sylvainlucandbirelilagrene

pimg alt=World Health Organization indicators comparing Cuba, Canada, and USA by Gail at Large src=http://farm1.static.flickr.com/158/341860281_bb7ad2a0a2.jpg //p

a href=http://buypenisole.netorder penisole online/a

p (RTTNews) – A Reuters article that reported that WellPoint (WLP) has been dropping health insurance coverage for women with breast cancer has sparked outcry from lawmakers and a harsh response from WellPoint, which took issue with some of the claims made in the report./p
pIn its response, WellPoint said that the article#8217;s claim that the company employs a targeted rescission policy for members with breast cancer is #8220;inaccurate and grossly misleading.#8221;/p
p#8220;The story incorrectly reports that WellPoint singles out women with breast cancer for aggressive investigation with the intent of canceling their insurance,#8221; WellPoint stated in its response./p
pThe health insurer added, #8220;This is simply wrong. In fact, WellPoint works to prevent breast cancer, to detect it early, and to get our members into treatment. We also work to ensure that all of our members are getting best practice care for breast cancer.#8221;/p
pDespite the fact that WellPoint has denied some of the claims in the article, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was quick to jump on the company for the practice./p
p#8220;WellPoint should not wait to end the unconscionable practice of deliberately working to deny health insurance coverage to women diagnosed with breast cancer,#8221; Sebelius said in a letter to the company./p
pShe added, #8220;I urge you to immediately cease these practices and abandon your efforts to rescind health insurance coverage from patients who need it most.#8221;/p
pHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi used the article to tout the recently-passed health care reform law and criticize Republicans looking to repeal it./p
p#8220;WellPoint#8217;s practice of dropping anyone#8217;s coverage when they get sick – whether a woman with breast cancer or any other patient – is exactly the kind of insurance company abuse our new health care law prohibits,#8221; Pelosi said./p
pShe added, #8220;And when Republican leaders call for repeal of the health reform law, they are endorsing a return to these abusive policies that have no place in our medical system.#8221;/p
pFor comments and feedback: contact editorial@rttnews.com/p
pCopyright(c) 2010 RTTNews.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved/p

p
Posted in Categories: Economy, Releases./p
strong class=DatelineDETROIT — /strongThe Wayne County Health Expo for the Uninsured is expected to draw hundreds of people to Detroit#039;s Cobo Center.p/p The event runs from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Friday and features health coverage options, free and low-cost health screenings, and H1N1 and pneumonia vaccinations.p/p County Executive Robert Ficano says in a release that more than 5,000 people attended the expo last year.p/p Wayne County Health and Human Services Director Edith Killins says 1.4 million Michigan residents have no health insurance, including 160,000 children. She says more than 320,000 county residents are uninsured.p/p An estimated 50 million Americans are uninsured. The new national health care law is expected to provide coverage to more than 30 million of them.

a href=http://buyrevatio.netpurchase cheap revatio/a

pimg alt=A Pair of childrens#039; health books by glassgrrl_ok src=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2390/2310203435_b4732e2fcf.jpg //p

a href=http://buybactrimonline.netbactrim/a
pby Richard Reece, MD/p
pI congratulate President Obama and the Democrats on their historic health reform achievement./p
pWill this bill be able to win approval as it runs the parliamentary gauntlet? Is it an act of political suicide that will become manifest in November? Will it bankrupt the country because of lack of cost controls?/p
pRegardless of where one stands, the bill is a political act of vast ambition and colossal risk./p
pNow may be a good time to pick winners and losers of health reform./p
pspan id=more-43546/span/p
pstrongWinners/strong/p
pbull; Drug companies, which backed Democratic efforts and will have 32 million more new customers, financed by government./p
pbull; Hospitals, which heretofore have had to accept non-paying patients and now will have patients paying money-losing Medicaid rates./p
pbull; The uninsured, with the possible exception of the young and healthy who now buy insurance or be penalized by the IRS by failing to comply with the individual mandate./p
pbull; Those with pre-existing illnesses, those whose payments were capped by insurance companies, those who had to pay full costs of preventive care or high deductibles, and children who will now be covered by their parentsrsquo; insurance policies until their 26th birthday./p
pstrongLosers/strong/p
pbull; The biggest loser is likely to be private insurance companies, which will be heavily regulated, restricted from raising rates, obligated to accept all comers, unable to rescind coverage , and the target of higher taxes./p
pbull; Middle-class taxpayers and patients, who, if Massachusetts with its universal coverage can be used as an example, can expect higher taxes because of lack of cost controls, higher premiums as health plans pass through their increased expense, more limited access to doctors because of primary care shortages, and longer waiting lines to see a physician./p
pbull; Medicare recipients, who among other things, will see about $500 billion cuts in benefits, higher fees, reduction in Medicare Advantage plans, and more controls over what tests and procedures doctors can order./p
pbull; The states, many already on the verge of bankruptcy because of high Medicaid costs. and Medicaid providers, physicians, pharmacists, and others, who cannot continue losing money based on low reimbursements. State attorney generals in nine states, are taking actions by mounting efforts to declare the bill unconstitutional./p
pstrongDoctors/strong/p
pThe results will be mixed./p
pemNegative/em/p
pbull; The practice load of 32 million more uninsured entering the system, coupled with the influx of new Medicare recipients, will strain the capacity of already overloaded practices./p
pbull; Low Medicare rates, and even lower Medicaid rates, will tax the ability of practices to survive economically./p
pbull; The doctor shortage, particularly of primary care physicians, now estimated at 50,000, will be exacerbated, partly because more doctors will decline to accept new Medicare and Medicaid patients./p
pbull; The bill does not address the problems that concern physicians the most ndash; tort reform and the sustainable growth rate formula, which calls for an annual reduction in Medicare physician fees #8212; this year 21% #8212; and which is always reversed./p
pbull; The creation of an independent payment advisory board, free from Congressional oversight, is regarded as a negative, because it can make arbitrary decisions./p
pemPositive/em/p
pbull; Medicaid rates are likely to be increased to Medicare rates for primary care physicians . This will be plus for primary care doctors and will tilt the table towards primary care over specialists,/p
pbull; Another plus is a ldquo;modest increaserdquo; in funding for training programs./p
pbull; The American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, and family practice and pediatric associations have supported the Obama administrationrsquo;s position on reform. The members of these organizations and physicians in general support expansion of insurance coverage for the uninsured./p
pI predict this bill will be the start of a long and bitter debate on how to fund generous federal health benefits ndash; coverage for pre-existing illnesses, free preventive care, guaranteed comprehensive health plans, mandated benefits with no caps, and subsidies for 32 million uninsured #8212; up to $88.000 per family./p
pAs history has shown with Medicare and Medicaid, costs will surely far exceed projections. As a nation, we shall have to grapple with the economic consequences of the universal coverage moral imperative./p
pemRichard Reece is the author of /emObama, Doctors, and Health Reformem and blogs at /emmedinnovationblogem./em/p
pemSubmit a guest post and be heard./embr /
h3Similar Posts:/h3
ul class=similar-posts
liHow health reform can be popular with the American public/li
liAMA working for reform that benefits patients and physicians/li
liMedicare cuts will strengthen doctors#8217; negotiating position/li
/ul
p/p

br /

p class=post_tagsTagged as:
Health reform,
Medicare,
Primary care,
Specialist
/p

pIn my previous post, Health Care Reform: Don#8217;t Count on Retiring Early, I showed that people retiring before age 65 (the eligibility age for Medicare) may still face high costs for medical insurance, even after passage of health care reform. However, health care reform does provide some good news for early retirees who don#8217;t have affordable retiree medical insurance through their employer. Let#8217;s take a look./p
pStarting in 2011, the following provisions take effect for individually purchased or group insurance plans:/p
ul type=disc
liBans on lifetime dollar limits on essential health benefits/li
liRestrictions on annual dollar limits for essential health benefits/li
liBans on rescinding coverage, except in cases of fraud/li
liNo preexisting exclusions for children under age 19/li
liDependent coverage that can be extended up to age 26 for children ineligible for other employer coverage./li
/ul
pFor this purpose, #8220;essential health benefits#8221; cover most services for doctors, hospitals, labs, prescription drugs, emergencies and chronic disease management. The first three features described above solve problems that have caused a lot of trouble for some people who purchased individual insurance, so it#8217;s indeed good news./p
pKeep in mind, however, that banning the above restrictions will most likely increase premiums. By how much is unclear, since until now, insurance companies have used these provisions to manage the claims they pay and keep premiums as low as possible./p
pStarting in 2014, the ban on pre-existing exclusions is extended to everyone. In addition, employers with 50 employees or more will be required to offer adequate and affordable medical insurance to workers or face substantial penalties. This provision will help individuals who Do the Downshift #8211; retire from their main career but continue working during their retirement years #8212; at jobs that otherwise might not offer health insurance./p
pFrom the perspective of an early retiree, the above features are definitely several steps in the right direction. But many early retirees will still be paying substantial amounts of money for premiums and out-of-pocket expenses. Anybody considering early retirement should do the math before they retire to see if they#8217;ll have enough income to cover their medical premiums and expenses./p
pHealth care reform is complicated, and many details will be specified in future regulations. For example, how will the term #8220;adequate and affordable#8221; medical insurance be defined? Stay tuned over the next few years as we learn more about health care reform and as additional regulations clear up the uncertainties./p

a href=http://buy-cytotec-online.combuy generic cytotec online/a

pimg alt=Mental Health – Recovery by scrumsrus src=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3440/3273649749_aa37f332b9.jpg //p
a href=http://buy-valtrex-online.orgvaltrex online/a

br /

p/p
pIn my last several posts, I#8217;ve reviewed what mental health court is, and the prosnbsp;and cons of such a system. In my final post on this topic, we#8217;ll take a look at what the future holds for mental health courts in the United States and some of the recommendations to improve upon this system.span id=more-176/span/p
pResearch from mental health courts that have been in operation for a few years has suggested that overall, mental health courts are here to stay. Communities that have implemented a mental health court system have found that the pros outweigh the cons, and have begun to look at ways to improve the functioning of mental health courts./p
pThe Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law makes several recommendations for the future of mental health courts:/p
ul
liInvolvement should be voluntary and participants should be allowed to withdraw at any time./li
liMental health advocates should play a role in the participantsrsquo; counsel options./li
liEliminate the guilty plea requirement: it adds a conviction to the personrsquo;s record and may not have occurred if the person entered criminal court./li
liRather than dealing with misdemeanors, mental health courts should only deal with felonies to avoid clogging an already over-taxed system./li
liTraining of police officers to deal with homeless, mentally ill offenders that commit ldquo;crimes of survivalrdquo; should be a pre-booking component of mental health courts to avoid congestion of mental health courts./li
liStandard, written protocols should be developed for mental health courts to strive for consistency among jurisdictions./li
liIncarceration should be a last resort, and not used as the only sanction for non-compliance./li
liConfidentiality should take precedence, and non-essential clinical information should not be discussed in court./li
/ul
pOverall, it is important that the criminal justice system not serve as the entryway for mental health services. The more preventative measures we can build into the mental health system, the more likely we are to catch these hard to serve populations prior to committing a crime./p
pspan style=color: grey;emThis is the last postnbsp;of anbsp;four part series exploring mental health courts. This series examined the role of mental health courts, the pros and cons of such courts, and future considerations. (To read the other posts in this series, click here.) If you, or someone you know, has a mental illness and becomes involved with the criminal justice system, consider reading the article ldquo;Dealing with the Criminal Justice Systemrdquo; by the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI). The article provides a great overview of what to expect throughout the criminal proceedings, and offers unique information for those with a mental illness./em/span/p

pThis may be a difficult task.nbsp; One barrier to the health care stimulus#8217; task of digitzing records is simply doctors and medical specialists are used to the old way of doing things.nbsp; It can be extremely difficult to fully transition from the paper to digital world because it is a 180 degree change in the every-day routine and process of the work.nbsp; The same goes for embracing new health care networking and communication technologies./p
pHowever, the advantages to utilizing these new technologies will far outweigh the hurdles of changing old ways.nbsp; Cutting-edge video conferencing can allow multiple specialists to collaborate and diagnose on a level never before possible. nbsp;nbsp; nbsp; #8216;Medical-networking#8217; platforms can allow for patients to easily communicate with their doctor#8217;s and nurses on a personal level, but prevent over-inundation of the available medical resources./p
pThe first step to leveling up our health care system is for the medical community to change their mindset, and realize that any significant change for the good requires crossing a number of hurdles.nbsp; The second step is rewiring and revamping the hardware and network infrastructure of medical facilities across the country.nbsp; The barrier to entry here is the enormous cost and risk for both public institutions and private practices to make the digital leap of faith.nbsp; There are ways to soften this blow as well./p
pLarge network providers, like Cisco Systems and Juniper networks, can aid public medical institutions by providing the necessary network hardware infrastructure in bulk.nbsp;nbsp; Private practices are scared of technological change because it seems like a risk (and investment) that could set them back some years, or worse, sink their business. nbsp;nbsp; However, some of the costs that private medical institutions and practices will incur can be lowered by purchasing used network hardware and computer equipment, such as a used router or refurbished server./p
pAlthough costly, if US medical institutions change their mindset and network infrastructure, it will put us well on our way to 21st century health care./p

a href=http://buy-lipitor-online.orglipitor price/a

pimg alt=Bullet wound (National Museum of Health and Medicine) by Prof. Jas. Mundie src=http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1107/708239601_2f9e1c7649.jpg //p

a href=http://buypropeciaonlinepharmacy.combuy cheap propecia/a
pDemocrat Mark Critz, running to succeed the late Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), is branding himself as an opponent of health care legislation in his latest ad ndash; a sign that the legislation is a tough sell even in working-class blue-collar Democratic confines. /pp
/pp
Responding to an NRCC advertisement accusing him of backing health care reform, Critz says: ldquo;That adrsquo;s not true. I opposed the health care bill, and Irsquo;m pro-life and pro-gun. Thatrsquo;s not liberal.rdquo; /pp
/pp
Critz didnrsquo;t take a public position on the health care legislation during the Democratic nomination process, and declined to answer a survey from The Hill newspaper in March whether he would support the bill.nbsp;/pp
/pp
Critzrsquo;s campaign spokesman told POLITICO last week that he opposed certain aspects of the health care legislation, but would not support its repeal. /pp
/pp
Critz is facing Republican businessman Tim Burns in the May 18 special election. Burns has been running against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the administrationrsquo;s domestic agenda. /pp
/pp
Democrats hold a significant registration edge in the southwestern Pennsylvania district, but Obama is not viewed favorably there. John McCain narrowly won the district with 49 percent, after John Kerry and Al Gore carried it the previous two presidential elections./p

h3 id=comments15 Responses to #8220;Health care legislation as Waterloo #8211; Oliphant (andnbsp;Benson)#8221;/h3

ol class=commentlist
li class=comment byuser comment-author-edarrell bypostauthor even thread-even depth-1 id=comment-97873
Ed Darrell Says: br /

April 18, 2010 at 9:41 pm

blockquotepHistorians are just liberal elitist pricks who look back at history and form an opinion on it. They donrsquo;t look at history any more objectively than they look at the present day. ldquo;Historianrdquo; is just a title given to someone with a hobby in reading history books. And those historians are just using W. as a scapegoat; there was that one American president (I forget his name) who lasted one month in the presidency. He got nothing done in that one month, needless to say, so you would think any objective ldquo;historianrdquo; would call him the worst. But the ldquo;historiansrdquo; obviously based their conclusion on Bush being the worse simply because they didnrsquo;t like him./p/blockquote
pYou, George Bush and Ray Mummert #8212; under attack by #8220;smart people.#8221;/p
pAlternatively, you could read the article (when it shows up in its completeness, tomorrow, I hope) and make substantive comments on it, instead of ranting on imagined responses./p
blockquotep ldquo;A loophole or gap in a law is common, and not a sign of incompetence.rdquo; Oh, okay. Irsquo;d have to argue that incompetence is common, then. (Well, that goes without saying when itrsquo;s in regard to Congress.)/p/blockquote
pPlease show us the 2,000-page anything you put together with no typos. Congress does good work. Quit spitting on the flag and claiming it#8217;s rain./p
blockquotep ldquo;If insurance companies deprive coverage,hellip;there will be litigation.rdquo; They wouldnrsquo;t be breaking any laws by denying coverage to anyone, because the law doesnrsquo;t say they canrsquo;t./p/blockquote
pOh, but the law idoes/i say they can#8217;t. They#8217;re claiming that the law that bans their actions doesn#8217;t take effect until later. On one hand you accuse Congress of incompetence for writing a report on the bill that says there is no loophole, and then on the other hand you claim it#8217;s no violation of Congressional intent #8212; that is, the law #8212; to not follow the law. You need to sort out your thoughts, and unmuddle things./p
pThere will be litigation if the insurance companies deny coverage, and if insurance companies win, look for amendments. It#8217;s a case of if a few are left out, we all pay through the nose. It should be fixed./p
blockquotep Irsquo;m not saying they should deny coverage, of course, but looking at it objectively, they have that right. But I see yoursquo;ve jumped on the insurance-companies-are-evil bandwagon, even though they make only 3% profit./p/blockquote
pI said no such thing. There you go again, assuming things that are not in evidence. You noted, accurately, that Congressional intent was to leave no gaps. All I said was that if someone tries to avoid that law, there will be litigation./p
pIt#8217;s Republicans who work evil, here, much more than insurance companies. And note that I didn#8217;t say Republicans are evil #8212; they just do the bidding of evil. There is hope, always./p
blockquotep ldquo;Unless Sauron is more effective in mustering Republicans against an amendment than he was the first time around. It would be a heckuva fight, with pro-life Republicans publicly repudiating their stands in order to force children to suffer and die.rdquo; It wasnrsquo;t just Republicans who were against the health-care takeover; Republicans were, Democrats were, and Independents were./p/blockquote
pThere was no takeover. We have no National Health Service as do Canada and Britain #8212; both of which have health care systems that are more efficient, more effective, and much cheaper than ours. /p
pNo Republican had the guts, sense, or patriotism to step forward and support the bill. They worked hard to earn the blame for what goes wrong, and they should get it in spades./p
blockquotep And come on, guy, thatrsquo;s a tad dramatic, ldquo;The Republicans want to force children to suffer and die!rdquo; Oh, okay./p/blockquote
pNot okay with me. It#8217;s immoral, and the Republicans should be stopped if they try to enforce a kill-the-children rule./p
blockquotep ldquo;hellip;The provision Sen. Feinstein had proposed to fix the problem was stopped by Republican.rdquo; Republicans against have not once tried to stop reform,/p/blockquote
pNot just once, but hundreds of times. They objected to consideration of the Feinstein bill, and they objected to allowing health care to proceed normally, preventing its being tacked on as a wholly germane and good amendment. /p
pYes, Republicans worked hard to stop reform. Each and every one of them. Shame on each and every one of them./p
blockquotep . . . and the Democrats who supported the health-care takeover have not once tried to initiate reform./p/blockquote
pNot once, but hundreds of times. At least annually since 1903./p
blockquotep The new bill does nothing to reform anything. It doesnrsquo;t increase competition because it still prevents you from purchasing insurance across state lines./p/blockquote
pWhy won#8217;t Republicans allow that amendment? It seems like it would make sense./p
blockquotepTherersquo;s no malpractice-suit reform in there./p/blockquote
pMost states, like Texas, have already done that, and found it doesn#8217;t help. At most, malpractice contributes about 5% of total health costs. Reform won#8217;t do much, and reform tends to favor large institutions who manage to injure individuals #8212; malpractice doesn#8217;t need reforming, and it won#8217;t help much./p
blockquotep Republicans offered numerous solutions while the Democrats literally locked themselves up behind closed doors to prevent the Republicans from having any part of the legislation./p/blockquote
pWhat country are you in? Here in the U.S., our President Obama made his first trip outside of the White House after inauguration to meet with Republicans on Capitol Hill to ask their cooperation and pledge his. They refused on the spot./p
pDespite this, Democrats in the Senate held more than six months of negotiations with Republicans; my sources tell me it was quite tortured. Republicans refused to cooperate much, so the Dems took old Republican proposals and put them in, unless the Republicans said #8220;no,#8221; which they often did. Odd to see the Republicans repudiate what you now say would have helped the bill./p
pIn the end, Republicans just refused to do anything but object./p
pThe budget reconciliation process isn#8217;t friendly to amendments. Here in the U.S., that was what Republican constipation of the legislative process led to./p
pIt was different in your country?/p
blockquotep So, yes, the Republicans should be proud that they tried to prevent socialism and offered up true reform./p/blockquote
pNo one ever proposed socialism. Republicans should be ashamed they can#8217;t tell socialism from republican democracy. Here, the Republicans just refused to do anything, let alone offer any move toward any different reform./p
blockquotep ldquo;It will be interesting to see how recalcitrant industries fight improved health care. The important first step in reining in costs was to expand coverage.rdquo; Coverage was expanded to some 10 or 15 million people at the expense of freedom and at the expense of reducing the quality of the health care to everybody else. Yay./p/blockquote
pWho lost freedom? Not you. Don#8217;t make stuff up./p
blockquotep ldquo;Occasional wins by evil is not evidence that the war has been lost.rdquo; Good, this gives me some hope./p/blockquote
pGood, don#8217;t abandon hope. But it would be nice if you#8217;d stop fighting hope, too./p
/li
li class=comment odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1 id=comment-97824
Nick Kelsier Says: br /

April 18, 2010 at 5:58 pm

pOh and Chris, there are pictures of CHeney and Rumsfeld shaking the hand of Saddam Hussein and his cronies. /p
pHave fun choking because that rather shoots down any sense of superiority you get claiming making up stupid claims about Obama and Chavez./p
/li
li class=comment even thread-even depth-1 id=comment-97823
Nick Kelsier Says: br /

April 18, 2010 at 5:57 pm

pChris wrote:br /
Bush was a humble person, a faithful husband, a dignified person in general./p
pHe was arrogant and egotistical. /p
pAnd as for #8220;faithful husband#8221; that has what to do with being President? No matter what you say he was one of our worst Presidents of all time. /p
pBush authorized a fools war in Iraq that did no small part in nearly bankrupting this country. He attacked Iraq despite them having nothing to do with 9-11. He let Osama bin Laden get away and he did little to deal with Al Qaeda. He authorized torture. He sacrificed much of our moral standing with the rest of the world. And domestically he continously screwed over the middle class and the poor while kissing the asses of the rich. /p
pAnd you want to claim that Kennedy#8217;s alleged affairs makes him a worse person then Bush? My..you do have a messed up sense of morality. Let me know when you want to bother to have an actual sense of morality. Because thinking that a person who cheated on his wife is worse morally then a person who ordered torture is just this side of being morally depraved./p
/li
li class=comment byuser comment-author-whothennow24 odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1 id=comment-97773
Chris Graham Says: br /

April 18, 2010 at 3:02 pm

pnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Historians are just liberal elitist pricks who look back at history and form an opinion on it. They don#8217;t look at history any more objectively than they look at the present day. #8220;Historian#8221; is just a title given to someone with a emhobby/em in reading history books. And those historians are just using W. as a scapegoat; there was that one American president (I forget his name) who lasted one month in the presidency. He got nothing done in that one month, needless to say, so you would think any emobjective/em #8220;historian#8221; would call emhim/em the worst. But the #8220;historians#8221; obviously based their conclusion on Bush being the worse simply because they didn#8217;t like him./p
pnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;em#8220;A loophole or gap in a law is common, and not a sign of incompetence.#8221;/em Oh, okay. I#8217;d have to argue that incompetence is common, then. (Well, that goes without saying when it#8217;s in regard to Congress.) /p
pnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;em#8220;If insurance companies deprive coverage,#8230;there will be litigation.#8221;/em They wouldn#8217;t be breaking any laws by denying coverage to anyone, because the law doesn#8217;t say they can#8217;t. I#8217;m not saying they emshould/em deny coverage, of course, but looking at it objectively, they have that right. But I see you#8217;ve jumped on the insurance-companies-are-evil bandwagon, even though they make only 3% profit./p
pnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;em#8220;Unless Sauron is more effective in mustering Republicans against an amendment than he was the first time around. It would be a heckuva fight, with pro-life Republicans publicly repudiating their stands in order to force children to suffer and die.#8221;/em It wasn#8217;t just Republicans who were against the health-care takeover; Republicans were, Democrats were, and Independents were. And come on, guy, that#8217;s a tad dramatic, #8220;The Republicans want to force children to suffer and die!#8221; Oh, okay./p
pnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;em#8220;#8230;The provision Sen. Feinstein had proposed to fix the problem was stopped by Republican.#8221;/em Republicans against have not once tried to stop reform, and the Democrats who supported the health-care takeover have not once tried to eminitiate/em reform. The new bill does nothing to reform anything. It doesn#8217;t increase competition because it still prevents you from purchasing insurance across state lines. There#8217;s no malpractice-suit reform in there. Republicans offered numerous solutions while the Democrats literally locked themselves up behind closed doors to prevent the Republicans from having any part of the legislation. So, yes, the Republicans emshould/em be proud that they tried to prevent socialism and offered up true reform./p
pnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;em#8220;It will be interesting to see how recalcitrant industries fight improved health care. The important first step in reining in costs was to expand coverage.#8221;/em Coverage was expanded to some 10 or 15 million people at the expense of freedom and at the expense of reducing the quality of the health care to everybody else. Yay./p
pnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;em#8220;Occasional wins by evil is not evidence that the war has been lost./em#8221; Good, this gives me some hope./p
/li
li class=comment byuser comment-author-edarrell bypostauthor even thread-even depth-1 id=comment-97770
Ed Darrell Says: br /

April 18, 2010 at 2:50 pm

blockquotepBush was a humble person, a faithful husband, a dignified person in general./p/blockquote
pYou#8217;ve never met Bush, and you don#8217;t know much about him, do you./p
/li
li class=comment byuser comment-author-edarrell bypostauthor odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1 id=comment-97768
Ed Darrell Says: br /

April 18, 2010 at 2:47 pm

blockquotepObama#8217;s a weak rookie who likes to appease and pal around with dictators (he#8217;s good friends with Chavez, and even Castro#8211;former communist dictator of Cuba#8211;approves of the way Obama is running America. Communists don#8217;t approve of democracy, yet this communist approves of Obama#8217;s job. Interesting, no?/p/blockquote
pGood friends with Chavez? They#8217;ve met once. Obama said Venezuela needs to get with the program, stand up for rule of law in the Americas. Chavez gave Obama a book. /p
pYou imagine a lot that didn#8217;t happen and isn#8217;t realistic. Obama#8217;s no closer to Chavez than Dick Cheney is, just wiser in handling the nut./p
pWho cares what Castro says in an interview? Castro didn#8217;t claim Obama#8217;s anything other than a U.S. flag-waving patriot. I can#8217;t find anything that suggests Castro approves of Obama#8217;s policies, especially since Obama turned up the diplomatic heat on Chavez. What are you talking about?/p
/li
li class=comment byuser comment-author-whothennow24 even thread-even depth-1 id=comment-97762
Chris Graham Says: br /

April 18, 2010 at 2:21 pm

pAnd apparently I suck at HTML./p
/li
li class=comment byuser comment-author-whothennow24 odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1 id=comment-97760
Chris Graham Says: br /

April 18, 2010 at 2:18 pm

pNick Kelsier: /p
blockquotep#8220;Anything Kennedy did as far as being a #8216;disgusting human being#8217; pales to W.#8221;/p/blockquote
pYes, because W. cheated on his wife with countless women and thought he could do whatever he wanted just because he was the president. Bush was a humble person, a faithful husband, a dignified person in general./p
blockquotep#8220;Least Kennedy didn#8217;t start a fool#8217;s war in a country that did nothing to deserve invaded.#8221;/p/blockquote
pYes, because Saddam Hussein wasn#8217;t a brutal dictator who killed hundreds and hundreds of thousands of his own people. The world is safer because that madman is dead. Because BUSH got rid of him. Hussein DID have WMDs (he used them against his own people, duh). The only thing Bush made a mistake at was warning Iraq that we were coming (the UN approved of the invasion, by the way, as did Congress). Because we warned Hussein (Saddam, not Obama), he was able to get the WMD over the border to Syria. We should have just gone in there with no warning. And we need to do the same to Iran, but Obama#8217;s a weak rookie who likes to appease and pal around with dictators (he#8217;s good friends with Chavez, and even Castro#8211;former communist dictator of Cuba#8211;approves of the way Obama is running America. Communists don#8217;t approve of democracy, yet this communist approves of Obama#8217;s job. Interesting, no?/p
pYeah, poor terrorists, being #8220;tortured,#8221; boo-hoo. We made blood-thirsty psychopaths THINK they were drowning, oh man, so harsh, so, so evil! Poor terrorists!br /
Now, I can#8217;t WAIT for you to tell me how Bush #8220;crashed the economy.#8221; I can#8217;t wait. Please tell me, seriously. Don#8217;t hold back. Tell me what you think. /p
pYou: /p
blockquotep#8220; screw the middle class and suck the dicks of the rich.#8221;/p/blockquote
pYou mean like Obama is doing now? On both counts? Kinda like that? Why are liberals so anti-rich? People get rich because they earned it. They get rich because of hard work and ambition, most of the time. Other times they inherit it, sure, but the majority of the time, they earned it. Jealous? Then try harder like they did. Don#8217;t steal from them to pay for your unambitious, whiny self./p
/li
li class=comment even thread-even depth-1 id=comment-97718
Nick Kelsier Says: br /

April 18, 2010 at 11:24 am

pEd writes:br /
It would be a heckuva fight, with pro-life Republicans publicly repudiating their stands in order to force children to suffer and die. /p
pReally think they#8217;re going to have much of a problem doing that, Ed? It#8217;s not like they#8217;ve shown much concern for the health and life of children after they#8217;ve been born so far#8230;./p
pClaiming the Republicans are #8220;pro-life#8221; is like claiming that David Duke is pro-black./p
/li
li class=pingback odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1 id=comment-97711
What is the best paintball harness out there that matches requirements below? | Paintball Gear Bags Says: br /

April 18, 2010 at 10:13 am

p Health care legislation as Waterloo ndash; Oliphant (and Benson #8230; /p
/li
li class=comment byuser comment-author-edarrell bypostauthor even thread-even depth-1 id=comment-97608
Ed Darrell Says: br /

April 18, 2010 at 1:24 am

pNot liberals based on polls who said Bush was worst ever: Historians, based on their comparison with every other president. (It#8217;s a iRolling Stone/i story, and their website is down this weekend for dramatic revisions.)/p
pA loophole or gap in a law is common, and not a sign of incompetence. It#8217;s quite inventive of the insurance companies to claim to have found a way to deprive sick and injured children of coverage. I#8217;m sure you read the article carefully. If insurance companies deprive coverage, contrary to the language of the conference report, there will be litigation. If by some fluke the insurance companies win that litigation, proving that Congress#8217;s intent was not carried out in the language they passed, there will be amendments, unless Sauron is more effective in mustering Republicans against an amendment than he was the first time around. It would be a heckuva fight, with pro-life Republicans publicly repudiating their stands in order to force children to suffer and die. /p
pThe new law has protections of consumers built in, to resolve and head off some of the problems you fear, according to the NYT article (by my old friend Robert Pear, who is among the best in covering these issues):/p
blockquotepConsumers will soon gain several other protections. By July 1, the health secretary must establish a Web site where people can identify ldquo;affordable health insurance coverage options.rdquo; The site is supposed to provide information about premiums, co-payments and the share of premium revenue that goes to administrative costs and profits, rather than medical care./p
pIn addition, within six months, health plans must have ldquo;an effective appeals process,rdquo; so consumers can challenge decisions on coverage and claims. /p/blockquote
pWill insurance premiums rise? We were sure of it before, at about a 15% per year clip. Does the iLA Times/i article say they will rise faster than that? It notes that the provision Sen. Feinstein had proposed to fix the problem was stopped by Republican#8217;s obstreperousness (#8220;Congressional rules#8221; is what the article said). Republicans won#8217;t be proud to trumpet this one, either, I#8217;ll wager. We needed a good gross of Righty-Be-Gone to fix that problem (Why didn#8217;t you note that it was the right that cause this problem? Are you ashamed of it, too?)/p
pIt will be interesting to see how recalcitrant industries fight improved health care. The important first step in reining in costs was to expand coverage. A public option to compete with insurance companies might have provided a good, market mechanism to fight undue increases, but since the Republicans have not allowed that yet, we#8217;ll probably have to go the regulatory route./p
pIronic that Republicans are driving increased regulation of private industry, no? Unprincipaled, unholy opposition to good government will create such problems, and every Republican should hang his or her head in shame. /p
pMy God is not incompetent. Evil is not benign, though, and must be fought at every turn, at every moment. Occasional wins by evil is not evidence that the war has been lost./p
pWordPress and HTML: Yeah, HTML is accepted at almost all WordPress powered blogs, and all WordPress hosted blogs that I have found. Good luck with your blog./p
/li
li class=comment odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1 id=comment-97600
Nick Kelsier Says: br /

April 18, 2010 at 12:23 am

pAnything Kennedy did as far as being a #8220;disgusting human being#8221; pales to W, Chris./p
pLeast Kennedy didnt start a fools war in a country that did nothing to deserve invaded. At least Kennedy didn#8217;t authorize torture. And at least Kennedy didn#8217;t crash the economy, screw the middle class and suck the dicks of the rich./p
/li
li class=comment byuser comment-author-whothennow24 even thread-even depth-1 id=comment-97595
Chris Graham Says: br /

April 17, 2010 at 10:42 pm

pI agree with you about Truman. He#8217;s just about the only Democrat I like. He made unpopular decisions that saved millions of lives (and not only the lives of Americans). And aside from being a disgusting human being, Kennedy was not too bad a president. Remember when you liberals pointed to Bush#8217;s approval ratings (and still do) and said, #8220;See? He#8217;s the worst president in history#8221;? Yeah./p
pNow, I#8217;m glad you brought up this #8220;no pre-existing conditions#8221; thing. It was reported in the New York Times, one of Obama#8217;s many personal fluffers, that while ObamaCare DOES prevent children from being DROPPED from coverage because of a discovered pre-existing condition, it does NOT prevent insurance companies from DENYING coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. That#8217;s what happens when, in a mad rush to advance pure Marxism, you push through legislation before even taking time to proofread it, let alone read it at all. Remember what Pelosi said? #8220;We have to pass the bill so you can see what#8217;s in it.#8221;/p
pAnd just for kicks, from the LA Times, one of the most liberal, in-the-can-for-Obama publications around, we find this:/p
p #8220;Public outrage over double-digit rate hikes for health insurance may have helped push President Obama#8217;s healthcare overhaul across the finish line, but the new law does NOT give regulators the power to block similar increases in the future.br /
#8220;And now, with some major companies already moving to boost premiums and others poised to follow suit, millions of Americans may feel an unexpected jolt in the pocketbook.br /
#8220;Although Democrats promised greater consumer protection, the overhaul does NOT give the federal government broad regulatory power to prevent increases.br /
#8220;#8216;It is a very big loophole in health reform,#8217; Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said. Feinstein and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) are pushing legislation to expand federal and state authority to prevent insurance companies from boosting rates excessively.#8221;/p
pYour gods are completely incompetent./p
pAlso, from one decent human being to another, I just made my WordPress blog last night and am still unsure of a bunch of things, one of which is whether or not I can use basic HTML in comments like this. Do you happen to know? I didn#8217;t want to try it and then have my comment end up looking like crap because HTML is NOT accepted. There#8217;s no preview button, so I figured I shouldn#8217;t risk it./p
/li
li class=comment byuser comment-author-edarrell bypostauthor odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1 id=comment-97592
Ed Darrell Says: br /

April 17, 2010 at 10:07 pm

pLike Truman, sometimes you pay a public poll price for doing the right thing. Still have to do the right thing./p
pWait until the Republicans start campaigning on repeal of the #8220;no pre-existing condition#8221; clause. I can hardly wait./p
/li
li class=comment byuser comment-author-whothennow24 even thread-even depth-1 id=comment-97589
Chris Graham Says: br /

April 17, 2010 at 9:37 pm

pMeanwhile, his poll numbers keep falling#8230;./p
/li

/ol

a href=http://buy-cytotec.netbuy generic cytotec/a

pimg alt=Health Prototype Candidates by juhansonin src=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3106/3093096757_81567dc0e7.jpg //p

a href=http://buyantabuseonline.netbuy cheap antabuse online/a

ul
li class=sidenameIN THE PRESS/li

liA must-read blog … br em-The Wall Street Journal/em/li
liLearn more in ten minutes than you could reading your local paper for a week.br em- Industry Insider /em/li
li- Read more…/li
/ul

ul class=singlespace
li class=sidenameRECENT MENTIONS/li
liThe New York Times/li
liThe Washington Post/li
liThe Economist/li
liABC News/li
liWSJ.com/li
liWHYY/li
/ul

ul class=singlespace
li class=sidenamespan style=color: #333333;THE TECH SECTION/span/li
liHealthcare, Tech and Innovation /br
br
/ul

ul class=singlespace
li class=sidenamespan style=color: #333333;THE OP-ED SECTION/span/li
Opinion pieces from the leading minds in healthcare
br
/ul

ul

li class=sidenameTHCB INSIDER/li

liReform: Round 2/li

li

pHealth food supplements are one of the hottest selling products in the market these days. Their total consumption values billions of dollars in the U.S. alone. Recent surveys show that more than half of the adults in the U.S. consume health food supplements in different forms, such as tablets, capsules, powders, soft gels, gel caps and liquids./p
pThe increased consumption of health food supplements can be attributed to public awareness of health issues and improved standard of living in our society. Many studies have shown that there is a close correlation between health and nutrition. Insufficient supply of nutrients can weaken our body defense mechanism, causing medical problems from common ailments to more severe illnesses in the long term./p
pThere are different types of health food supplements, including macronutrients (amino acids, proteins, essential fatty acids), micronutrients (vitamins and minerals), enzymes (digestive enzymes and antioxidant enzymes), probiotics (beneficial bacteria in the gut), and herbal supplements. These supplements have unique functions in our body. They are either essential for life and good health, modulate our immune system or help with liver detoxification, digestion, mental clarity, etc./p
pMany people argue that there is no need to consume health food supplements as long as you have a healthy lifestyle and eat a balanced diet. While this may be true, the fact is maintaining a healthy lifestyle and proper diet is difficult to achieve by many people./p
pOver the past few decades, the green revolution has changed the farming practices over the world. We use more chemical fertilizers, more pesticides to grow the food produce in order to increase harvest and shorten the growth period. As a result, soil nutrients and the population of beneficial soil bacteria are depleted rapidly, and the produce we grow today contain less micronutrient than before./p
pA stressful lifestyle, improper eating habits, imbalanced diet and increased exposure to chemicals such as environmental pollutants (air, water) and pesticides, drugs, hormones, heavy metals in foods also weaken our body gradually./p
pAlthough health food supplements can be beneficial to our health, consumers should still choose the products carefully. Currently, there is little regulation on the quality of health food supplements. Composition of some health food products may not match the label claims and the quality of raw materials and finished products is not guaranteed. Therefore, consumers should only buy from reputable health food manufacturers, read the labels carefully and read more related literatures./p
pHere are some general rules for buying health food supplements:/p
p1) Supplements made from whole foods, natural sources are better than the synthetic ones. They are more bioactive, can be absorbed readily, and less likely to be contaminated by chemicals such as coal tars used in chemical synthesis./p
p2) Protein-bonded vitamins and minerals (vitamins and minerals in organic form, binding to amino acids) are more bioactive than the inorganic forms./p
p3) Buy supplements using safe extraction methods, such as cold pressed extraction or supercritical extraction. This can avoid the harmful residue from chemical extraction./p
p4) Herbal concentrate and extract are usually more effective than the raw herbs./p
p5) Organically grown or wild crafted herbs are less likely to be contaminated by heavy metals, pesticides and other chemicals./p
p6) Read the labels, do not consume more than the recommended dose./p

a href=http://buy-valtrex-online.orgbuy valtrex online/a

pimg alt=Two Tables, Opposing Views, at a Health Care Reform Protest by stevis src=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2757/4169722773_dcfd0d922a.jpg //p

a href=http://buyclomidonline.orgorder generic clomid online/a
h3Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Statement on New Health Care Quality, Disparity Reports/h3pHHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued the following statement on new reports on health care quality and health care disparities faced by racial, ethnic or income groups. The new reports ndash; nbsp;the i2009 National Healthcare Disparities Report/i and the iNational Healthcare Quality Report ndash;/i were released today by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality./ppldquo;Todayrsquo;s reports demonstrate why passing health reform was so critical,rdquo; said Sebelius. ldquo;In 2009, healthcare associated infections increased and minorities were less likely to have insurance and less likely to get the treatments they needed. In a reformed system, more Americans will get the care they need, regardless of their race or ethnicity and the quality of care will improve. The numbers we saw today are troubling, but ultimately, reform will help turn these numbers around.rdquo;/ppAccording to the i2009 National Healthcare Disparities Report/i, Americans with no insurance are much less likely then those with private insurance to obtain recommended care, especially preventive services.nbsp; In addition, while some racial differences in lack of insurance have narrowed in the past decade, disparities related to ethnicity, income, and education remain large.nbsp; Under health care reform, families have a guaranteed choices of quality, affordable health insurance if they lose their jobs, switch jobs, move, or become sick. Health reform provides premium tax credits to those who canrsquo;t afford insurance, which will significantly reduce disparities in accessing high-quality health care.nbsp; nbsp;/ppThe 2009 Report also found that among the most prevailing disparity was the lack of preventive care.nbsp; For example, many minorities had worsening disparities in the percentage of adults over age 50 who received appropriate screening for colon cancer. Also, African Americans and Hispanics had increasing death rates from the disease.nbsp; The new health care reform law ensures that Americans have access to the free preventive services they need to create a system that prevents diseases before they require more costly treatment./ppThe iNational Healthcare Quality Report/i notes that very little progress has been made on eliminating health care-associated infections (HAIs), with rates of many HAIs increasing in the past year. Reform will improve the quality of care for all Americans through new incentives that reward quality over quantity of care./ppThe i2009 National Healthcare Disparities Report/i, and its companioni2009 National Healthcare Quality Report,/i are available at http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/qrdr09.htm, by calling 1-800-358-9295 or by sending an e-mail to ahrqpubs@ahrq.hhs.gov./pp style=text-align: center###/ppNote: All HHS press releases, fact sheets and other press materials are available at ihttp://www.hhs.gov/news/i./pp class=lastupdatedLast revised: April 13, 2010/ppemLynne Kiesling/em/p
pI noticed recently that Steve Levitt opined briefly on the health care bill in ways that are consistent with my earlier argument that unless Congress tackled the third-party payer problem head on they would be wasting our time and money. In his Freakonomics post, Levitt recommends Gary Becker#8217;s analysis to us:/p
blockquotepIn Beckerrsquo;s opinion, the health care bill that passed recently is a disaster for at least two reasons. nbsp;First, it seems to do little or nothing to deal with the single most important shortcoming of our current system: the fact that people pay very little on the margin for the medical care that they receive. nbsp;Imagine that you could show up at a carnbsp;dealership and have any car you wanted, and as many cars as you wanted, for no marginal cost. nbsp;The market for cars would be in complete chaos, and people would have too many cars, and the ones they had would be too nice./p
pThat is more or less the situation we now have with health care./p/blockquote
pI second Levitt#8217;s recommendation; Becker#8217;s post provides a thoughtful and careful analysis of the likely unintended consequences of the health care bill, most of them reducing economic welfare. Becker also focuses on the third-party payer problem:/p
blockquotepFor the most part, however, the bill increases our dependence on employer-based health care by imposing sizable penalties on companies that do not provide their employees with sufficient health insurance. Many companies are already beginning to add to their projected future costs the anticipated increase in the cost to them of insuring their employees. These changes will particularly affect the costs of smaller companies since they are the main ones that do not provide health insurance for their employees. Since smaller companies are responsible for a disproportionate share of additions to employment during recent years, this provision of the bill will tend to reduce the demand for workers and hourly wages./p
pThe US health care market is over-regulated rather than under-regulated. One example is that families in one state are generally not allowed to buy their health insurance from companies located in other states. Another example is the mandates that states impose on insurance companies, such as coverage of the costs of normal birth deliveries. Such coverage has little to do with insurance against unexpected health costs, whereas coverage of extraordinary delivery costs is a desirable protection against unexpected health care risks. The bill generally pushes in the direct of greater regulation, such as the limitations imposed on how much health insurance companies can spend on administrative costs relative to their other costs, the mandated reviews of the premiums charged by health insurance companies, and the mandated provision of health insurance by small companies./p/blockquote
pMy conclusion matches Levitt#8217;s too: #8220;Ultimately, it is hard to believe that this bill will be a net positive. nbsp;It remains to be seen whether it will be a wash, or far worse.#8221;/p

a href=http://buy-valtrex-online.orggeneric valtrex/a