In 1960 I was too young to vote for John F. Kennedy.
In 1968 I was hoping to vote for Robert F. Kennedy
It was not until November 8, 1994 that I voted for a Kennedy, and that was for Senator Edward M. Kennedy in his re-election campaign. I was among the first in my predominately Republican hill town to put out a Kennedy placard.
I was living in Williamsburg and my daughter and I, she at Hampshire College, me fighting the HIV cause in Springfield and Holyoke (MA), both had our first exposure to a paper ballot.
I remember the smiles on our faces when we put those ballots into an ancient box and walked into a sunny Autumn day.
Living and working in Massachusetts I learned and experienced both the positives and negatives of staunch progressivism. The negatives have nearly dissolved from my memory, but the positives shine on, and one of the highlights was working with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.
Like the Senator, the MDPH offered a unique blend of landmark programs, reasoned compromise and demonstrated an acute awareness of the disparity in social justice.
In Boston, Springfield and its surroundings counties, the MDPH supported my idealism, permitted me liberties and succored me during the many losses I experienced as a care provider. When I requested a change in venue for HIV services to Roxbury from the Back Bay, they agreed. When I wanted to open a Living Center in Western Massachusetts for those infected and/or affected by HIV, they provided funding. When I wept at the loss of the many who fell to AIDS, they provided grief counseling.
Like the Senator, MDPH had and has vision.
And like the Senator, I endorse and fight for universal health care.
My wish is for TeddyCare now!
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
30.8.09
29.7.09
Pro-Active Senator Udall Sends Health Care Message
Although I no longer live in New Mexico, I am proud to learn that Senator Tom Udall is taking the time to send out a clear message on the health care reform issues in an email today to his constituents:
MYTH: Health reform will force me to accept a public plan.
FACT: If you like your health plan, you can keep it. If you like your doctor, you can keep her. All health reform will do is help lower your costs by cutting wasteful administrative spending and boosting competition.
MYTH: Congress will not be forced to accept the public health insurance plan that they will force on everybody else.
FACT: This myth gets it exactly backwards. Right now, members of Congress have access to a quality health care plan that other Americans cannot buy into. One thing Barack Obama and I want to do is to give Americans and small businesses the ability to buy into a plan like the one I have. We also want to give all Americans access to a quality, affordable public health insurance option. No Americans will be forced to accept the public option, but right now millions of Americans are forced to accept no option.
MYTH: A public health insurance option will put private plans out of business.
FACT: More than 30 states, including New Mexico, offer state employees a choice between private insurance and a state-backed public option. These states have not seen either private or public plans forced out of the market. Their employees just have more options.
MYTH: Health reform will put a bureaucrat between me and my doctor.
FACT: Once again, supporters of the status quo have it exactly backwards. Right now, if you have private insurance, a private bureaucrat is paid to decide whether you can get the care your doctor recommends. Worse, the insurance company that person works for will often make more money if he denies your claim.
Health reform will not add a government bureaucrat to your private plan. It will make it illegal for that private bureaucrat to deny you coverage because your illness was the result of a preexisting condition. And it will make sure that your insurance company has to compete for your business, so they are less likely to make you jump through hoops just to get the care you need.
MYTH: Health reform will hurt Medicare.
FACT: Health reform will do a number of things to help Medicare recipients. As part of discussions surrounding health reform, the drug industry has pledged to provide seniors facing the "donut hole" gap in Medicare drug coverage with a discount of at least 50 percent, saving thousands of dollars for some seniors. Health reform will also simplify the application process for financial support for low-income seniors. It will also increase premium subsidies and decrease some copayments for Medicare's drug benefit. Finally, health reform will protect Medicare doctor payments and institute a number of measures to cut bureaucratic hurdles and improve the quality of care.
Medicare is more than a program; it is a commitment that America makes to its senior citizens. I would never support a health reform plan that betrays that commitment.
MYTH: Health reform will hurt small businesses and the economy.
FACT: Actually, small businesses who want to provide health insurance will be some of the primary beneficiaries of health reform. Small businesses and individuals now pay an additional 30 percent in health care costs to cover the price of red tape, compared to just seven percent for large businesses. By helping small businesses to work together, health reform will cut costs dramatically and make it possible for small businesses to provide employees with health care just like the big ones. Health reform will also provide tax credits to small businesses, allowing them to provide the care their employees deserve.
Right now, American car companies pay roughly $1500 per car in health care costs for their employees. Japanese car companies pay about $150. Health reform won't just make America healthier; it will make us more competitive in the global marketplace. That means more jobs for American workers and a more prosperous future for our children.
Setting the Record Straight on Healthcare
There's a lot of noise in the healthcare debate right now. All too often the voices of reason are drowned out by the misinformation of special interests and those who believe that inaction is the answer. In reality, the basic objectives of healthcare reform are very clear. Here's a breakdown of some of the myths that I've been hearing:MYTH: Health reform will force me to accept a public plan.
FACT: If you like your health plan, you can keep it. If you like your doctor, you can keep her. All health reform will do is help lower your costs by cutting wasteful administrative spending and boosting competition.
MYTH: Congress will not be forced to accept the public health insurance plan that they will force on everybody else.
FACT: This myth gets it exactly backwards. Right now, members of Congress have access to a quality health care plan that other Americans cannot buy into. One thing Barack Obama and I want to do is to give Americans and small businesses the ability to buy into a plan like the one I have. We also want to give all Americans access to a quality, affordable public health insurance option. No Americans will be forced to accept the public option, but right now millions of Americans are forced to accept no option.
MYTH: A public health insurance option will put private plans out of business.
FACT: More than 30 states, including New Mexico, offer state employees a choice between private insurance and a state-backed public option. These states have not seen either private or public plans forced out of the market. Their employees just have more options.
MYTH: Health reform will put a bureaucrat between me and my doctor.
FACT: Once again, supporters of the status quo have it exactly backwards. Right now, if you have private insurance, a private bureaucrat is paid to decide whether you can get the care your doctor recommends. Worse, the insurance company that person works for will often make more money if he denies your claim.
Health reform will not add a government bureaucrat to your private plan. It will make it illegal for that private bureaucrat to deny you coverage because your illness was the result of a preexisting condition. And it will make sure that your insurance company has to compete for your business, so they are less likely to make you jump through hoops just to get the care you need.
MYTH: Health reform will hurt Medicare.
FACT: Health reform will do a number of things to help Medicare recipients. As part of discussions surrounding health reform, the drug industry has pledged to provide seniors facing the "donut hole" gap in Medicare drug coverage with a discount of at least 50 percent, saving thousands of dollars for some seniors. Health reform will also simplify the application process for financial support for low-income seniors. It will also increase premium subsidies and decrease some copayments for Medicare's drug benefit. Finally, health reform will protect Medicare doctor payments and institute a number of measures to cut bureaucratic hurdles and improve the quality of care.
Medicare is more than a program; it is a commitment that America makes to its senior citizens. I would never support a health reform plan that betrays that commitment.
MYTH: Health reform will hurt small businesses and the economy.
FACT: Actually, small businesses who want to provide health insurance will be some of the primary beneficiaries of health reform. Small businesses and individuals now pay an additional 30 percent in health care costs to cover the price of red tape, compared to just seven percent for large businesses. By helping small businesses to work together, health reform will cut costs dramatically and make it possible for small businesses to provide employees with health care just like the big ones. Health reform will also provide tax credits to small businesses, allowing them to provide the care their employees deserve.
Right now, American car companies pay roughly $1500 per car in health care costs for their employees. Japanese car companies pay about $150. Health reform won't just make America healthier; it will make us more competitive in the global marketplace. That means more jobs for American workers and a more prosperous future for our children.
No to Health Care, Why not Senator?
| Senator | Lifetime contributions from Insurance/Pharma |
| Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) | $1,203,205 |
| Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) | $206,297 |
| Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) | $442,165 |
| Sen. Mike Enzi (R-NV) | $342,228 |
| Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) | $702,595 |
| Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) | $161,706 |
| TOTAL: | $3,058,256 |
Credo posted these Senators' names and how much they've received in industry contributions.
Any correlation? Recognize the hold-outs or hold-ups?
Darn right!
15.7.09
Dean on the "Health Care" Plan
It is possible that something happened, behind closed doors of course, between the President and former Governor Howard Dean, but when he talks health care, I listen intently and wonder why he wasn't asked to represent health issues in any number of the appointments made this year.
23.6.09
More Bill Maher, AMA Commercial
Maher turns an encumbered system into a farce, but isn't it already a joke.
21.6.09
Films: Under our Skin: Lyme's Disease
Life cycle of the tickA documentary about Lyme disease looks like a film worth searching out. I doubt it will be at the local cinema.
All parasitic diseases are problematic, often difficult to diagnosis, let alone treat, and folks are often misdiagnosed. Some patients who suffer from long term symptoms are often accused of exaggeration, psychosoma and frequently scoffed at by well meaning but not necessarily well trained diagnosticians.
Some with the disease do well with an antibiotic treatment, a treatment that should be prescribed immediately at early detection while others suffer endlessly with little hope of recovering their full health status.
It's not clear why some patients recover quickly and others don't. It is most likely individual predisposition, health history and fundamental to treatment, how quickly the disease is diagnosed and treated.
Controversy is already swirling around the documentary.
However, there is no controversy in my mind about the potential prevalence of Lyme in my community. I am surrounded by deer, fearless they come right up to the side of my house and are often in the yard, front and back, on the road or at a neighbours. Hungry they have chomped on one bush near the house that now is a stalk.
One of my closest neighbours, a careful but active male, was just diagnosed and treated.
And I am not always properly dressed to avoid a tick bite.
20.5.09
Pregnancy Prevention
This young 18 year old knows better than anyone that it takes more than words to prevent pregnancy, and that the on and off use of condoms doesn't work.
So with first hand experience, Bristol Palin chooses an abstinence message rather than a multi-pronged prevention approach. I wonder why.
She says that if a young woman had a trial baby in her hands all day long, she'd restrain herself and not have sex.
Well, it don't work that way, Ms. Palin.
Abstinence only programs are an abysmal failure.
Robotic dolls have been used in teen programs for numerous years that cry, need diapers changed, and seem as real as a new born.
Planned Parenthood did an international study of teen pregnancies, perhaps 7 or so years ago, and I sat down with one of their study group leaders over coffee in the summer of '02 in Portland to discuss the findings.
European teens were less likely to get pregnant and more often delayed sex. A large percentage of American teens had sex as early as 14 years of age.
The study delved into the whys.
Several differences in philosophy came to light:
- abstinence only programs are not touted as the be-all, end-all in most Western European countries
- European teens appeared to set higher, long term personal goals
- planned pregnancy seemed more likely in some of the Western European countries
- sex was seen as normal and
- not having sex also appeared normal when in school or preparing for a future in at least 2 to 5 of those Western European countries observed (see 2 above)
With little attention paid to prevention of any kind is it any wonder we have so many unplanned pregnancies?
It has been demonstrated in repeated studies that espousing (and funding) unrealistic goals contributes to more unintended pregnancies than healthy, inclusive, prevention programs that offer the introduction of birth control practices.
Can we change our health care system to include more prevention programs, and a fully funded program for teen pregnancy, STDs/STIs, etc?
So with first hand experience, Bristol Palin chooses an abstinence message rather than a multi-pronged prevention approach. I wonder why.
She says that if a young woman had a trial baby in her hands all day long, she'd restrain herself and not have sex.
Well, it don't work that way, Ms. Palin.
Abstinence only programs are an abysmal failure.
Robotic dolls have been used in teen programs for numerous years that cry, need diapers changed, and seem as real as a new born.
Planned Parenthood did an international study of teen pregnancies, perhaps 7 or so years ago, and I sat down with one of their study group leaders over coffee in the summer of '02 in Portland to discuss the findings.
European teens were less likely to get pregnant and more often delayed sex. A large percentage of American teens had sex as early as 14 years of age.
The study delved into the whys.
Several differences in philosophy came to light:
- abstinence only programs are not touted as the be-all, end-all in most Western European countries
- European teens appeared to set higher, long term personal goals
- planned pregnancy seemed more likely in some of the Western European countries
- sex was seen as normal and
- not having sex also appeared normal when in school or preparing for a future in at least 2 to 5 of those Western European countries observed (see 2 above)
With little attention paid to prevention of any kind is it any wonder we have so many unplanned pregnancies?
It has been demonstrated in repeated studies that espousing (and funding) unrealistic goals contributes to more unintended pregnancies than healthy, inclusive, prevention programs that offer the introduction of birth control practices.
Can we change our health care system to include more prevention programs, and a fully funded program for teen pregnancy, STDs/STIs, etc?
19.1.09
Why the Uniter Divided Us!
It's interesting to read commentary on where President Bush (for one more day) succeeded and where he might have failed.
His policies in Africa and AIDS funding seems to be touted among his successes.
Au contraire.
The funds allotted for AIDS were often crippled by their tie-in to abstinence as other national programs were bound to fundamentalism not constructivism. Prevention studies have all shown that abstinence only programs or programs that do not include safe sex practices are a failure, a folly, a misguided intent to moralise.
So, Mr. President I take this commendation others offer you and put it on the shelf where it belongs: your program was an abysmal failure. Moralising US dollars didn't reduce the spread of AIDS, and not understanding or appreciating how other cultures function only brings hazardous results, especially among African women who cannot self-efficate.
And, in the United States, direct care funding increased as prevention funding declined. False benchmarks were set for eliminating HIV and other STIs, and education was restricted. More moralising!
It is my sincere hope that Barack Obama, and his administration, will use common sense, and put some muscle into health care, whether it is here in the United States or abroad.
His policies in Africa and AIDS funding seems to be touted among his successes.
Au contraire.
The funds allotted for AIDS were often crippled by their tie-in to abstinence as other national programs were bound to fundamentalism not constructivism. Prevention studies have all shown that abstinence only programs or programs that do not include safe sex practices are a failure, a folly, a misguided intent to moralise.
So, Mr. President I take this commendation others offer you and put it on the shelf where it belongs: your program was an abysmal failure. Moralising US dollars didn't reduce the spread of AIDS, and not understanding or appreciating how other cultures function only brings hazardous results, especially among African women who cannot self-efficate.
And, in the United States, direct care funding increased as prevention funding declined. False benchmarks were set for eliminating HIV and other STIs, and education was restricted. More moralising!
It is my sincere hope that Barack Obama, and his administration, will use common sense, and put some muscle into health care, whether it is here in the United States or abroad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
