BIENVENUE SUR MON BLOGUE-WELCOME TO MY BLOG

THIS BLOG's GOAL IS TO OBJECTIVELY INFORM.EVERYONE IS WELCOME TO COMMENT

CE BLOGUE A POUR BUT D'INFORMER DE MANIÈRE OBJECTIVE

E. do REGO

IL EXISTE MILLE MANIERES DE MENTIR, MAIS UNE SEULE DE DIRE LA VERITE.

Le Mensonge peut courir un an, la vérité le rattrape en un jour, dit le sage Haoussa .

Tant que les lions n’auront pas leurs propres historiens, les histoires de chasse continueront de glorifier le chasseur.










Showing posts with label Health Care Issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health Care Issues. Show all posts

Monday, October 14, 2013

Describe how you would feel about traveling to another country for a procedure or, if you have ever done so, how that care compared with your experience in the U.S.

·         Greg New york 2 months ago
I would absolutely travel to another country for major savings. I took care of my mother, who lived in Mexico, and covered many medical procedures in private hospitals there. They see the gringo coming but prices are still half the USA, and the care, equipment identical - rooms far superior to NYC or Dallas. Docs are much more attentive, spend much more time with you, and are spiritually and personally enlightened.

·         Anonymous minneapolis 2 months ago
As care here declines, as it is so declining, and costs soar, the prospect of a european health care location for a proceedure seems not just acceptable, but perhaps preferable.

·         Vinson Hampton 2 months ago
I had an eye exam in Hong Kong. No one spoke english. It was fast, accurate and inexpensive. A computer operated device did all the work. The same exam in the US is $250 out of pocket with my vision coverage. Not major surgery but an example f how other countries do things better and more cheaply than we do.

·         RW Richards Boulder 2 months ago
I had my right hip replaced in 2008 at a clinic in Utah and the total fees to the insurance company were $28,000. I had my second hip resurfaced in Colorado in 2010 and the total fees to the insurance company were close to $78,000. I have had several friends do the Belgium clinic for hip replacements and they have had good results. My belief is that politics and money are the biggest barrier to our health care system which worries me if the government (which is all about politics and money) is allowed to control the system.

·         Anonymous Chico 2 months ago
I would be much more comfortable if I could stay in the US for major surgery where I could have the support of my family and friends and, in case of medical complications, be close to my surgeon. However, if cost were the deciding factor whether I could have joint replacement which would keep me out of pain and allow me to continue an active lifestyle, I'd definitely look into having the surgery done in another country. Shame on our health care system which forces its citizens to have to make these kinds of decisions! KC

·         JRS New York, NY 2 months ago
I would certainly travel abroad for such a procedure. The irony of how the medical mafia has seized total control and inflated the costs of health care in the US versus the constant mantra of "free market" that holds our Congress in thrall is astounding. Where is "free market" competition and transparency when it comes to medical procedures?

·         Raymond Williams Las Vegas, NV 2 months ago
I'm 71 years old. As such, having an implant may become a necessary reality eventually. I walk 3-4 miles a day for exercise. These days I often ponder if I will be able to do this next year, next month, or tomorrow. Undoubtedly, I would travel to Belgium or wherever to obtain the affordable care needed for me to continue this lifestyle.

·         Anonymous Phoenix 2 months ago
I'm told that in many European countries the ability to speak English fluently is a requirement to 'high school' graduation. I've never encountered any communication issues during medical treatment in Europe. As for the 'what if' argument regarding complications after arriving home, I would recommend finding a doctor who has read and embraced the Hippocratic oath. Anyone who criticizes foreign care without having even travelled outside of the states is simply naive and oversold on our medical system. Being the costliest has not made it the best.

·         Connor Dougherty Denver 2 months ago
If I were forced to travel to another country for a procedure that should be available here were it not for greedy medical profiteers, I would seriously consider applying for permanent admittance to that other country. I'm disgusted with how our leaders and our voters are letting this country go to the highest bidder.

·         Anonymous San Luis Obispo 2 months ago
If I were not eligible for Medicare to pick up the cost I wouldn't hesitate to travel out of the country for a surgical implant, providing the facility had a stellar reputation. The pain from a worn out joint is debilitating.

·         anonymos Houston 2 months ago
No, I would not. Having had both hips replaced, one in '95 in Miami with private ins and the other in '05 in Houston with Medicare, for a total out of pocket cost for both of $5500. Both were 4-5 days in the Hospital post surgery, a week of post surgery hospital rehab, and a month of physical therapy. I will agree that the cost of health care is expensive, but believe it is because of lawyers convincing people that they "are entitled to compensation." Try to collect on frivolous law suits in these other countries.

·         Frauke Voss Toronto 2 months ago
I had two hip replacements performed in Toronto, Canada, at a hospital specializing in joint replacement. The only cost incurred was taxi fare to the hospital and telephone rental ($4 per day) while in hospital. We pay for our health care through taxes and never have to worry about receiving medical attention.

·         Anonymous Laconner 2 months ago
I would take the next flight to Belgium if I needed surgery. Global healthcare pricing and competition will continue and the US will have to compete in that market, or lose out on all the future boomers.

·         Jan San Rafael, CA 2 months ago
If I did not belong to Kaiser, the large HMO, I would have gone to another country for my two hip replacements. The cost for my hip replacements was $500, payment for the total of 4 nights in the hospital. It is a sad commentary on our country that anyone is forced to go to another country for a surgery that is out of reach of many people.

·         Liz Kelner Taos, New Mexico 2 months ago
Yes I definitely would. Folks should know that Cuba - 90 miles from our shore - has one of the best orthopedic hospitals in the world with costs lower than Belguim, Lack of access to the medical resources in Cuba is another sad result of the embargo and travel ban that is hurting our own citizens.

·         Johnny Cincinnati 2 months ago
I had one of my hips replaced in 2004 and the total bill was about $33,000, of which I paid about a $1400 deductible. Now my other hip is going south and I just may do the same to get it replaced. I heard several locations in South America are very reasonable and high quality. This is a great opportunity for travel agents (or any one, actually) to make great money setting up these trips abroad. and

·         Anonymous New York 2 months ago
I feel angry, pure and simple, at just the thought of having to travel to another country to receive healthcare. No one is the US should even have to think about needing to travel abroad to receive health care that should be readily available and fairly priced for those who need it here in the US. We are being deprived of something that is generally considered a basic human right in every other developed nation. Shame on us for this monumental failure of our society.

·         Please don't believe everything Charleston 2 months ago
I can't point out all the bullshit in this article in only 100 words. As usual the anger is misplaced. The average knee in the US is $4,000 (probably the same in Brussells) and in many countries it's significantly higher. 99 percent of hospitals pay this amount. Denial based on a "pre existing sports injury", that's ridiculous, blame the insurance company. $70,000 markups, blame the hospital. Ignorant and irresponsible reporting that could effect policy that helps no one, blame the moron who authored this crap. The average implant now lasts 20 years, that's $200 a year...

·         Anonymous Omaha 2 months ago
I have had three surgical procedures outside of the United States, 2 in Panama and 1 in Mexico. I received very good, cutting edge medical care at a fraction of the price, along with simply being treated like a human being. I will probably never go to the U.S. for health care again. Expensive doesn't always equate to superiority of product or service.

·         Laura Billington Maple Valley WA 2 months ago
My husband had eight dental implants done in Los Algodones (just over the border, 7 miles from Yuma, AZ, for a total cost of $9200 vs $44,000 here in the Seattle, WA area. State of the art equipment and dentists licensed in both AZ and Mexico. Even with the cost of two trips, rental cars, and motels, it was less than one fourth the cost of having it done here. Crowns are $200, and I had an extraction and xrays for $60. I cannot speak more highly of the entire experience--it was flawless.

·         Anonymous Idaho 2 months ago
I would be very willing to travel to another country for a procedure so long as I could verify the quality in that country. In fact, I would rather do that than allow the same device manufacturer, surgeon, anesthesiologist, etc. make the outrageous profits that they do in the US.

·         OldeNurse Delton 2 months ago
I would not hesitate to travel to another country if it provided the level of care such as in Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, etc. My father traveled to another country for treatment of his cancer in 1960s; the therapies were not 'legal' in the US; he survived until 2010, working and living well, into his mid-nineties. The criminality of the level of price manipulation in health-care-related industries is becoming widely known. Don't these individuals responsible for such extortion and fraud realize that they are accountable on many levels?

·         Mel Addison 2 months ago
It is a disgrace how marked up everything is. It just shows competitiveness. People opt out when prices get too high.

·         Med Fadel College Station 2 months ago
In a heart beat! Greed and lack of oversight is bringing our healthcare system down very rapidly. Medicare is so poorly managed it is beyond comprehension. Imagine what will happen when the number of seniors will double to 80 million in just 20 years or so! The issue of greed is across the board: insurance companies, drug makers, hospitals, and device manufacturers; to name but a few!

·         Anonymous San Francisco 2 months ago
While travelling in the Netherlands I had a dental emergency. The resolution required oral surgery at the university hospital in Amsterdam. My cost for all visits, medicines, and surgery totaled $180 USD. It would have cost thousands in the US. Having my trip marred by such a painful experience was a small price to pay for high quality health care. The surgeon even offered me tea during consultation! I'd travel to Europe in a heartbeat for medical treatment of any kind and encourage others to do so every chance I get. Medicare for all is our best solution!

·         Anonymous Warsaw 2 months ago
Really sad that we need to travel to another country to take care of our medical care, I do it all the time, traveling to my countrynof birth, due to the height cost of the medical service and hospitalization here in USA and also the high cost of the health insurance with a high deductible

·         Felipe Fort Worth 2 months ago
I have not traveled for a medical procedure yet, but would do so in a heartbeat should the math add up as it nearly did, for the extraction of two wisdom teeth, earlier this year.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

President Obama’s health care reform speech - FULL VIDEO









Obama offers health care details in speech to Congress

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama is speaking about health care reform to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night. Here is a transcript of the speech.

Madam Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, and the American people:

When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month, credit was frozen, and our financial system was on the verge of collapse.

As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods. A full and vibrant recovery is still many months away. And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them.

Until -- until those -- until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive. Until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes.

That it our ultimate goal. But thanks to the bold and decisive action we've taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.

Now, I want to thank the members of this body for your efforts and your support in these last several months, and especially those who have taken the difficult votes that have put us on the path to recovery.

I also want to thank the American people for their patience and resolve during this trying time for our nation.

But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came here to build a future. So...

So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future, and that is the issue of health care.

I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.

It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform.

And ever since, nearly every president and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.

Our collective failure to meet this challenge year after year, decade after decade, has led us to the breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can't get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed and can't afford it since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer.

Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or too expensive to cover.

We are the only democracy, the only advanced democracy on Earth, the only wealthy nation that allows such hardship for millions of its people.

There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two-year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage.

In other words, it can happen to anyone.

But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem for the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today.

More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job or change your job, you'll lose your health insurance, too. More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day.

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.

Another woman, from Texas, was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer had more than doubled in size.

That is heartbreaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.

Then there's the problem of rising costs. We spend 1½ times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages.

It's why so many employers, especially small businesses, are forcing their employers -- employees to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely.

It's why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete internationally, like our automakers, are at a huge disadvantage.

And it's why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it, about $1,000 per year that pays for somebody else's emergency room and charitable care.

Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined.

Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close.

Nothing else.

Now, these are the facts. Nobody disputes them. We know we must reform this system. The question is how. Now, there are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada's, where we would -- where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everybody.

On the right, there are those who argue that we should end employer-based systems and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.

I have said -- I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both these approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.

And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the several -- past several months. During that time, we've seen Washington at its best and at its worst. We've seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform. Of the five committees asked to develop bills, four have completed their work and the Senate Finance Committee announced today that it will move forward next week.

That has never happened before.

Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses, hospitals, seniors' groups, and even drug companies -- many of whom opposed reform in the past.

And there is agreement in this chamber on about 80 percent of what needs to be done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been.

But what we've also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government. Instead of honest debate, we've seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.

Well, the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed.

Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do.

Now's the time to deliver on health care.

Now's the time to deliver on health care.

The plan I'm announcing tonight would meet three basic goals.

It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance for those who don't. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses and our government.

It's a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge -- not just government, not just insurance companies, but everybody, including employers and individuals.

And it's a plan that incorporates ideas from senators and congressmen; from Democrats and Republicans, and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election.

Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan.

First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.

Let me -- let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.

What this plan will do is make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it the most.

They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime.

We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of- pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick.

And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies.

Because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse.

That makes sense. It saves money and it saves lives.

That's what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan: more security and more stability.

Now, if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you...

... if you lose your job or you change your job, you'll be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you'll be able to get coverage. We'll do this by creating a new insurance exchange, a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices.

Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It's how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it's time to give every American the same opportunity that we give ourselves.

Now, for those individuals and small businesses who still can't afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we'll provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need.

And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned.

This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who can't get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill.

This was a good idea when Sen. John McCain proposed it in the campaign; it's a good idea now, and we should all embrace it.

Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those, and especially the young and the healthy, who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers by giving them coverage.

The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for these people's expensive emergency room visits.

If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors.

And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek, especially requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, just can't be achieved.

That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.

Likewise -- likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers.

There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still can't afford coverage, and 95 percent of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements.

But...

But we can't have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees.

Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part. And while there remains some significant details to be ironed out, I believe...

(LAUGHTER)

... I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance; an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage; and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance.

And I have no doubt that these reforms would greatly benefit Americans from all walks of life, as well as the economy as a whole.

Still, given all the misinformation that's been spread over the past few months, I realize -- I realize that many Americans have grown nervous about reform. So tonight, I want to address some of the key controversies that are still out there.

Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens.

Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie plain and simple.

Now...

Now, there are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.

(UNKNOWN): That's a lie.

(AUDIENCE BOOING)

That's not true.

And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up: under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.

Now, my health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a "government takeover" of the entire health care system.

Now, as proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly sponsored insurance option, administered by the government, just like Medicaid or Medicare.

So let me set the record straight here.

My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there's choice and competition. That's how the market works.

Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company.

And without competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly -- by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.

Insurance executives don't do this because they're bad people. They do it because it's profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill, they are rewarded for it.

All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."

Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable.

And the insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that, but an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange.

Now, let me -- let me be clear.

Let me be clear, it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.

Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government, and they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option, but they won't be. I've insisted that, like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums its collects.

But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.

Now, it is...

It's -- it's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn't be exaggerated by the left or the right or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and shouldn't be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles.

To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it.

The public option -- the public option is only a means to that end, and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.

And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.

For example -- for example, some have suggested that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others have proposed a co-op or another nonprofit entity to administer the plan.

These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that, if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice.

And -- and I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.

Finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, to members of this chamber, and to the public, and that's how we pay for this plan.

Now, Here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, either now or in the future.

I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promise don't materialize.

Now, part of the reason I faced a trillion-dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for, from the Iraq war to tax breaks for the wealthy.

I will not make that same mistake with health care.

Second, we've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system, a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care don't make us any healthier. That's not my judgment. It's the judgment of medical professionals across this country.

And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid. In fact, I want to speak directly to seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that's been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate.

More than four decades ago, this nation stood up for the principle that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years.

That's how Medicare was born. And it remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next. And that...

That is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.

The only...

The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies...

... subsidies that do everything to pad their profits, but don't improve the care of seniors.

And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead.

Now, these steps will ensure that you -- America's seniors -- get the benefits you've been promised. They will ensure that Medicare is there for future generations. And we can use some of the savings to fill the gap in coverage that forces too many seniors to pay thousands of dollars a year out of their own pockets for prescription drugs.

That's what this plan will do for you. So don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut -- especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past...

... and just this year supported a budget that would essentially have turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program.

That will not happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare.

Now, because Medicare is such a big part of the health care system, making the program more efficient can help usher in changes in the way we deliver health care that can reduce costs for everybody.

We have long known that some places, like the Intermountain Healthcare in Utah or the Geisinger Health System in rural Pennsylvania, offer high-quality care at costs below average.

So the commission can help encourage the adoption of these common-sense best practices by doctors and medical professionals throughout the system -- everything from reducing hospital infection rates to encouraging better coordination between teams of doctors.

Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. Now, much...

Much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers.

And this reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money -- an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts.

And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long run.

Now, finally, many in this chamber, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the costs of health care.

Now -- there you go.

There you go.

Now, I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I've talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So -- so -- so I'm proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know...

... I know that the Bush administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these ideas. I think it's a good idea, and I'm directing my secretary of health and human services to move forward on this initiative today.

Now, add it all up and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years, less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration.

Now, most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent -- but spent badly -- in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of 1 percent each year -- one-tenth of 1 percent -- it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.

Now, this is the plan I'm proposing. It's a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight -- Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.

But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than to improve it.

I won't stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out. And I will not...

And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time; not now.

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it the most. And more will die as a result.

We know these things to be true.

That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed -- the ones who suffer silently and the ones who shared their stories with us at town halls, in e-mails, and in letters.

I received one of those letters a few days ago. It was from our beloved friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy. He had written it back in May, shortly after he was told that his illness was terminal. He asked that it be delivered upon his death.

In it, he spoke about what a happy time his last months were, thanks to the love and support of family and friends, his wife, Vicki, his amazing children, who are all here tonight.

And he expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform -- "that great unfinished business of our society," he called it -- would finally pass.

He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that "it concerns more than material things."

"What we face," he wrote, "is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."

One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom, and our healthy skepticism of government. And figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always been a source of rigorous and, yes, sometimes angry debate. That's our history.

For some of Ted Kennedy's critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to American liberty. In their minds, his passion for universal health care was nothing more than a passion for big government. But those of us who knew Teddy and worked with him here -- people of both parties -- know that what drove him was something more.

His friend Orrin Hatch, he knows that. They worked together to provide children with health insurance. His friend John McCain knows that. They worked together on a patients' bill of rights. His friend Chuck Grassley knows that. They worked together to provide health care to children with disabilities.

On issues like these, Ted Kennedy's passion was born not of some rigid ideology, but of his own experience -- the experience of having two children stricken with cancer.

He never forgot the sheer terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly sick. And he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance, what it'd be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent, "There is something that could make you better, but I just can't afford it."

That large-heartedness, that concern and regard for the plight of others is not a partisan feeling. It's not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character.

Our ability to stand in other people's shoes. A recognition that we are all in this together, that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand. A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play. And an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.

This has always been the history of our progress.

In 1935, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism. But the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it.

In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down.

They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind.

You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom.

But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, the vulnerable can be exploited.

And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter -- that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.

That was true then. It remains true today.

I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road, to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.

But that is not what this moment calls for.

That's not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it's hard.

I still believe...

... I still believe that we can act when it's hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things and that here and now we will meet history's test, because that's who we are. That is our calling. That is our character.

Thank you. God bless you and may God bless the United States of America.


Wikio




Saturday, August 15, 2009

Obama says insurance companies holding U.S. hostage


BELGRADE, Montana (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama, pushing for healthcare reform during a trip to the West, said on Friday the country was "held hostage" by insurance companies that deny coverage to sick people.

Obama, on a multi-state swing to tamp down vociferous opposition to his top domestic priority, targeted insurance companies for dropping customers who become sick or forcing patients to cover huge costs.

"We are held hostage at any given moment by health insurance companies that deny coverage or drop coverage or charge fees that people can't afford," Obama told a crowd of some 1,000 people in Montana.

"It's wrong. It's bankrupting families. It's bankrupting businesses. And we are going to fix it when we pass health insurance reform this year," he said.

In a half-work, half-play trip with his family that will include stops at the Grand Canyon and other national parks, Obama, a Democrat, aims to emphasize the benefits of his nearly $1 trillion plan to overhaul the insurance industry, expand healthcare coverage and cut costs to consumers.

Protesters and supporters lined up outside the venue for his first town hall-style meeting in Montana, a traditionally conservative state, but the crowd inside was mostly supportive of the president.

One man challenged Obama on how he would pay for the reform.

"You can't tell us how you're going to pay for this," the man said. "The only way you're going to get that money is raising our taxes ... (and) you said you wouldn't do that."

Obama repeated his promise not to raise taxes on people earning $250,000 or less a year, but he acknowledged that the government would likely end up having to find $30 billion a year to cover the cost of getting coverage to the uninsured.

"You are absolutely right I can't cover another 46 million people for free," Obama said, thanking the man for asking his question respectfully. "We're going to have to find money from somewhere."

CONCERNS

Another questioner, who identified himself as someone who sold health insurance, asked the president why he was vilifying insurance companies.

Obama said some companies had been constructive, citing Aetna as a firm that had worked with the administration on the issue of pre-existing conditions.

Obama has been fighting against Republican criticism that his plan amounts to a government takeover. The issue has sparked emotional and sometimes hostile questioning from citizens at similar question-and-answer sessions with lawmakers across the country.

Obama's town hall meetings in Montana, which supported Republican presidential candidate John McCain in the 2008 election, and Colorado on Saturday will be his second and third such events in less than a week.

They come as poll numbers reflect concern about the U.S. budget deficit. Republicans contend that the plan would be an expensive mistake, especially as the country tries to emerge from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

"People are concerned about several things: one the cost, and number two, they won't have free choice," said Montana Republican Party Chairman Will Deschamps in telephone interview with Reuters.

"This thing is sinking like a rock in a stream," he said.

Screaming demonstrators have disrupted some recent public meetings on healthcare held by members of Congress from Obama's Democratic Party. They captured media attention and overshadowed debate on the plan's complex details.

"The people that make the most noise get the most press," said David O'Connor, 63, a Democrat at the Montana event. "I think we definitely need healthcare reform of some kind." (Additional reporting by Thomas Ferraro; Editing by David Alexander and Eric Beech)


Wikio

Friday, July 31, 2009

The President Highlights Health Insurance Consumer Protections

WED, JULY 29, 5:59 PM EST


Posted by Katherine Brandon



read the transcript

Speaking to North Carolinians at a town hall in Raleigh, the President made clear why health reform will benefit all American: "if you’ve got health insurance, then the reform we’re proposing will also help you because it will provide you more stability and more security. Because the truth is we have a system today that works well for the insurance industry, but it doesn’t work well for you." We all know the horror stories, which is why the health insurance consumer protections that are part of reform are so important.
At the town hall, the President outlined these core principles:
Let me be specific. We will stop insurance companies from denying you coverage because of your medical history. (Applause.) I've told this story before -- I will never forget watching my own mother, as she fought cancer in her final days, worrying about whether her insurer would claim her illness was a preexisting condition so they could wiggle out of paying for her coverage. How many of you have worried about the same thing? (Applause.) A lot of people have gone through this. Many of you have been denied insurance or heard of someone who was denied insurance because they got -- had a preexisting condition. That will no longer be allowed with reform. (Applause.) We won't allow that. (Applause.) We won't allow that.
With reform, insurance companies will have to abide by a yearly cap on how much you can be charged for your out-of-pocket expenses. No one in America should go broke because of an illness. (Applause.)
We will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies -- (applause) -- eye and foot exams for diabetics, so we can avoid chronic illnesses that cost not only lives, but money. (Applause.)
No longer will insurance companies be allowed to drop or water down coverage for someone who's become seriously ill. That's not right, it's not fair. (Applause.) We will stop insurance companies from placing arbitrary caps on the coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. (Applause.)
So my point is, whether or not you have health insurance right now, the reforms we seek will bring stability and security that you don't have today -- reforms that will become more urgent and more urgent with each passing year.
So, in the end, the debate about reform boils down to a choice between two approaches. The first is projected to double your health care costs over the next decade, make millions more Americans uninsured, bankrupt state and federal governments, and allow insurance companies to run roughshod over consumers. That's one option. That's called the status quo. That's what we have right now.
I want everybody to understand this. If we do nothing, I can almost guarantee you your premiums will double over the next 10 years because that's what they did over the last 10 years. It will go up three times faster than your wages, so a bigger and bigger chunk of your paycheck will be going into health insurance. It will eat into the possibility of you getting a raise on your job because your employer is going to be looking and saying, I can't afford to give you a raise because my health care costs just went up 10, 20, 30 percent. And Medicare, which seniors rely on, is going to become more and more vulnerable. On current projections, Medicare will be in the red in less than 10 years.
So that's the status quo. When everybody goes around saying, why is Obama taking on health care -- that's the answer. That's one option. I don't like that option. You shouldn't either. (Applause.) That plan doesn't sound too good. That's the health care system we have right now.
You can read more about the President’s eight health insurance consumer protections here, and figure out how reform will directly affect you and your family.


Wikio

Monday, July 27, 2009

Commentary: Raise a ruckus, make a difference


  • Story Highlights
  • Malaak Compton-Rock: Some critical of "Black in America" focus on problems
  • She says community has serious challenges to overcome, particularly for children
  • Compton-Rock: "Black in America 2" will show solutions
  • She says naysayers must join the fight to improve conditions
By Malaak Compton-Rock
Special to CNN

Editor's note: Malaak Compton-Rock is founder and director of The Angelrock Project, "an online e-village promoting volunteerism, social responsibility, and sustainable change." One of her initiatives, "Journey for Change: Empowering Youth Through Global Service," will be seen as part of CNN's "Black in America 2." Her first book is being published by Broadway Books in May, 2010, titled, "If It Takes a Village, Build One: How I Found Meaning Through a Life of Service to Others and 100+ Ways You Can Too."

(CNN) -- In the words of my mentor and America's foremost child advocate Marian Wright Edelman, founder and president of The Children's Defense Fund, it's time to "raise a ruckus people, it is time to raise a ruckus!"

CNN's "Black in America" raised many critical issues facing African-American people in this great country of ours. It was not pretty, it was not flattering, but it was very, very frank. The show delved into the negative issues that have plagued the African-American community for generations, i.e., crime, education, single parent families, drug abuse and the like.

People got mad. People sent many e-mails and letters to Soledad O'Brien and CNN and cried foul. People said "Black in America" was not consistent with the lives of many African-American people and was one-sided. Blogs and Web sites popped up all over the place where people "raised a ruckus" about the content of the show.

I read a lot of these comments. As a matter of fact, I was obsessed with people's views for many weeks after the documentary aired. And the more I read, the more I got angry. The more I read, the more I wanted to "raise my own ruckus." But I was frustrated and upset for a very different reason than most.

I was almost apoplectic with the amount of criticism for "Black in America" without critical, thought provoking commentary about how each person can do their part to make a difference to change the very startling and distressing issues facing most African-American children and adults in America.

On a typical day in the lives of black American children:

  • Three children or teens are killed by firearms
  • 24 babies die before their first birthday
  • 102 children are arrested for violent crimes
  • 119 children are arrested for drug crimes
  • 292 babies are born to teen mothers
  • 348 babies are born without health insurance
  • 497 children are confirmed abused or neglected
  • 794 babies are born into poverty
  • 1,202 babies are born to unmarried mothers
  • 1,385 children are arrested
  • And on a typical school day for black children in America:

  • 417 high school students drop out
  • 442 public school students are corporally punished
  • 6,916 public school children are suspended
  • And consider that in America,

  • One in three black children live in poverty
  • More than eight of every 10 black fourth graders in our public schools cannot read at grade level
  • A black boy born in 2001 has a one in three chance of going to prison in his lifetime
  • [Statistics are from the Children's Defense Fund's Child Research Data.]

    This is serious stuff people. And it is the cold-hearted truth. So, it is okay to comment that the documentary did not represent your life. It is okay to comment that it was upsetting to see images of black men in jail, children dropping out of school, and unwed mothers.

    It is okay because the truth hurts, especially when it is seen by 16 million people. In fact, most of the images shown in "Black in America" do not represent my personal life or the lives of my children. But because these issues face my brothers and sisters in my collective African-American family, they concern me, they hurt me, they belong to me, and I will own them.

    We know that as African-Americans we have come a long way. We know that we are doctors, lawyers, CEOs, philanthropists, politicians, and even the president of the United States of America. And yes, it would do our children a lot of good if these images were portrayed more frequently in the media. But this does not change the very real issues facing African-American people portrayed in "Black in America."

    And frankly, with so many of our people struggling, we can't just celebrate our achievements -- we must make it a priority to work on the most critical and urgent matters in our community. As I always say, "The blessed and the best of us, must take care of the rest of us."

    So why did the criticism make me so mad? Because so much of it was unaccompanied by real ideas, thought-provoking suggestions, plans of action, or inspiring initiatives or solutions. How can you complain if you are unwilling to join the fight?

    How can you get mad, if you are disinclined to make a difference in someone else's life? And why would you take the time to write an accusatory e-mail to Soledad O'Brien instead of writing a letter to your representative in Congress demanding health care for all children and pregnant women, increased funding for schools, or new initiatives to increase black-owned businesses in black neighborhoods?

    "Black in America 2" will offer many solutions to the ills facing African-American people. I think it will make the naysayers happy. But it will only make me happy if the naysayers "raise a ruckus" by joining the fight to better the lives of all black folks.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Malaak Compton-Rock.



Wikio

FAITES UN DON SI VOUS AIMEZ LE CONTENU DE CE BLOGUE