down 30%. California passed tort reform and premiums went down 40%." According to Fox, "Tort reform...does not limit compensation for actual damages or loss of income, but often puts a cap of $250,000 on what are called non-economic damages, punitive payments lawyers seek for pain and suffering. ... President Obama concedes defensive medicine is a problem but said last night he does not support limits on liability. Instead, officials are looking at a certificate of merit program in which a panel of experts decides whether a case has merit before it goes to the court. Interesting idea, but a disappointment to those who thought the President had seen the light on liability reform."

My articles also are worth referring to for Hawaii residents. In Hawaii there are almost no medical malpractice cases filed and we have no tort reform. Last year less than 30 cases were filed against doctors in Hawaii. Still the doctors and insurance companies complain and seek legislative changes like those in Texas and California. Its all shibai as is the outlandish editorial in the Honolulu Star Bulletin on Monday, September 14, 2009. I wonder what kind of cool aide the folks at the Star Bulletin are drinking. They should be doing some serious reading. They can start with my article "The History Of Tort Reform - A Story of Corporate Greed And A Conspiracy Against Justice For The People", May 2, 2009 and also read THE CALA FILES: THE SECRET CAMPAIGN BY BIG TOBACCO AND OTHER MAJOR INDUSTRIES TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS - By Carl Deal and Joanne Doroshow

The Washington Times (9/15) editorializes, "Reformers in both parties want to curb abusive lawsuits that drive medical costs through the roof. Yet Mr. Obama could not even bring himself to say that any suits are abusive, but merely that doctors are for some reason practicing "defensive medicine [that] may be contributing to unnecessary costs." To help pacify them, the best he could offer was to 'direct' Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen [Sebelius] to 'authorize demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues.' This is a mere placebo." But "as part of permanent federal law rather than a vague presidential directive, [such projects] could help improve affordable health care delivery without subjecting the nation's entire health care system to major and dangerous surgery."

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch (9/14) editorialized, "Plenty of reasons exist to support medical malpractice reform. Doing it to slow the dizzying growth in health care spending isn't among them." "Few economists believe tort reform by itself - even the most radical tort reform - would significantly reduce what Americans spend on health care. Most experts say the big reasons for high U.S. health spending are chronic illness, expensive new medical technology and an aging population. Lawsuits are far down the list."

The Jackson (TN) Sun (9/14) editorialized, "When it comes to reforming health care in America, there should be no sacred cows that [are not] subject to review and reform. It makes sense for Obama to put malpractice reform on the table for review. This has been a long-standing thorn in the side of conservatives, and they are right to demand it be reviewed and changed if their case can be made."

So where is the Honolulu Star Bulletin in terms of the facts? Do they care? Maybe in the past they felt that you can always put down lawyers and lawsuits because the public is brainwashed on the subject but those days are no more. The truth is out and the public is beginning to see that closing the courthouse doors to legitimate claims by seriously injured women and children is the work of the rich and powerful against the people. Doctors and insurance companies.

As my friend Steve Lombardi writes in his Des Moines, Iowa Injury Board Blog:

We've been covering Interstate travel safety for the past two-weeks on the Injuryboard and a few of my fellow members have jawed about it nonstop. I know that Wayne Parsons, my friend Devon Glass from Michigan, Mike Bryant from Minnesota, Pierce Egerton from North Carolina and Rick Shapiro from Virginia will all join in with my sentiments about being frustrated. Parents frustrate us when they talk all about tort reform and then turn a blind eye to what their children do. Tort reform isn't about the other guy, it's about us and the decisions we make. Tort reform is actually a distraction from the root cause of injuries and accidents. Taking away the rights of people to receive compensation isn't going to stop the accidents that cause injury and death. All tort reform will do is make those injured or the families of those killed miserable. So stop distracting everyone with taking away the right to receive compensation and ignoring the root causes of injury and death on the highways of America.

Well said, Mr. Lombardi!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Is Obama Caving In To Insurance Companies on Tort Reforn In Health Care Negotiation?

Wayne Parsons — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:36:53 GMT

The AP (9/14) reports, "President Barack Obama began a week that will dwell heavily on overhauling the health care system, declaring himself confident Congress will pass 'a good health care bill' even though some Republican opponents were trying to kill the measure for political gain." In his Wednesday speech and again in an interview broadcast Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes," the President "signaled he was open to so-called tort reform. Under current practice, doctors and hospitals must pay huge amounts to insure themselves against malpractice lawsuits by patients seeking large court-ordered settlements for poor treatment." Reuters (9/13, Bohan) noted that in the "60 Minutes" interview, Obama remained skeptical about medical malpractice caps.

Public increasingly backing malpractice caps. The Washington Post (9/14, Cohen, Balz) reports, "President Obama continues to face significant public resistance to his drive to initiate far-reaching changes to the country's health-care system...to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll," but opposition "has eased somewhat." The poll also found that "GOP insistence on placing new limits on medical malpractice lawsuits finds significant public backing: Nearly two-thirds support caps on the amount of money that can be collected as a result of medical errors, with support increasing since June."

Cost of malpractice awards questioned. McClatchy (9/13, Margolies) reported, "Despite the perception that 'jackpot justice' has fueled soaring costs, hard data yield a different picture." In fact, "it's not clear that malpractice awards have risen anywhere near as dramatically as tort-reform proponents insist. Nor is it clear that jackpot justice, as opposed to declines in insurers' investment income, is to blame for rising malpractice premiums." Tom Baker, "a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and author of The Medical Malpractice Myth, theorized that having 'a common enemy' - trial lawyers - keeps insurance and pharmaceutical companies - the real culprits behind rising costs, he said - from fighting among themselves."

Republicans "underwhelmed" by promise of demonstration projects. The Salt Lake Tribune (9/13, Canham) reported, "While they appreciated the mention, which was met with hearty applause, many Republicans in Washington were underwhelmed by his promise of 'demonstration projects.' The president has authorized the Health and Human Services Department to set up a grant program for states that would focus on ways to reduce costs stemming from patients' lawsuits against medical professionals. But these projects would fall far short of the Republican goal to place a federal cap on damages for pain and suffering."

Commentary backs pilot programs. The Boston Globe (9/13) editorializes, "President Obama was on target in his speech to Congress Wednesday when he called for pilot projects to reform medical malpractice." But "simply capping malpractice awards is not a panacea in reducing health costs." The Obama administration "should give priority to malpractice reform pilot programs that make dispute resolution part of the health delivery system."

In a blog at The Atlantic (9/13), Philip Howard wrote, "A range of malpractice reform proposals will probably be considered over the next few weeks, and it's probably useful to catalog them, and identify the advantages of each. All of these reforms have significant merit, but special health courts are by far the most important in reducing defensive medicine. Each of the reforms can be combined with others, and it would be preferable to combine the best features of each." Howard summarizes some possible proposals.

With 200,000 Americans dying each year due to preventable medical errors and medical malpractice lawsuits shrinking to low levels, it is shocking to see the President selling out the sick and injured. See my earlier story on this subject:

Tort Reform Myth: The Legal System Causes High Malpractice Insurance Premiums

Twelve Tips To Prevent Avoidable, Fatal Medical Errors and Infections in Hospitals

by Wayne Parsons | September 02, 2009 3:47 AM

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Obama opens door to tort reform in healthcare speech.

Wayne Parsons — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:23:17 GMT

The AP (9/10) reports that in his speech before a joint session of Congress last night pushing his ideas for healthcare reform, President Obama said "that he wants to look at a 'range of ideas' to 'put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine.' Obama says some in Congress believe medical malpractice reform can help bring down health care costs. He says he doesn't think it's a 'silver bullet,' but that he knows that doctors practicing 'defensive medicine' can lead to unnecessary costs. He says he's telling Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to move ahead with demonstration projects to see what changes would work best."

If you want the truth President Obama is showing that his lofty promises - and our hopes - were sorely misplaced. Read my other articles on this subject and you will see that you have been sold out by President Obama.

Tort Reform Myth: The Legal System Causes High Malpractice Insurance Premiums

The History Of Tort Reform - A Story of Corporate Greed And A Conspiracy Against Justice For The People

Public Plan, Public Plan, Public Plan!

Jim Dean and Democracy For America Identify Democrats in Congress Who are Cutting Deals With The Insurance Industry

The President only cares about declaring a win. He is confident that he can lie to the public about what he will agree to as he bows to the demands of the mighty insurance industry and the public will believe him. The arrogance of power has led him _ quickly _ to a sad end as a progressive leader. This health care situation is as bad as politics gets. With the control of both houses Obama has cut corrupt deals with the insurance industry because he can't do what he promised.

Count me out. I gave Obama the maximum amount that could be given in his Presidential run. I will not support him again and I will also not support other democrats that are selling out the country on health care reform. I love Neil Abercrombie but if he supports the sellout on tort deform in the President's negotiation I will not support Abercrombie for governor in Hawaii. I am a democrat and a progressive and they are neither if they support this sellout to Big Insurance.

The Washington Post (9/10, A1, Connolly, Shear) reports that Obama's plan would "begin pilot projects aimed at reducing medical malpractice lawsuits." Most of the article focuses on the broader issues in his speech. Deep within its analysis of the speech, the New York Times (9/10, A27, Nagourney) notes that Obama "did offer gestures across the aisle, embracing an idea from Senator John McCain of Arizona that would insure the poor against catastrophic medical expenses and endorsing some sort of medical malpractice limits that Republicans have long championed.

CNN (9/9) added, on its website, that Obama "directed his administration to set up demonstration projects in several states to move toward medical malpractice reform, throwing a bone to Republicans who have long called for tort reform to bring down health care costs. 'I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs,' the president said to a joint session of Congress. ... Mention of the issue prompted applause from the Republican side of the chamber."

The AP (9/10) runs a feature listing the "key points" in Obama's speech, including a mandate for individual healthcare coverage and pressure on businesses to cover their workers, adding, "Medical malpractice reform is not a 'silver bullet,' but practicing 'defensive medicine' can lead to unnecessary costs; demonstration projects will be reviewed to see what changes to medical malpractice insurance would work best."

Tort reform may not dampen health costs much, McClatchy analysis finds. McClatchy (9/10, Margolies) notes, "Few causes in the healthcare debate draw more support than tort reform -- the idea of reining in frivolous lawsuits that lead to unjust cash awards, soaring malpractice premiums and "defensive medicine," the unnecessary tests ordered by doctors to avoid being sued." However, according to a McClatchy analysis, "despite the perception that 'jackpot justice' has fueled soaring costs, hard data yield a much different picture." McClatchy reports that the "most reliable estimates peg the costs of malpractice litigation at 2 percent of overall healthcare costs. And while tort reform measures have helped tamp down malpractice premiums, national health spending continues to rise." Moreover, it is not "clear that jackpot justice, as opposed to declines in insurers' investment income, is to blame for rising malpractice premiums." This "suggests that a tort system run amok is, at best, only a small contributor to the nation's healthcare costs."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Health Care Reform: Each Generation Has to FIGHT For their Own Freedom!

Wayne Parsons — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 05:28:15 GMT

Now is our time to fight for our freedom.

Freedom from the CFO's of Big Insurance.

Feedom from the rich and politically corrupt medical establishment. Every time I think about that I wonder why more honest doctors don't speak up. They know.

President Obama reveals the truth about health care:

I and many others have spoken the truth about the absolute need in the U.S. for single payer, public plan health care.

Myths About Single Payer National Health Insurance

Get insurance executives out of our health care!

Get the Bush and Chaney U.S. Chamber of Commerce out of our health care!

They have hired goons! Yes, goons. The same techniques used to break unions in the first half of the last century. Thoses screaming actors at townhall healthcare meetings across the country are goons. Actors is too kind a word.

Will you fight back? I will.

President Obama is asking all of us to speak up. Not listen, but speak up. The election is over. Now the real work begins.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Myths About World Health Care By Big Insurance

Wayne Parsons — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 22:28:00 GMT

T.R. Reid a former Washington Post reporter and author of "The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care," to be published this week writes on Sunday, August 23, 2009 about 5 Myths About Health Care Around the World‎.

In this article Mr. Reid points out how the rest of the world has found ways to cover everybody and still spend far less than we do in the United States for health care. As is all too common in America these days, poorly informed citizens are duped by slick corporations and politicians in bed with the money, into believing whatever they are fed. And what are they fed? Myths. I could use the word "lies" but I'll keep it civil and just call them myths. Big Insurance wants to keep its greedy hands in the health care system and the Republican party is their best friend in that effort.

I have published articles on the public plan single payer option before.

Myths About Single Payer National Health Insurance

Public Citizen and the Center For Justice & Democracy have been leaders in getting out the truth also.

I feel sorry for people who are gullible enough to think that the rest of the world is stupid and socialist and that their health care can't compare to ours. They've been watching too many movies and listening to too much right wing talk radio and watching the talking heads on Fox News. The truth doesn't matter to those folks. They take advantage of a gullible public.

Here are the 5 Myths that Mr. Reid has identified. This is great stuff. I hope you read it!

1. It's all socialized medicine out there.

Not so. Some countries, such as Britain, New Zealand and Cuba, do
provide health care in government hospitals, with the government
paying the bills. Others -- for instance, Canada and Taiwan -- rely on
private-sector providers, paid for by government-run insurance. But
many wealthy countries -- including Germany, the Netherlands, Japan
and Switzerland -- provide universal coverage using private doctors,
private hospitals and private insurance plans.

In some ways, health care is less "socialized" overseas than in the
United States. Almost all Americans sign up for government insurance
(Medicare) at age 65. In Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands,
seniors stick with private insurance plans for life. Meanwhile, the
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the planet's purest
examples of government-run health care.

2. Overseas, care is rationed through limited choices or long lines.

Generally, no. Germans can sign up for any of the nation's 200 private
health insurance plans -- a broader choice than any American has. If a
German doesn't like her insurance company, she can switch to another,
with no increase in premium. The Swiss, too, can choose any insurance
plan in the country.

In France and Japan, you don't get a choice of insurance provider; you
have to use the one designated for your company or your industry. But
patients can go to any doctor, any hospital, any traditional healer.
There are no U.S.-style limits such as "in-network" lists of doctors
or "pre-authorization" for surgery. You pick any doctor, you get
treatment -- and insurance has to pay.

Canadians have their choice of providers. In Austria and Germany, if a
doctor diagnoses a person as "stressed," medical insurance pays for
weekends at a health spa.

As for those notorious waiting lists, some countries are indeed
plagued by them. Canada makes patients wait weeks or months for
nonemergency care, as a way to keep costs down. But studies by the
Commonwealth Fund and others report that many nations -- Germany,
Britain, Austria -- outperform the United States on measures such as
waiting times for appointments and for elective surgeries.

In Japan, waiting times are so short that most patients don't bother
to make an appointment. One Thursday morning in Tokyo, I called the
prestigious orthopedic clinic at Keio University Hospital to schedule
a consultation about my aching shoulder. "Why don't you just drop by?"
the receptionist said. That same afternoon, I was in the surgeon's
office. Dr. Nakamichi recommended an operation. "When could we do it?"
I asked. The doctor checked his computer and said, "Tomorrow would be
pretty difficult. Perhaps some day next week?"

3. Foreign health-care systems are inefficient, bloated bureaucracies.

Much less so than here. It may seem to Americans that U.S.-style free
enterprise -- private-sector, for-profit health insurance -- is
naturally the most cost-effective way to pay for health care. But in
fact, all the other payment systems are more efficient than ours.

U.S. health insurance companies have the highest administrative costs
in the world; they spend roughly 20 cents of every dollar for
nonmedical costs, such as paperwork, reviewing claims and marketing.
France's health insurance industry, in contrast, covers everybody and
spends about 4 percent on administration. Canada's universal insurance
system, run by government bureaucrats, spends 6 percent on
administration. In Taiwan, a leaner version of the Canadian model has
administrative costs of 1.5 percent; one year, this figure ballooned
to 2 percent, and the opposition parties savaged the government for
wasting money.

The world champion at controlling medical costs is Japan, even though
its aging population is a profligate consumer of medical care. On
average, the Japanese go to the doctor 15 times a year, three times
the U.S. rate. They have twice as many MRI scans and X-rays. Quality
is high; life expectancy and recovery rates for major diseases are
better than in the United States. And yet Japan spends about $3,400
per person annually on health care; the United States spends more than
$7,000.

4. Cost controls stifle innovation.

False. The United States is home to groundbreaking medical research,
but so are other countries with much lower cost structures. Any
American who's had a hip or knee replacement is standing on French
innovation. Deep-brain stimulation to treat depression is a Canadian
breakthrough. Many of the wonder drugs promoted endlessly on American
television, including Viagra, come from British, Swiss or Japanese
labs.

Overseas, strict cost controls actually drive innovation. In the
United States, an MRI scan of the neck region costs about $1,500. In
Japan, the identical scan costs $98. Under the pressure of cost
controls, Japanese researchers found ways to perform the same
diagnostic technique for one-fifteenth the American price. (And
Japanese labs still make a profit.)

5. Health insurance has to be cruel.

Not really. American health insurance companies routinely reject
applicants with a "preexisting condition" -- precisely the people most
likely to need the insurers' service. They employ armies of adjusters
to deny claims. If a customer is hit by a truck and faces big medical
bills, the insurer's "rescission department" digs through the records
looking for grounds to cancel the policy, often while the victim is
still in the hospital. The companies say they have to do this stuff to
survive in a tough business.

Foreign health insurance companies, in contrast, must accept all
applicants, and they can't cancel as long as you pay your premiums.
The plans are required to pay any claim submitted by a doctor or
hospital (or health spa), usually within tight time limits. The big
Swiss insurer Groupe Mutuel promises to pay all claims within five
days. "Our customers love it," the group's chief executive told me.
The corollary is that everyone is mandated to buy insurance, to give
the plans an adequate pool of rate-payers.

The key difference is that foreign health insurance plans exist only
to pay people's medical bills, not to make a profit. The United States
is the only developed country that lets insurance companies profit
from basic health coverage.

In many ways, foreign health-care models are not really "foreign" to
America, because our crazy-quilt health-care system uses elements of
all of them. For Native Americans or veterans, we're Britain: The
government provides health care, funding it through general taxes, and
patients get no bills. For people who get insurance through their
jobs, we're Germany: Premiums are split between workers and employers,
and private insurance plans pay private doctors and hospitals. For
people over 65, we're Canada: Everyone pays premiums for an insurance
plan run by the government, and the public plan pays private doctors
and hospitals according to a set fee schedule. And for the tens of
millions without insurance coverage, we're Burundi or Burma: In the
world's poor nations, sick people pay out of pocket for medical care;
those who can't pay stay sick or die.

This fragmentation is another reason that we spend more than anybody
else and still leave millions without coverage. All the other
developed countries have settled on one model for health-care delivery
and finance; we've blended them all into a costly, confusing
bureaucratic mess.

Which, in turn, punctures the most persistent myth of all: that
America has "the finest health care" in the world. We don't. In terms
of results, almost all advanced countries have better national health
statistics than the United States does. In terms of finance, we force
700,000 Americans into bankruptcy each year because of medical bills.
In France, the number of medical bankruptcies is zero. Britain: zero.
Japan: zero. Germany: zero.

Given our remarkable medical assets -- the best-educated doctors and
nurses, the most advanced hospitals, world-class research -- the
United States could be, and should be, the best in the world. To get
there, though, we have to be willing to learn some lessons about
health-care administration from the other industrialized democracies.

T.R. Reid

The story is getting wide notice around the country by such resources for accurate information as Jack & Jill Politics.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Public Plan, Public Plan, Public Plan!

Wayne Parsons — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 02:51:57 GMT

The Republican - Insurance Industry attack on the Public Plan, Single Payer Health Care Plan is about as corrupt and shallow as politics get anywhere. The only hole low enough for them to stoop after this recent Town Hall Meeting scam of sending hired goons to disrupt meetings, is car bombs and terrorism. And I for one do not put them past that. This is a crazed group.

They talk a lot about the "Left".

Who are they talking about?

Who are the "Left"?

47 Million Americans are LEFT without insurance.

That is the LEFT.

What is your experience with insurance companies in Hilo? Kaneohe? Honolulu? Oahu? Kapolei?

We all know what insurance companies do. They accept our premiums and deny our claims.

The Public Plan will end the insurance industry stranglehold on our health care and on the greedy politicians in Washington who covet Big Insurance PAC contributions.

I have written a lot on this before:

The History Of Tort Reform - A Story of Corporate Greed And A Conspiracy Against Justice For The People

Single Payer Health Care Reform Is In Sight - But Watch Out For Big Insurance Trying To Stop It

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

News From Congress: You Don't Matter In The Health Care War

Wayne Parsons — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:19:39 GMT

Look what happened while I and my staff was at Maluhia Nursing home in Honolulu on Monday donating two Nintendo Wii video games to the delighted residents as a part of the national effort by 60 law firms, who are part of the Injury Board, in 25 states to help bring some fun and exercise by the less fortunate in our Hawaii community? Wiihabilitation Comes To Honolulu!

I was feeling great having seen the smiles on the faces of the mostly wheel chair bound nursing home residents and then came home to TV news that Big Insurance and corporate CEO's are stealing the hope for change that we all had in January. They are stealing the health care battle from the people. That is us. The people.

This isn't a night time sneak attack. Big Insurance, Fox News, the radical right are all doing tis in broad daylight right in front of us. The people. You and me. No, its not a nameless drive by. They are right in Anderson Cooper's pretty face and Wolf Blitzer's bouncy salt and pepper hair. Daylight burglary is scary. The criminal is arrogant and sending a message. Big Inurance gives a new meaning to arrongance. Do you care?

Did you get the message? If not, here it is:

YOU DON'T MATTER!

Make no mistake. The Obama Presidency is facing a test of whether or not the hope of an Obama Presidency at the inauguration in January 2009 was just a theatrical event or whether the lock on Washington buy corporations and insurance executives will in fact be broken. If we do not get a public, single payer health care plan passed this year then I think the Obama dream is over. I smell a rat among democrats. All republicans gave ever cared about is money so at least they are honest about it.

Myths About Single Payer National Health Insurance - By Wayne Parsons

Single Payer Health Care Reform Is In Sight - But Watch Out For Big Insurance Trying To Stop It - By Wayne Parsons

Will Congress respond to the undeniable overwhelming public desire to get Big Insurance completely out of health care and to implement a public single payer system. For Republicans and the so-called Blue Dog Democrats this is all about money except perhaps for a few in Congress who are illiterate about the facts. After watching Sarah Palin run for the vice Presidency we all know that some in elected office are completely ignorant and do not care.

Here is the picture. Seventy-five percent of the country knows that Big Insurance will ruin and corrupt the health care system if they maintain their lock on the process. They will rake in the money, deny treatment, chisel doctors out of fair fees and then award themselves with huge bonuses, fancy retreats and all that we have seen. Panic stricken by the public desire and support for a public plan, the insurance industry hires goons to organize fake opposition at Town Hall meetings. You'd think that would last about two minutes with crack journalists reporting on this shibai, but major media gets a lot of its money for advertising from the insurance industry and the new reporters aren't really journalists, they are actors and were picked from runway models and fraternity parties. So they go soft on this blatantly open phony protest the uses words like "communism" and "traitor" to the cameras.

If you don't see parallels to right wing corporate disruption in other eras and other countries then you are missing something. This is about money and power and so far you don't matter.

"You don't matter" is an interesting concept in a democracy. You don't matter means that the insurance industry and the right wing political operatives in the media ( all of Fox News which is a tool of Karl Rove and the Dick Chaney crowd) are counting on the fact that you won't do anything including understanding the phony protest. The election is over and now you don't care any more. Sadly it is probably true.

I am hopping mad about this scandalous sell out of the country. But I am just one voice and what can one voice do? If 10 people read this article I'll be lucky. I suspect the Google and Yahoo searches today will be in the familiar areas of sex, porn, recipes and shopping. Term papers will be researched, lost friends will be searched for and the weekend photos will be going up on Facebook, MySpace, Flicker and Twitter. Meanwhile, a presidential election full of hope and purpose is being ruined. Why?

Here are some links that will educate on the current situation. They are important if you still want to fight for democracy and if you are sick and tired of corporate CEO's running our country. I sure am! The question isn't whether the progressive majority is unreasonably resisting reform to save the public option. The question is whether a small minority of conservative Democrats will sabotage reform simply to stop the public option.

[1] New York Times

The futile quest for bipartisanship may be dead. NYT: [1] "...Democrats now say they see little chance of the minority's cooperation in approving any overhaul, and are increasingly focused on drawing support for a final plan from within their own ranks ... 'The Republican leadership,' [Rahm] Emanuel said, 'has made a strategic decision that defeating President Obama's health care proposal is more important for their political goals than solving the health insurance problems that Americans face every day.'"

[2] Huffington Post

House digging in on public option. HuffPost: [2] "House Democrats dialed in Tuesday for their weekly caucus meeting and uniformly expressed support for a public health insurance option as part of comprehensive reform. Not a single member spoke up on behalf of co- ops, according to both people on the call and people briefed on it ... 'I was surprised there were so many people who were still so firm on [the public option],' said a participant. 'A lot of people were saying this is what they're hearing from their constituents.'"

[3] The New Republic

TNR's Noam Scheiber credits strong pushback from Left: [3] "Around the conference table at TNR, we've been saying for weeks that what Obama really needed was a group of equally vocal, equally zealous critics on the left, pulling the debate's center of gravity in the other direction. And, wouldn't you know, that's exactly what's happened over the last 48 hours."

[4] http://www.cq.com/display.do?docid=3192349&sourcetype=6

GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley dumps cold water on negotiations in CQ interview, indicates politics trumps policy: [4] "The climate has changed a little bit in the last month ... But I can't measure it at this point. We're only the second week into a recess. I think it has changed. But I don't know exactly how, except it's more chancy ... Maybe it's more difficult now than before, because there is kind of a feeling out there that there might be something wrong with our health care system but we think Congress is going to screw it up, so maybe it's better to do nothing ... The town meetings obviously have to cause me to reassess, but I can't do the reassessment just because of two weeks ... First of all I'm representing Iowa. I got to think about what Iowans are telling me. Secondly I have to observe how the impact nationally might affect Republicans."

[5] http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/can_reconciliation_work_for_he.html

Ezra Klein argues for a different policy approach if Senate budget procedure is used to prevent filibuster: [5] "the 2004 Dean proposal, which I've been talking about lately, offers a good example of the sort of bill you could pass. Dean basically folds the Children's Health Insurance Program and Medicaid into one program called the Families and Children Health Insurance Program and makes everyone up to 185 percent of the poverty line eligible for it. He also allows people between the ages of 55 and 65 to buy into Medicare. He creates a tax credit for people in the middle ... That's not a great outcome, but that's probably the best you can get in reconciliation, and it would be a step forward."

[6] http://blog.healthcareforamericanow.org/2009/08/18/nbcwsj-poll-results-misleading-they-changed-the-questions

[6] http://blog.healthcareforamericanow.org/2009/08/18/nbcwsj-poll-results-misleading-they-changed-the-questions/

and

[7] http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/08/18/2034778.aspx

HCAN knocks NBC/WSJ poll for dropping the word "choice" from its poll question on public option [6], resulting in weaker support. NBC responds. [7]

[8] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/18/AR2009081803655.html?hpid=topnews⊂=AR

WH aides blame progressives, not Blue Dogs: Condescending remarks towards progressives from unnamed WH aides in W. Post: [8] "'I don't understand why the left of the left has decided that this is their Waterloo,' said a senior White House adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. 'We've gotten to this point where health care on the left is determined by the breadth of the public option. I don't understand how that has become the measure of whether what we achieve is health-care reform.' 'It's a mystifying thing,' he added. 'We're forgetting why we are in this.' Another top aide expressed chagrin that a single element in the president's sprawling health-care initiative has become a litmus test for whether the administration is serious about the issue. 'It took on a life of its own,' he said."

[9] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/health-care-let-the-major_b_262666.html

Robert Borosage puts the burden on the Blue Dogs to get out of the way of reform: [9] "There are a lot of talking heads out arguing that the 'left' shouldn't be so extreme as to risk health care reform by insisting on the public option or the lifting of the absurd ban on negotiating lower drug prices. The reality is exactly the reverse. It is the handful of Blue Dogs and conservative Democrats in the House and Senate that are standing in the way of the majority in favor of a comprehensive plan.

In "Health Care - Let The Majority Be Heard" Robert Borosage makes the point well:

The editors of the Wall Street Journal say that the public option in health care reform has been "sent to the death panel." Obama "concedes" the public option, reports the Financial Times. Even liberals seem to agree. The public option is "all but gone," writes Bob Herbert of the New York Times. The American Prospect's Mark Schmitt mourns its "likely death."

Nonsense. There is no reason to exaggerate the strength of the small tong of conservative Democrats and claque of obstructionist Republicans standing in the way of reform. Here's the reality:

Offering a public plan as a choice to compete with the private insurance companies has continued strong support in polling. President Obama favors it. The Democratic leadership in both the House and the Senate support it. More importantly, a majority of legislators in the House and a broad majority of Democrats in the Senate will vote for it. Needless to say, the activist base of the party thinks it vital.

The only question is whether a small minority of Democrats in the Senate will dig themselves into such a rabid fever that they would sabotage health care reform itself to stop the public option. Whether their animus derives from ideology or insurance company contributions, it is inconceivable that a handful of Blue Dogs in the House or conservative Dems in the Senate would block the president's key reform to make their point. It would also be suicidal, for if 1994 is any indication, Democrats -- particularly those from more conservative districts -- will pay a harsh price at the polls in 2010 if they fail to pass reform.

Citizens can help concentrate their minds. Legislators have heard from the screamers in the town meetings. They've been besieged by legions of insurance company lobbyists. They've comforted seniors terrified by the lies being peddled. Now it is time for them to hear from the majority of citizens, and the vast majority of Democratic voters who want health care reform that works, one that includes both a public plan as an option to compete with the insurance companies, and the lower drug prices that will result from enabling Medicare to use its buying power to gain discounts for patients.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Single Payer Health Care Reform Is In Sight - But Watch Out For Big Insurance Trying To Stop It

Wayne Parsons — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:11:09 GMT

I just watched a disgusting story on CNN about a $900 wheelchair. The wheelchair can be bought on new E-Bay for $300 with free shipping. Or the manufacturer will sell it to you for $600. But if you get it through the current private health insurance system it will cost close to $1,000. Why is that?

Well the truth be told, the current health care insurance system is so inefficient and corrupt that it allows these types of abuses. No it isn't the doctor's fault. He or she worked hard to get through medical school and just prescribes wheel chairs for people who need them. And it isn't lawyers who are causing the problem. They are only involved in holding bad doctors accountable for the injuries they cause and that involves only a small percentage of the medical profession. We have have less than 50 lawsuits a year against doctors in Hawaii each year. The problem is that medical supply outfits have found ways to get into the system and gouge the public to the tune of $600 in fraudulent profits for a $300 wheelchair.

I support H.R. 676: Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act because the present system benefits only the insurance industry and medical supply scammers like the one portrayed on CNN. The TV news is full of stories on health care reform but you can tell that the networks and major media are fearful of a backlash from the insurance industry and the millions of dollars of advertising revenues that are being poured into the slick ads that mislead the public about H.R. 676. As reported by FAIR:

Many Americans and healthcare workers see single-payer national health insurance as the most sensible tool for fixing America's broken healthcare system, yet single-payer is being kept off the table by the corporate media.

Thousands of people have signed onto FAIR's call for the TV networks to cover single-payer--including filmmaker Michael Moore, Obama's longtime physician Dr. David Scheiner, former MSNBC host Phil Donahue, actor Mike Farrell, Donna Smith of the California Nurses Association, and Doctors Quentin Young, Stephanie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein of Physicians for a National Health Program.

Join FAIR, Healthcare Now!, Physicians for a National Health Program and the Raging Grannies on July 28 to deliver this message at ABC News' NYC studio.

ABC's recent primetime forum on healthcare reform, "Prescription for America," did not include a single question from a single-payer advocate, after Obama's own longtime doctor was censored by ABC. Join us in presenting ABC with a prescription for a real debate on healthcare reform--one that includes single-payer.

The Daily Kos has a lot of healthy discussion of the single payer issue with physician input.

Please help us get to 10,000 signatures by adding your name at http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/592/t/9039/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=1993 and forwarding this petition widely. FAIR asks for your support to stop major media censoring of this story:

Not only does the public overwhelmingly support H.R. 676 but 59 percent of physicians, support the public plan according to a report in the Annals of Internal Medicine (4/1/08).

Yet a recent study by FAIR found that of hundreds of stories about health care in major outlets earlier this year, only five stories included the views of advocates of single-payer--none of which appeared on the television networks.

The insurance lobbies and many politicians may not want to talk about single-payer. But that makes it all the more important that the media do.

Please cover single-payer healthcare proposals, and stop silencing their advocates.

What do you think about a $900 wheelchair? Isn't that some form of theft!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Does Obama Want A Public Plan for Health Care Reform? Or an Insurance Plan? At a Town Hall Event, He Says That Malpractice Caps Are Bad.

Wayne Parsons — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:30:06 GMT

President Obama's town hall meeting on healthcare reform generated extensive media coverage. USA Today (7/2, Page) reports that the event "lacked the energetic free-for-all quality of the town hall sessions Obama held during the campaign. The questions posed from social media networks were selected by White House staffers, and the three people he called on from the audience all were affiliated with advocacy groups that support Obama."

The Politico (7/1, Brown) reported, "The White House chose a YouTube video from Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), a physician and a critic of the president's plan who said limits on medical malpractice awards would bring down health care costs – a position the president doesn't hold. Strangely, however, Burgess didn't identify himself as a sitting member of Congress."

The AP (7/1) reported, "President Barack Obama is standing by his opposition to caps on jury awards to people who successfully sue for medical malpractice. But Obama also told a town hall meeting on health policy that he is sensitive to the complaints of doctors and other health care professionals that the threat of lawsuits is harming the profession and driving up costs. The president said Wednesday that the specter of lawsuits has forced many in the medical community to practice 'defensive medicine,' saying doctors often order up excessive tests just to cover themselves."

Of course the facts dispute the connection between health care costs and lawsuits against negligent doctors who injure patients.

Tort Reform Myth: The Legal System Causes High Malpractice Insurance Premiums

The truth is that what needs reforming is the insurance industry and HMO's. The public wants insurance companies out of their doctors offices. As long as the greedy tentacles of America's lowest esteemed industry _ Insurance _ are in the health care system, the patients (who are also voters) and their doctors (who are also voters) are going to get screwed. My only question is why in the world President Obama who campaigned against insurance company abuses, is now compromising to satisfy them? And why is Congress wavering on a public plan?

Business as usual is the reason. They all think that we voted and then went brain dead. They think we aren't smart enough to figure it out. They think that we will buy whatever false advertising they put out about health care. They underestimate us. Will you add your voice to this mess?

The Washington Post (7/2, Shear, Vargas), the Los Angeles Times (7/2, Levey), the New York Times (7/2, A12, Zeleny) and the Washington Times (7/2, Ward) also cover the story.

McCain calls for caps. The Arizona Republic (7/2, Alltucker, Kelly) reports, "As President Barack Obama pressed his case for an overhaul of the nation's health-care system, Sen. John McCain on Wednesday urged caution and warned that the plan would lead to a single-payer health-care system with rationed and lower-quality care." McCain "called for curbs to medical-malpractice awards, citing Texas and California as examples where such reforms helped contain costs. He estimated that 10 percent to 20 percent of medical bills are padded due to extra tests ordered by doctors practicing 'defensive medicine' because they fear being sued for malpractice."

What are these people talking about? They write these articles without ever opening up a book or investigating the facts. Take a look at what Public Citizen says:

The Great Medical Malpractice Hoax: NPDB Data Continue to Show Medical Liability System Produces Rational Outcomes

The Washington Times is nothing more than a political action committee for the insurance industry. They don't care about the fact that there is a huge crisis of doctors causing serious injury and death to their patients (I must always note this is only a "few" doctors and that most doctors are not hurting their patients). They just want to protect the bank accounts of the insurance executives like those at AIG who partied with $900 hotel rooms on bailout money. Here is what the Washington Times says:

Obama must fix liability system. The Washington Times (7/1) editorialized, "President Obama can't fix health care without taking on trial lawyers." Obama "won't address one major cause of the high costs of medical care: There are too many lawsuits, and they are too lucrative." If Obama "is serious about making health care less expensive, he will have to fix the liability system. That means taking on his own kind - the lawyers. That's not a very likely remedy."

If you wonder why newspapers are failing look no farther than these quotes. The newspaper industry used to be part of a profession called "journalism"> We laughed at the Soviet Union where Pravda was a political arm of the communist party. Well we now have that system in our conventional media. Fox is the arm of the neo-conservatives, Karl Rove and Grover Norquist and puts out political dogma just like Pravda. Newspapers have become more and more the play things of their elite owners. The media in this country sold out when 9-11 happened. There is no coming back.

Markos Moulitsas Zúñiga changed the way we get information in the aftermath of the tragedy of the Twin Towers. The Daily Kos was born. Its called the Groundswell and it is about people and it is about communication and it is about accountability.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons