Americans Need to Know: It's Likely Your Health Care Is Already Governnment Run- Any Complaints?

If you're an American with health insurance, it's about a 40 percent chance you are enrolled in a government benefit plan. Beneficiaries of Medicaid, Medicare, Tricare, Veterans Health Care, Government Service (GS) workers like the US post office employees or other federal positions, the United States Congress, the executive and judicial branches of government, workers at the Centers for Disease Control, the Public Health Department and the National Institutes for Health (NIH), the disabled on Supplemental Security Income (SSI), people on kidney dialysis, and Native Americans living on reservations are part of the government run health care system.

Are these millions of beneficiaries complaining about their choice of provider, or the cost, quality and/or access to care in their health coverage? Of course not.

It seems to me, President Clinton and now President Obama missed their communications messages when they failed to point out how much of our US health care is already federally managed - which includes the management of the cost of care. Rather than consumers, it's actually providers and insurers who are terrified of a government run health care system. Why? Because the government can use the volume of services it purchases as leverage against costs. In other words, the more health care the government buys, the greater the influence over reducing the cost.

Physicians point out that Medicare reimbursement does not cover their costs. Nevertheless, most physicians continue to care for Medicare patients. Why? Because of simple multiplication. Although each patent's bill does not cover the cost of the care provided, the number of patients seen in a day multiplied by the payment for the total number visits in a day can generate a small profit margin in a well managed and efficient physician's office. Consequently, Medicare is parsimonious when looking at increasing physician reimbursement because the economies of scale compensates for the low per unit cost paid for a visit.

This is one example of how the government keeps costs under control.

There is no perfect health care system. A single payer system can easily become inefficient for lack of competitive controls. For example, if all health care is paid for by one source, i.e., the government, then providers in highly efficient systems risk being financially burdened by the less efficient systems receiving the very same reimbursement from the single payer. There must be incentives to providers who provide efficient care with demonstrated quality outcomes.

A universal health care plan offered by competitive insurers is a good idea if people can also choose a public option; but the cost of receiving a benefit plan must include the requirement for insurers to take high risk clients with expensive pre-existing conditions. On the other hand, if these high risk-high cost patients are offered the public plan as an alternative, then the tax payers will be paying for their expensive care. Nevertheless, this already happens with kidney dialysis patients. Insurance companies pay very little for kidney dialysis because these high cost patients are, generally, automatically eligible for Medicare regardless of their age. Do you think private insurance plans supported this humane rule for kidney dialysis patients to opt for a Medicare plan? You bet they did! They put the high cost-high risk patients clearly on the government health care benefit.

Health care reform is already costly. The scary figure of $1 trillion dollars to fund health care reform, recently calculated by the GAO, neglected to mention how this money is already being spent. It's spent in the cost of caring for the uninsured and charity care. Moreover, it's also spent in the profits private insurance companies make by taking your premiums and not paying for the care you received until months after you obtained services. How many hospital patients continue to receive bills months and years after being discharged from care? Lots. Where is this money you paid in premiums which is not going to the hospitals? It's in the insurance companies profit/loss reports, written in black ink.

Americans and our policy makers must get to the issue of health care as a right rather than a privilege. Of course, this raises another set of ethical issues not relative to this commentary.

Meanwhile, when it comes to the cost of a government run health care system, just look around you. Tag! It's quite likely you are it.

Burka Update

Burka update: I posted a complimentary blog about our Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on January 18, 2007, regarding her sans burka appearance with the Saudi royal prince. I'm updating new and ongoing news regarding this symbol of feminine subservience and (in my opinion) passive violence toward women. Let me be clear, I am supportive of the right of women to wear clothing appropriate to their customs but the burka, in my opinion, goes well beyond custom - it's hideous.

Now, President Sarkozy of France has commented as per the BBC:Sarkozy speaks out about the wearing of the burka:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8112821.stm

Mr Sarkozy was speaking at a special session of parliament in Versailles
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has spoken out strongly against the wearing of the burka by Muslim women in France.

In a major policy speech, he said the burka - a garment covering women from head to toe - reduced them to servitude and undermined their dignity.

Mr Sarkozy also gave his backing to the establishment of a parliamentary commission to look at whether to ban the wearing of burkas in public.

In 2004, France banned the Islamic headscarves in its state schools.

'Not welcome'

"We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity," Mr Sarkozy told a special session of parliament in Versailles.

"That is not the idea that the French republic has of women's dignity.

"The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic," the French president said.


But he stressed that France "must not fight the wrong battle", saying that "the Muslim religion must be respected as much as other religions" in the country.

A group of a cross-party lawmakers is already calling for a special inquiry into whether Muslim women who wear the burka is undermining French secularism, the BBC's Emma Jane Kirby in Paris says.

The lawmakers also want to examine whether women who wear the veil are doing so voluntarily or are being forced to cover themselves, our correspondent says.

Mr Sarkozy's speech was the first a French president has made to parliament since the 19th century - made possible by a constitutional amendment he introduced last year.

Later on Monday, Mr Sarkozy was expected to meet the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifah al-Thani.

In 2004, France banned the Islamic headscarf and other conspicuous religious symbols from public schools, triggering heated debate in the country and abroad.

Members of the French government have been divided over the issue.

The immigration minister, Eric Besson, has said a full ban will only "create tensions" while the junior minister for human rights, Rama Yade, said she would accept a ban if it was aimed at protecting women forced to wear the burka.

France's official Muslim council has criticised the debate.

"To raise the subject like this, via a parliamentary committee, is a way of stigmatising Islam and the Muslims of France," said Mohammed Moussaoui, head of the French Council for the Muslim Religion.

France is home to about five million Muslims.


Thursday, January 18, 2007
Sitting in Saudi Arabia Sans Burka: Condoleezza Rice

People who follow fashion and haute couture will get a fright-night scare by checking out this webpage: ttp://www.alhannah.com/cgi-bin/avg?a;niqab. Thankfully, our United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was not interested in the latest Riyadh designs for the all concealing "burka" or Islam veil when she sat side by side with her hosts and Arab peers during a recent televised visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Congratulations and a heart felt "thank you", Madame Secreatary, for making a magnificent presence in Riyadh sans berka.

In my opinion, the berka (or burka) is symbolic of everything that is wrong with the Islam culture and prevents me from understanding how any good can come of out of this world dominant and growing religious faith. Can the Islam civilization be considered civilized when, by religious custom and via the writings of its founder Mohamed, women are required to hide themselves? We are talking about at least 50 percent of the Islam population who are required to put themselves behind scarves. This custom or practice defies modesty. It is plain suppression.

Suppressed women cannot contribute to the conversation at any level. Therefore, I submit, the Islam nations of the world are only hearing from half their constituents.

I expect Condoleezza Rice was not shown on Saudi Arabian television sitting next to her peers without wearing a berka. No doubt, this news was either ignored altogether or heavily censored, at best. Indeed, I suspect the snippets we saw on American television were clandestinely filmed. Did anybody notice Condoleezza Rice without a berka? It is a very big deal for a woman not to cover her head in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, it's even a much bigger deal to sit at the big guys table without any veil. Berka, indeed! Madame Secretary, you looked magnificent. Although your statements were muted in the report I saw, you actually didn't have to speak at all. Your presence sans berka was enough for me. You are a liberating image to women who must, at times, wonder why most of the world finds the berka to be repressive, disrespectful and a symbol of violent sexual oppression, based entirely upon the fact that a human being happens to be born a female.

Although I've never publsihed a prophecy in my life, my first attempt at this mystic concept is this: When Islam women shed the berka, we will see peace in the Middle East.

Thank you Madame Secretary Condoleezza Rice for going to Saudi Arabia sans berka.

Post Script: March 4, 2007 - BBC News: "Iran Women Arrested After Protest"
(Seventy people were arrested at last June's demonstration)

Iran's authorities arrested more than 32 women activists protesting outside a courthouse in Tehran. The protesters were showing solidarity with five women on trial for organising a protest last June against laws they say discriminate against women.

The five were charged with endangering national security, propaganda against the state and taking part in an illegal gathering.

US pressure group, Human Rights Watch, urged an end to the prosecution.

It said the women were exercising their right to freedom of peaceful assembly.

The five are organisers of a demonstration last June which was violently broken up by the police and led to the arrest of 70 people, many of them innocent bystanders.

'Intimidation'

The BBC's Frances Harrison, reporting from the demonstration, says almost all the leaders of Iran's women's movement were arrested.

The women held up banners outside the revolutionary court, saying: "We have the right to hold peaceful protests".

The aim of the women is to draw attention to discriminatory Islamic laws on polygamy and child custody that often cause great suffering to women, our correspondent says.

When the five women on trial left the court building they were arrested again, along with their lawyer.

Parveen Adalan, one of those on trial, said her lawyer had not yet seen any of the evidence against her, although she has been questioned five times by the intelligence agencies.

"They didn't give them our documents to read, so we don't know what's happening," she told the BBC.

One of the women demonstrators, Nahid Mirhaj, accused the police of trying to intimidate them.

She said the police chief was "using obscene words and describing us as 'misfits'".

Our correspondent says police and plain-clothes security men chased away journalists and onlookers and then loaded the women onto a curtained minibus and drove them away.

The women believe the authorities are trying to intimidate them to prevent any kind of protest during International Women's Day on 8 March.

Labels: Condoleezza Rice, Islam Berka, Islam women, Saudi Arabia

Postscript: I received several comments about this burka post; but, due to the prevalence of perversity on blogs, I choose to block comments. Please send me your comments at e-mail: oneturkeyrun@suscom-maine.net - if you would like to be posted on this blog. All comments appropriate to the subject of the blog will be posted unedited.

Tea Parties in the Park

National Tea Party protests took place in over 800 locales - but it's where they are held, on tax payers' property, that really gets me angry.

Most of these Tea Parties attract right wing extremists who are running out of good ideas about how to help America.

Rather, these people are going back to the future - the colonial times, to be precise. Too bad they can't come up with an original idea about how to move a grass roots effort forward. Instead, they are making a mockery of our democracy by plagiarizing colonial rebellion.

Moreover, these extremists are protesting in parks, in front of the Alamo in San Antonio, and places where nice people want to enjoy being outdoors - on tax supported public property.

They're taking over public places where American tax dollars are used to support the very tea parties where these participants are carrying on about taxes.

It's like saying, "Hey, Mom, I'm leaving home because you don't love me anymore," and going outside to sleep in the family car. You haven't accomplished anything.

In fact, where would tea party participants go if we stopped paying for public parks with tax money? It gets pretty cold sitting in the family car and it doesn't get you any attention, either.

These tea parties need to go where the problem really exists - on Wall Street. Otherwise, please, leave our tax paid for public parks out of the television cameras. You tea party extremists are desecrating our tax payers rights to enjoy the benefits earned by paying taxes.

In other words, tea party folks should quit whining - stop being hypocritical, just because you don't like who won the last Presidential election.

Iraq and AIG - If Only?

Americans are finally united in outrage about something. We agree about the ridiculously obscene bonus money AIG corporate executives claimed at taxpayers expense. Indeed, the money should be given back voluntarily, but there's slim chance of this given the people who stole the funds have no conscious.

It's called bank robbery when ordinary people steal money from financial institutions. When corporate executives take money, the rules change and it becomes unethical or selfish. It's still bank robbery, nonetheless.

My question is more about how we arrived at the mess we are in today?

Americans should have been as united in outrage about invading Iraq in 2003, simply because we didn't like the dictator, as we are about AIG thieves today. We were lied to about the Iraq War, by our most trusted leaders. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We invaded a country without a reason to do so; and now this war is not winnable. It won't take long after American troops leave for the Iraqi government to become just as tyrannical as it was before we showed up. It's like Animal Farm 2009 - we wanted to make it better, but it's not going to improve when we leave. Unfortunately, the cultural forces in place during the time of the evil dictator are still present. They will rise again with different names.

My point is this. If we showed the same outrage at the invasion of Iraq as we have with the AIG bonus debacle, maybe we'd have billions of dollars less national debt and many thousands of lives saved.

Moreover, it goes beyond Iraq. If enough people were outraged in 2003, by the mention of invading Iraq, maybe we would have won a lasting peace in Afghanistan. Instead, we're re-fighting a war that was once won and is now lost. Instead, we invaded the wrong country to find the perpetrator of the September 11, 2001 attacks on our nation.

A perpetrator who is still hiding and at large as this is written.

If only we shared this AIG outrage with the invasion of Iraq, it is possible we could be a world more at peace than at war. It's a possibility.

Nevertheless, history won't save us from what is happening right now. AIG is the tipping point for an accumulation of misplaced outrages. Psychologists might say this is the classic defense mechanism of projection. "It's all the fault of AIG!"

Well, AIG is wrong for taking money that doesn't belong to them. Nevertheless, the root culprits are us. Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and they are us".

Our future must collect the best and brightest people in the world to fix our economy and our foreign policy. Although I have confidence in President Barack Obama, he is only one person who cannot possibly solve all of our global problems by himself. We need a new way of thinking about ourselves and the planet we live on.

Perhaps, Americans need to re-invent ourselves.

First, let's demand our tax money be returned from AIG - or the thieves go to jail (forget punitive tax laws). Second, let's help the Iraqi people to understand peace instead of war. Third, let's create an economy based upon opportunity and trust, rather than greed and avarice. Amen.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel - Thank You for Calling Pope Benedict XVI

My husband's first cousin and WWII veteran Henry L'Heureux told me what he saw during the liberation of a Jewish Concentration Camp in Europe. He cried - I have this on audio tape - he cried when he told me, "Don't let anybody try to say this didn't happen".

Kudos 10 times over to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. She called Pope Benedict XVI on his reticence, when the Pope was asked to pull support for Bishop Richard Williamson, who incredibly wants more proof about the Jewish Holocaust.

As a Roman Catholic, I can see where the Pope might revoke this Bishop's excommunication (I don't agree with it, but I understand this side of the situation). Nevertheless, how can the Pope continue to allow this man to call himself a Bishop? These are two separate issues - excommunication and the man's ordination as Bishop are mutually exclusive issues, in my mind. A Bishop takes a vow of obedience - he has no authority to ask for more proof about the Jewish Holocaust. One has to wonder if this Bishop also needs more proof about the Resurrection of Jesus?

I hope this call by Chancellor Merkel gets more than just a bold bullet story line on CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/02/08/germany.bishop/index.html

Perhaps we can hear a transcript of this telephone call. I wish!

Marc Pembroke of Jackman Maine speaks eloquence about our economic "recesspression"

Greetings to friends of MaineWriter about our nation's new economic climate and thoughts on the words "correction" or recession/depression:

Marc Pembroke says he follows discussions with interest, "...even though I do not often have time to intervene, but I would like to share a few thoughts...".

First, on the best new term for our new economic climate - let's call it a "recess-pression".

About a year ago, a few clear-thinking economists were still using the term "correction." I am old enough to remember when a "correction" was a good thing. It meant identifying an error and making it right, or changing direction so that travel was toward the intended destination. At the beginning of this crisis, we had far too much public and private debt. The average American spent more than his or her salary in 2007. We doubled our national debt from $5 trillion in 2001 o $10 trillion in 2008. Our banks were keeping less than 1% of capital reserves. When I took introduction to economics ages ago, every textbook on the market used to say that 10% was normal. Meanwhile, our housing stock was overbuilt and in many markets, overpriced. In other words, we created an irresponsible situation on many different levels. The situation was untenable, so we needed a major "correction." How about this for a solution? Maybe if we stop spending so much on imported geegaws and gadgets we don't need, eliminate government waste, and save a bit more of our salaries, we might be able to pay down some debt. That would mean shutting down businesses that don't deliver useful and necessary products at affordable prices.

Almost every pundit and elected official who chooses to comment on the issue says that doing nothing is "out of the question." Even so, I would ask, "Why?" I figure if the managers of a bank don't know how to run a bank, the bank ought to close so folks can go to a bank with competent officers. If we leant too much money to people who can't afford to pay it back, the solution is not to lend them more money. If the government would let the chips fall where they may, and raise interest rates to discourage lending, the market would quickly find the price for the unsold homes: that of the highest reasonable bidder. The prices would correct almost immediately. I have a son in California who recently bought a cottage with 1100sq ft of living space for the bargain-basement price of $360,000, down 40% from a year ago. I still find it high, but they can handle it. Suppose banks or Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc. didn't lend so much? The house would go for what the buyers had on hand. What's wrong with that, other than the fact that too many lenders were over-invested in housing at unreasonable prices. Whose fault is that, after all?

As to newspapers, the industry has always been "subsidized" by advertising dollars. In other words, businesses making a profit in other sectors use a portion of their revenues to place ads in newspapers circulating in their markets. If they could not make a profit advertising in print media, the journalists would have to find some other way to get paid plying their trade. We need not speculate on whether the print media is truly "independent" or "objective." I have my doubts, but that's a topic for another day.

The solution is to look at where high-quality reporting and writing functions in other sectors. Almost every skilled profession, interest group, and religious community produces its own journals, literature, or white papers for its leaders. My guess is that talented writers will find a home somewhere amongst them.

One more thought on the economy. Recently, we seem to be hearing more advisors telling us that inflation is really not such a bad thing, and we should have more of it. The Treasury department is apparently going to print up the $800 billion for the stimulus package, a guaranteed way to lower the value of the dollar. The thought seems to be that by jacking up inflation, wages will go up and the actual value of the current debt will become affordable. I suggest that we look at how well it works in Zimbabwe. If you owed $100,000 in the local currency last year, by now it would be cab fare for a week, or maybe the price of a can of beans (assuming there are any cans of beans on the store shelves). So, if you would like to save, I suggest that your local jeweler might be a better place to invest than your stockbroker or bank. Gold will hold its value even if the Fed and Treasury succeed in destroying the dollar and bankrupting the nation. I don't mean to sound partisan. The republicans guided us to the brink of collapse, but the democrats might just finish the job!

Marc

From MaineWriter: Are there any thoughts about how to get us out of this horrible recessionpression? Putting Wall Street Executive Bankers in jail for taking bonus money that belongs to tax payers, unfortunately, won't help. Nevertheless, after working within Medicare and Medicaid services for about 20 years, I was subject to a jail sentence in Federal prison if there were even a hint of fraud in my organizations - this is no joke. It didn't take much proof to put the likes of me in jail. Wall Street Executives should be treated with equal justice to Medicare and Medicaid administrators. But, even if justice prevails, I cannot see where this will help our economy.

Senator Caroline Kennedy - She Deserves a Chance (It Was Only for Two Years!)

Well, I sure lost this blogging appeal for Caroline Kennedy. Too bad. She simply wasn't ready for the tumultuous political scene. Nonetheless, she has my support. I just wish the Governor of New York had given her a chance - it was only for two years, after all.

It's hard to believe the eloquent Caroline Kennedy is in a position of having to prove she can be a United States Senator. In fact, rather than question her credentials, the people of New York State should reach out and thank this dedicated lady for her interest in the job. Certainly, she has a very good resume and a humanitarian interest in taking a vacant job previously held by another competent celebrity, Senator Hilary Clinton.

Ms. Kennedy doesn't need the money this Senator's job pays; moreover, her prestige as Caroline Kennedy certainly doesn't need reinforcing. She inherited the blue blood of America's best and brightest political Kennedy family.

Let's give this brave lady a chance - she deserves our best wishes and support as her intentions must be purely humanitarian, certainly they are not overtly ambitious.

Thank you Caroline Kennedy for your willingness to continue the legacy of your father and all of his family who have worked hard, even dedicated their lives, for the cause of improving the human condition for all the people of the world.

Please allow me to be the first person to congratulate you as Senator Caroline Kennedy from New York. Maybe I'll have the honor of meeting you some day when I'll give you a congratulatory hug. Also, be sure to call on me if I can be helfpul.