Monday, November 24, 2008
Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan
Senator Ron Wyden and the co-sponsors of the Healthy Americans Act sent Barack Obama a letter today:
“As former colleagues in the United States Senate, we would like to congratulate you on your election as the 44th President of the United States and offer our commitment to working with you in a bipartisan fashion to reform our health care system,” wrote the group of seven Democrats, seven Republicans and one Independent. “Over the last two years, we have come together as Democrats and Republicans because we believe that for health reform to succeed it must be bipartisan… we believe [these] principles outline the best way to reform the nation’s health care system and create the best “roadmap” to build bipartisan consensus on reform.”
The principles include: Ensuring that all Americans have health care coverage; Making health care coverage both affordable and portable; Implementing strong private insurance market reforms; Modernizing federal tax rules for health coverage; Promoting improved disease prevention and wellness activities, as well as better management of chronic illnesses; Making health care prices and choices more transparent so that consumers and providers can make the best choices for their health and health care dollars; and Improving the quality and value of health care services.
The letter was signed by: U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bob Bennett (R-Utah), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.).
Healthy Americans Act. The fundamental principle of that bill was the end of the employer-based market and the total reorganization of how most Americans purchased health insurance. That made it harder to pass, but much better than the alternatives. The plans we’re seeing from Obama and Baucus and other players, however, don’t take that risk, and so this letter isn’t defining it as core to the legislation’s principles. It’s important for everyone involved to be able to claim some intellectual influence on the final legislation, and that means they have to stick to principles that might be in the final legislation. But even if we pass the sort of bills we’re looking at, and even if they show themselves a happy improvement over the current arrangement, in 10 years, we’ll be looking at cost estimates, and wishing we’d been more attentive to Mr. Wyden. That said, I’ve heard that Obama has actually looked fairly closely at the HAA, and was rather impressed by its structure. So we could see some of its more radical lessons given life yet. But no one is willing to bet in that direction. SOURCE:EZRA KLEIN THE AMERICAN PROSPECT
Meanwhile, the Country that has had Socialized Medicine for decades has a new report out that was published in the Telegraph today that illustrates the severe problem that has developed in the government run Health Care system.
“The Healthcare Commission tested 51 trusts unannounced and found that only five adhered to Government rules. Its sample represents around a third of acute health trusts in England and were part of the largest ever programme of hygiene inspections in the NHS.
While most of the failures did not pose an immediate risk to patient safety,(blogger comment;since when does the spread of infection not pose an immediate risk?) the Commission found almost all acute trusts had more work to do to control the spread of infection.
In the areas where breaches did cause a serious risk, managers were told to take immediate action.(How about reporting what they will do to correct the problem?0
Three trusts were given improvement notices to tackle failures in decontamination processes.
Just over half of the 51 trusts failed to keep all areas clean and well-maintained, the Commission said.( This is probably the one most common cause of the spread of infection!)
However, it found that most had improved in relation to leadership and ensuring uniforms were clean and fit for purpose.(I would hope so!)
Anna Walker, chief executive, said: “At nearly all trusts we have found gaps that need closing. It is important to be clear that at these trusts we are not talking about the most serious kind of breaches. ( That would be deaths caused by post -operative infections!)
“But these are important warning signs to trust boards that there may be a weakness in their systems.( The whole system run by a bureaucracy is the problem-and I was privy to a serious one three years ago in the hospital in Italy. One of many European Countries that have “universal health care!)
“In particular, trusts need to ensure that their wards are consistently clean and well maintained, and that they have good decontamination and isolation arrangements.
( And the Obamaistas want us to have a system like this to replace the sterile and clean environment we now have that may be expensive, but is not a threat to your life!)
And to top it off the British Government announced today that: “Workers face higher tax and national insurance payments to fund a £20 billion package meant to help Britain spend its way out of recession, Alistair Darling has announced.
National insurance contributions will rise by half a penny in the pound for everyone earning more than £20,000 from April 2011 under the Chancellor’s plans. Taxes will rise by a total of £7.5 billion in 2011/12.
However markets welcomed the announcement, with the FTSE posting its biggest ever daily gain.” But the workers who cannot buy stock on the FTSE will not look at their paycheck with pleasure as it shrinks once again to pay for a bloated bureaucracy!
And as an added note, after 60 years of National Health Service, the British people finally get the freedom to choose hospitals! This article appears in today’s addition of NHS’s “About Choice Bulletin”.
“A dramatic expansion of patient choice in the NHS got under way in April 2008.
Surveys have consistently shown that patients want choice. The 2005 British Social Attitudes survey revealed that 65% of patients said they wanted choice of treatment, 63% wanted a choice of hospital and 53% welcomed a choice of appointment time.
The introduction of free choice means that patients referred to see a specialist are themselves able to choose where they are treated from any hospital that meets NHS standards.
The list includes many private hospitals as well as all NHS providers. Between them offer everything from treatment to your cataracts to open-heart surgery.
Under the move to free choice, if you and your GP decide that you need to see a specialist, you’ll be able to choose the hospital that best suits your needs.
Tell me the average person in the USA wants to change the excellent health care we now have for this type travesty!? British National health Service began in 1948, and it took sixty years to give the 61.4 million people covered by NHS to get freedom to choose their doctors and hospitals! Guess what over 200 million people will bring to a NHS in the USA. If you think Wall Street and the Banks are a mess just wait to see what the Obama people do to our health system!