It's time this law was enforced, full stop!

.

The thought of men, who are ostensibly not sexually active, dictating what sexual practices women may employ is offensive enough, but their pontification from high horses that employers must not be required to provide equal access to healthcare benefiting women (read contraception), while remaining stonily silent as those same employers provide healthcare policies that include coverage for Viagra and Cialis, is fairly dripping with irony. Depaul, America’s largest Catholic university has been complying with this law for ten years without a peep, as are many other such institutions in 28 states.

This is an issue of labor law, not religion. If a religious institution decides they don’t want to provide workers compensation, or comply with minimum wage, or child labor laws should we say, Let’s find a compromise? I think not. The administration must stand firm on behalf of America's women.

It’s time religious institutions respected the separation of church and state. It's time to enforce the healthcare law, full stop.

Does out President have any balls?

.
I do wonder whether our president has any balls. If he has he certainly doesn't seem to want to use them.

He came into office with a good bit of political capital and didn't use it. He dilly dallied around with healthcare: "negotiated" from the middle instead of from the left - which, of course, resulted in a pale, weak, watered down product that in the end didn't draw any votes from the Republican party.

Why didn't he lay out what he wanted? Why did he leave it to Congress to write the legislation; a Congress that is all over the board - from left to right - and could not possibly have come up with rational legislation. And he used up 14 months doing it. Fourteen months that we couldn't afford to give.

This president has so much potential & doesn't seem to realize it. The Republicans aren't going to meet him half-way. He needs to step up to the plate and take charge.

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico signaled to me that he just doesn't connect on an intuitive level. He's an intellectual first, last, and always, at a time when we
need a president who is smart and intuitive.

We criticized G W Bush for failing to show up in New Orleans for several days after Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. While Pres. Obama got there a bit quicker he certainly didn't impart a sense of urgency when he arrived. He strolled along the beach, looked down, and kicked the sand, and when he spoke he didn't express any compassion.

It's a good thing he brought intellectual capital to the White House but without some compassion, without a sense of urgency, without the balls to stand up for something, his presidency may be wasted.
.

Random Thoughts, Bon Mots

.
Conservatives govern badly & conclude that government is bad.
Conservatives vote their fears. Liberals vote their dreams.
Republicans obstruct. Democrats accommodate.

Our president is playing tennis. The Republicans are playing hardball.
Your enemies are either at your feet or at your throat.

The administration "...doesn't want a left it can't control. That's why they got rid of Howard Dean," says Eric Alterman.
When Howard Dean was chairman of the DNC, Democrats won special elections.

If you aren't eligible to vote you shouldn't be allowed to contribute to political campaigns.
Keep the U.S. Supreme Court in mind when you choose a president.

Successful negotiators don't begin by placing the result they believe they can achieve on the table.
If you want to negotiate meaningful healthcare reform you don't begin by stating that single-payer is off the table.

Journalism isn't taking dictation; it's asking serious questions & investigating to determine the veracity of the answers. The mainstream media (MSM) doesn't do journalism any more.

If you want to win in American politics you control the message.
The number of times the current Speaker of the House has appeared on Meet the Press? Zero
The number of times Newt Gingrich has appeared on Meet the Press? Too many to count.
If Democrats want to win the support of the American voter they have to get in the game.
.

Americans Who've Used Canada's Health-Care System Respond to Current Big-Lie Media Campaign

.
We've probably all heard or seen reports of how horrible the Canadian "socialist" health care system is. Well, I'm here to tell you it's all a bunch of b.s. Just read for yourself about how Canadians fiercely defend their system.

Click on the link above to learn about a) Americans who have lived in Canada and used the system, and b) Canadian natives who use and love their single-payer health care system.

Then remember it the next time you see or hear an attack on the sanest and least expensive model that guarantees health care for all: single-payer.

Now, keep it in mind when considering that our president is attempting to include a "public plan" in his healthcare reform bill. He's not advocating for single-payer - although I wish he would. He's simply asking for an option that will offer healthcare coverage to people who don't have a plan, or who can't afford any plans currently being offered. All others will be able to keep the plan they have, or buy any other plan they may want.

Unless we include a public option in this package we simply won't achieve reform; for-profit insurance companies won't have sufficient incentive to trim their costs/prices. So contact your congressmember and senators and demand that they support a healthcare reform bill that includes a public option.

Those Wacky Canadian Socialists!

Cynthia, a Canadian reader of Americablog recently wrote:

"I just thought I would write you and tell you what it is like as a Canadian with Health care. I am 53 yrs. old, female and I am a Registered ER nurse. I am married, with 2 grown children. For all my life, I have never known a time where I could not go to a Doctor, a hospital, or a clinic, or a specialist. I have never had to worry about paying up front.

"We do pay taxes, but then so do Americans and get no Health care for the taxes they pay. I have seen during my career, many Americans and illegals (we get them too!) come to Canada to get Health care. They think it is free, but far from it. They forget that we pay taxes for it. I have one good friend who was born in Detroit, and lived in Toronto, and then moved to Texas. While there, she got pregnant. She moved back to Canada to have the baby, as she told me she could not afford to have it in Texas. She still lives here now. Do I think I live in a Socialist country? Not anymore Socialist than the U.S. We are a democracy, just like the U.S., we have "Fat Cats" on Bay Street in Toronto just like your Wall Street. We have capitalism, just like the U.S., we have poor, middleclass, and rich, just like the U.S., I have heard so many republicans put down Canada and England's health care system, and say we are Socialist countries. Well, we are exactly like the U.S., except that we get Health Care for our tax dollars, whereas, the U.S. citizens get taxed, but no Health Care for that tax.

"I think every American should "rise up" and DEMAND a universal Health Care system. Why should Americans pay Insurance companies that more than not, find ways not to pay for a "sick" person. I find that disgusting! We all want to be healthy, and be able to go to a Doctor and a Hospital and receive care without going "Bankrupt", and it would even be better to pay a little more tax to the government than to pay taxes and Health care premiums to Insurance companies who are only in it for the money. So, no matter what they say about our Canadian Health Care system, I have to say, I feel great that if I have to pay taxes, at least I am getting something for the tax that I pay. No one in the U.S. should be without Health care, and no one should have to go bankrupt and worry if they can pay premiums. I do hope that President Obama ends up putting in a "Universal Health care program", I think it is every American's right!."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

So, what do we do with this piece of information? I plan to forward it to the President Elect and hope you will do likewise. Remember, it's our responsibility to communicate to our government what our priorities are.

A Healthcare Proposal

You know, I've been thinking. Since the State of California doesn't seem able to enact single payer healthcare legislation, and now doesn't even seem able to enact a "free market" plan, let's just spit it out: the reason we can't get any changes is because the healthcare industry (Big Pharma and profiteers) is so powerful.

The overwhelming majority of Californians know that profit making should be eliminated from the healthcare system; making a profit on one's health (or illness) is ghoulish. It is counter to every instinct of humanity. So let's attack the issue from a different angle.

First: let's deal with cost containment. I don't have the magic bullet for this one but it seems to me that we could start by mandating that Big Pharma negotiate drug prices with the State and that those prices apply to everyone. And perhaps we should put an annual cap on the amount of increase permitted throughout the healthcare industry.

Second: we must mandate parity between mental and physical illnesses. Illness is illness and it's time we recognized it.

Third: we must mandate that every healthcare provider (or insurer) must accept any Californian who applies for coverage without regard for pre-existing conditions, and they must not cancel one's coverage because of same. In instances of "experimental" treatment, funding should be provided by a special fund administered by the State. The fund would determine what is truly experimental. In a federal scenario this would be the National Institutes of Health.

Fourth: Healthcare "premiums" would continue to be paid by consumers, employers, and the state.

My hope is that not-for-profit healthcare would prevail. It's just not acceptable that for-profit insurers continue paying out 30% of their revenues for administrative costs when we know that Medicare's administrative costs are less than 3%. Profiteers would have to stop fighting their customers over what benefits they are entitled to and probably would realize a substantial saving in administrative costs as a result. Of course it would weed out companies that are not in the healthcare business but whose bottom line is their bottom line.

And that would serve us all.

U.S. Presidential Candidates' Healthcare Plans in Detail

Today's Huffington Post published a comprehensive, detailed comparative look at the healthcare proposals of all Presidential candidates; Democrat and Republican. It is compiled and written by healthcare professionals whose intent is that we be fully informed regarding whom we're voting for.

If you read it in full (click on title above) you cannot fail to see the stark differences between the parties, and the substantive disparities between the second tier and first tier Democratic candidates. Further, you will gain insight into the priorities of the candidates and their approach to problem solving, willingness to make real change, and realistic proposals for success.

I doubt that anyone would honestly be able to deny that John Edwards offers the deepest, most detailed proposal with Hillary Clinton a close second and Barrak Obama hot on their heels.

Our healthcare problem is perhaps the most intractable domestic issue we face and, I for one, want to be dead certain that my choice for President gets it. That s/he understands the issues involved and is willing to go outside the box to design a system that will rival those of other industrialized nations. It simply isn't acceptable that we continue spending 18% of our GDP on healthcare and still have 47 million people without healthcare coverage, and are way down the list on infant mortality, and life expectancy.

Susan Blumenthal, M.D. says, "While many Americans feel uninformed about the views of their elected officials on scientific, medical, and health research, most seem to understand the importance of providing necessary funds for medical studies. A poll conducted by Research!America in February 2007 found that the vast majority of people in the United States believe that science is very important to our health (86%) and competitiveness (78%) as a nation. Sixty-nine percent of Americans believe that scientific research is critical to our economy, 97% of Americans think it is important for the United States to be a global leader in scientific research, and 91% believe that it is essential in eliminating diseases, such as cancer. It is not surprising, then, that 83% of those polled in a 2006 survey indicated that they were more likely to vote for a candidate who supported increased funding "to find cures for and to prevent disease"."

We are losing people every day. Citizens who choose to live in other countries where they have access to full healthcare coverage via a national healthcare plan funded by their taxes.

I urge you to read this article and share it liberally with your e-list. What we do with healthcare in the next five to 10 years is crucial to the longevity of our population and, I believe, our nation. We've lost credibility throughout the world over the last six years as a result of an indescribably bad foreign affairs posture. We can't afford to continue with our heads in the sand on the most important domestic issue we face.

Here's the elephant in the room: we need healthcare NOT insurance.

Nobody will acknowledge that there's something ghoulish about making a profit from illness and that healthcare should be the right of every American, even though providing it would solve the biggest economic problem of the middle and working classes, and wipe out more than half of the country's bankruptcies.

In the 1940s Henry J. Kaiser offered healthcare coverage to attract workers because we were at war and needed to build ships. It worked. Sixty years later the world has changed and tying healthcare to one's job no longer works. It's time for the federal government to step up to the plate and solve the problem by expanding Medicare. The administrative savings alone would likely yield sufficient revenues to provide comprehensive healthcare services including vision, dental, and prescription drugs to everybody in the country.

But, you argue, The market place is the best provider of such services - except that flies in the face of the obvious: if that were true, it would already have happened. The fact is, "market forces" can't handle the job. Administrative costs for Medicare are less than 2% while the insurance industry causes up to 1/3 of revenues to be spent on same.

Compare: The Austrian government spends 9.6% of its GDP on healthcare and everybody in the country is covered. We spend 15% of our GDP on healthcare and 47 million of us have NO healthcare. I am convinced that by expanding Medicare to cover everybody the cost of healthcare in the U.S. could be provided for about 10% of our GDP.

The pols and corporate community still don't get it - or they just don't have the guts to do what's right. Talk truth to power: a) Remind the insurance industry that causing 1/3 of revenues to be spent on administrative costs has priced them out of the market, b) Acknowledge that single payer healthcare is NOT socialized medicine.

With single payer healthcare every American would still choose their favorite doctor, hospital, dentist and drugstore - each of whom would continue to operate independently. The only difference? They would receive payment from one source rather than from 50 (or more) sources. The cost savings would be HUGE.

The time has come. America needs single payer healthcare and there no longer exists any logical argument against it.

American industry has learned that the cost of healthcare should not be their responsibility but lacks the gonades to say that to the administration/congress.

The U.S. could provide single payer healthcare coverage for every American by simply expanding Medicare to cover everyone - including vision, dental, prescription drugs, and medical costs of worker's comp. The cost would likely not exceed the total amount our country is pouring into a mish mash of private and public initiatives that cover only part of our people and needs.

Medical professionals would continue as private practitioners and would receive payment through the most efficient public program ever devised here in the U.S. and Medicare's administrative fees are less than 2% while the current public and private plans spend fully 1/3 of their revenues on admin.

But that's too rational so we'll continue to muddle along letting medical costs escalate while the average worker's productivity grows, his/her income shrinks, and families resort to bankruptcy to pay for healthcare. Go figure.