Public Congress

I am very appreciative of my health coverage. I pay part, my employer pays part, and this is how America should work. We should all pay for our coverage, and doctors should still be adequately compensated for their work, considering the 12 or so years of education that they endured to be able to treat us all.

I find it so ironic how congress has demonized the health insurance industry for "outrageous" profits, when we now know how low their profit margin actually is, compared to other industries, but if Nancy Pelosi says it is so, all the liberals blindly follow.

I just received a letter from BarackObama.com encouraging me to contact my member of Congress and tell them I support HEALTH CARE REFORM. Does anyone know what that means?

I’m all for reform — I think 99% of Americans are for reform to minimize costs and maximize benefits…I’m still trying to pin down what this letter is asking of me other than to blindly support a health program nobody knows the specifics to. Still working that lamb angle.

The letter:

Friend –

Members of Congress have been home for just a few days, and they’re already facing increased pressure from insurance companies, special interests, and partisan attack organizations that are spending millions to block health insurance reform

(Pay no attention to the gallup polls that say 50+% of Americans don’t want the Government option)

These groups are using scare tactics and spreading smears about the President’s plan for reform, trying to incite constituents into lashing out at their representatives and disrupting their events

(Scare Tactics/Smears = Facts and potential conflicts).

The goal of these disruptions is for a few people to get a lot of media attention and hijack the entire public discourse. If they succeed, all Americans — Democrats, Republicans, and Independents — will continue to struggle under the broken status quo.

(50+% of Americans polled = the few hijacking public discourse)

It’s up to us to show Congress that those loudly opposing reform are a tiny minority being stirred up by special interests, and that a huge majority strongly supports enacting real health insurance reform in 2009.

(Opposing reform?)

Your representative, Susan Davis, has been fighting hard for real health insurance reform. Can you call the local office in San Diego? Let the person who answers know that you’re a constituent. Then tell them: "Thanks for working to enact real health insurance reform this year. Voters like me support your efforts."

Once you’ve made your call, click here to report it.

Calling should only take a few minutes, but it’s a huge help. These local offices serve as the main connection between a member of Congress and voters in the district. And with representatives home on recess, the staff there are in daily contact with your member, keeping them updated on how many calls they receive that are for or against reform.

Once you’ve called, please tell us. Knowing how many calls are coming in from all around the country will help us better plan our campaign — and help us show that the American people overwhelmingly want health insurance reform this year. Let us know you called:
Thanks,

Mitch

Mitch Stewart
Director
Organizing for America
Donate

As far as the federal government goes, there is only one thing I would like for the federal government to do regarding health care.

Currently, when a new drug formula is "found", it is necessary for the drug company to submit the formula to FDA for Approval before it can be marketed. It is also necessary for the company to have patent protection before they start this, as the formula becomes a matter of public record upon application. The process for approval is expensive, but more importantly, takes approximately 12 to 15 years. This means that when a new, potentially life-saving drug finally reaches the market, the company that owns the patent has 2 to 5 years to recoup their cost of obtaining approval, before the same formula can be made by anyone and sold in America for merely the manufacturing cost plus profit.

Congress could change Patent Law to allow a drug company to renew their patent protection automatically upon FDA approval, allowing the development cost to be spread out over 17 years instead of 2 to 5. This would cut the cost to the consumer/insurance company for these drugs significantly.

The cost of drugs is one component of Health Care. It isn’t all of it, certainly, but it is one area that federal involvement directly and demonstrably increases the cost to the consumer, and a little intelligent action on the part of Congress could help tremendously.

If they aren’t capable of UNdoing the harm they are causing now, I’d rather they didn’t do any more in other aspects of health care.

For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran

There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.

Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry” lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.

The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil” as resulting from “indecision.” Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.

If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.

Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.

In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.

America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.

The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.

Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.

Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.

In very few words, the bottom line is that we can’t afford this health care bill.

It is a lie that it will cost the country less money.

For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran

There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.

Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry” lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.

The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil” as resulting from “indecision.” Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.

If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.

Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.

In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.

America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.

The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.

Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.

Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.

No he doesn’t. For one thing there are plenty of other and better ways to measure the quality of health care than the way the WHO does it. One of those ways is to look at the outcome of people who do get sick. If you look at that data the conclusion is inescapable you’ve got a better chance of surviving in America than anywhere else. Does that mean we have the best health care, maybe but for sure it means that maybe those other programs are as good as claimed.

The profit motive makes the consumer the king. Its why the cost of items that are produced in the free market go down and it forces manufacturers and distributors to meet consumer needs. Many grocery stores and gas stations are open 24 hrs a day, yet the post office is considering elimination of saturday delivery.

The quality of cell phones and cell phone service has gone up while the cost has gone down. While the cost of postage is going up while service is being reduced, the cost of education is going up but I don’t know anyone that says education is improving.

Those who oppose the free market always like to through in the police and fire departments. But I say order a pizza and call 911 and see who gets there first the pizza or the police.

It looks like the public option plan may win and be in place in the next 2-3 years. However, I can’t find info out there about the premiums, etc. that Congress is going to be working on?

you can find the details on Google.

Amendments

First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment – Right to keep and bare arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bare Arms, shall not be infringed. [6][7]

Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

nothing millions of young men shed blood on foreign soil so we could be protected under them its good enough for me

Instead of saying no and giving nothing to the nation.

the American taxpayer is sick and tired of your lack of truth and manipulation as you grow and grow this out of control Fascist and Socialist government. Obama has just let out the details of his “budget” if it can even be called that – and 56% of it is for “entitlements” – these are “government programs” like Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps, Section 8 Housing and all of the other WASTE that the government hands out to the poor and to the minorities. Yet YOU and ME are paying for all this waste – and it’s coming out of the pockets of our kids and their kids. How do you feel about this? o_O

Do cons really think these black Democrats (like Obama) in congress are only Democrats because they are on welfare and looking for handouts?

Isn’t that the excuse you give for why blacks vote overwhelmingly Democrat?

Seems to me these guys are pretty well off and educated.

==========

Additional question: Why does the confederate South vote Republican and the yankee North vote Democrat today? Why did white southerners start voting Republican in 1964? What was the big deal back then?
spleenwater,

Unfortunately, not everyone knows this. A few confused cons think it was the conservatives who were out there protesting for change and civil rights in the 60s, and liberals who stood for the status quo.

Because Blacks are smarter than the average, that is why there are no black republicans….

Is it President Bush or is it the Democratic Congress? What are the percentages?
SHOULD READ "OR" not of
Who has the lower public opinion rating the President or Congress?

Congress is at a whopping 9%. Which means 9 out of 10 Americans think they stink. What that tells me is that there is that 1 0ut of 10 Americans are retarded.

BBC Report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8…
Dozens of people have died and hundreds of others have been infected in a viral outbreak in Mexico suspected to have been caused by a strain of swine flu.

The World Health Organization thinks the virus may be behind 60 deaths in Mexico since mid-March.

Mexican authorities have closed schools in affected areas and a vaccination campaign is being launched.

Seven non-fatal cases of a new form of swine flu have also been confirmed in the southern United States.

A WHO spokesman said 12 out of 18 samples taken from the Mexican victims showed they died from a virus with the same genetic structure as the one found in the US.

The WHO would convene an emergency meeting in the “very near future” to determine whether the event constituted a “public health event of international concern”, Gregory Hartl told Reuters news agency.

The White House said it was following the US outbreak – in California and Texas – closely.

‘Mutated from pigs’

WHO spokeswoman Fadela Chaib said “unusual end-of-season influenza activity” was noticed in Mexico starting from the end of March.

Fifty-seven people had died in Mexico City from flu-like symptoms, she said, and another three in San Luis Potosi in central Mexico. There are around 800 suspected cases, she said.

Duration : 0:1:23

Read the rest of this entry »