Healthcare

[Seth]

But I do agree, Molly, the standard of socialized Medicare does miss the mark of the intention of the Constitution. Don't want you to think I misunderstood you. I think you are right about that.

It's just that when I compare ANYTHING man has to offer, including even the Constitution, to Christ, it doesn't look like him much at all.

[Barry DuPont]

I've lived in a few countries including the USA Canada and France (Guadeloupe). France by far had the best system.
The problem IMO is not neither democratic socialism or democratic capitalism. The problem is the "ideal" that the people serve the government. I have yet to live in a country were this was not the problem.
I do not believe that any one political philosophy can best address all social issues. On the contrary the view that it can polarizes the public into "camps" and "enemies" and empowers the government to have the people serve it. Divide the public !. Who can make the most useless and fake promises and promise the most for a greedy public full of self interest.

Anyway :), sorry for the rant.
I just believe that we should stick together and get away from the idea that one view solves all problems.
IMO health care should be predominantly social in nature. But run with accountability. Which is not the case anywhere I have ever lived.

JMO of course
Barry

[WhiteWings]

With unlimited resources very much is possible. But resources are not unlimited. I'm the first to agree there is a lot of greed everywhere. But all that high-tech medical stuff isn't build of  :2c: cardboard boxes.
I think most will agree childeren learn best in somewhat smaller classes/schools.
But it all costs money. And whatever system you choose the cost somehow has be paid by people.
Perhaps ideal healthcare would cost $500/month. Ideal schooling the same. That's simply out of reach for most. So choices have to be made. And very often that means reducing quality or increasing costs/taxes somewhere.
So I fully agree wiyj your quote Barry

I just believe that we should stick together and get away from the idea that one view solves all problems.

[SQ]

I can give you a 100% guarantee that when our healthcare was really socialist people never were turned away for anything. No matter the cost and/or duration of the treatment.

Maybe you guys never get seriously ill because in other socialist countries it's a different story.  Now we are really into who lives and who dies.

Yep, we a superhumans. Must be the cheese :laughing7:
And even the cheese eaters get decades of AIDs and cancer treatment to name just two. I think you are confusing socialist with communist.....

No I"m not confusing anything.  The same people who brought us Darwinian evolution as science now want to control our medical schools and who gets to be a doctor and who gets treatment and who doesn't.

I've talked to a lot of docs about this bill, and make no mistake, there will be a serious healthcare crisis in this country if it is passed because docs did not put 8 hard years into their education to have the govt tell them who they can treat and how.

How this will affect my mother that has age sickness and many dr and hospital visits, will probably be bad for her.
What do you think will happen to the aged and sick?

[Molly]

Closing in on cancer  


By Abigail Klein Leichman
November 12, 2009

An Israeli researcher has stumbled on a drug that kills cancer cells without harming normal cells, paving the way for a more effective treatment against cancer.


An Israeli research scientist has accidentally discovered a chemical compound that eradicates cancer cells without harming normal cells in the process.

The substance may prove to be the long sought-after "holy grail" in the wider field of cancer treatment. For now, it shows promise as a specific weapon against breast cancer.

Prof. Malka Cohen-Armon, a biochemist at Tel Aviv University, tells ISRAEL21C that the compound is a component of a family of drugs developed 10 years ago to preserve nerve cells stressed by a stroke or inflammation. But further study showed the drugs were inappropriate for their intended use, and they were released only for research purposes.

Cohen-Armon and her team of researchers began working with the drugs to study how the compound affected signal transmission within the nucleus of cells. Their goal was to find an application for DNA repair. Its effect on cancer cells was an unexpected, and potentially huge, discovery.

"We found that those drugs somehow turn on a mechanism in cancer cells that causes them to die within 48 to 72 hours without harming normal tissue," explains Cohen-Armon, a professor in the Neufeld Cardiac Research Institute of TAU's Sackler School of Medicine. "In fact, the normal cells continue to proliferate even in the presence of the drug."

In experiments with female mice, the compound was injected with several types of cancerous tissue, particularly breast-cancer cells. Cohen-Armon was amazed to discover that the substance suspends cell division in both cancerous and normal body cells - but while cancer cells never recover, normal cells are back in business within 12 hours.

Normal cells in business 12 hours later

"If we had tried to look for some drug that would do this, it would have taken us a lot of time," says Cohen-Armon, whose latest findings appear in the current issue of the international peer-reviewed journal Journal of Breast Cancer Research.

The potential applications of such a drug are enormous, admits Cohen. Today, in the US alone, about 1.3 million women are diagnosed with breast cancer annually, while 465,000 women die from the disease annually according to the American Cancer Society.

Patients diagnosed with the disease must undergo chemotherapy and radiotherapy, both of which are aggressive treatments that kill cancerous and healthy cells causing severe side effects in the patient. In some cases, patients undergoing chemotherapy can even die from the side effects of the treatment.

"We actually found the Achilles heel of the cancer cell," Cohen-Armon said in an article in Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz. "As soon as you can target cancerous cells without killing healthy ones, you can produce medications that would cause a lot less suffering to the patient. We can even give a much more aggressive treatment without worrying about harming healthy tissues."

Cohen-Armon, who is working with veterinarian Dr. David Castel, Sheba Cancer Research Center scientist Dr. Shai Izraeli and PhD student Asher Castiel, hopes that in future, the drug could also be used for other types of cancer.

"If we can understand the molecular mechanism well, then perhaps [we can identify] other drugs that could be used even more efficiently and for other cancers," she explains, adding that today the researchers still have no idea exactly why the drug affects cells in this way. "Then we can give a drug specific to whatever cancer a patient has, and with no side effects."

A breakthrough that needs support

At present Cohen-Armon and her team are restricted to exploring the effects of this drug on breast cancer alone as the drug is patented to a US pharmaceutical corporation until 2017. The university's technology transfer company, Ramot, has secured a usage patent enabling it to develop the drug to treat only breast cancer, and is reliant on the US company's continuing goodwill.

The team is also working with severely limited funds. A major infusion of funds is necessary to bring the potential treatment from lab to market.

"A university cannot develop a drug on its own," Cohen-Armon tells ISRAEL21c. "These experiments, if undertaken by a pharmaceutical company, can be completed in a shorter time because they have more resources. So we must find a company interested collaborating with us in developing this drug."

Cohen-Armon has worked at the university for 26 years. "I am interested in basic research, but now and then we have a breakthrough when I notice something that could be applicable," she says.

Four years ago, while working with scientists at Israel's Bar-Ilan University and Columbia University in New York, Cohen-Armon isolated a protein in the nucleus of animal and plant cells that is central to the formation of long-term memories.

That protein is now being researched further in the United States with the help of a grant from the National Institutes of Health.



http://www.israel21c.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7379:closing-in-on-cancer&catid=57:health&Itemid=63

[natcat86]

Here in Blighty we have like a single payer system. Even with so called rationing 100% of Britons get to see a doctor and get treatment, the draw back is tht waiting lists are long. BUT I would take that any day over the US system. That 45.7 million Americans are with out health care, its a joke. To me it seems the christian thing to do to give everyone health care. Those who can afoard there own can keep their own and those who are bankrupting themselves and getting into massive dept, families breaking down from stress of huge bills, people having to wait until they qualify for the ER to get care, all these people will be offered a ray of hope with the public option. So you will never please all the people all the time but at least with a public option you can treat all the people.

Also it isn't Obamacare. Obama hasn't had anything to do with the bill as it stands now, he gave it up to the house and now its in the senate so how is it obama care? its as more Grassley care than obama care!!

[Molly]

That 45.7 million Americans are with out health care, its a joke.

You're right, it's a joke.  It's a made up number.  It's more like 10 million who could easily be absorbed by an improved medicare/medicaid system which we already have.

The public option will drive the ins companies out of business.  Everyone knows this.

The states could solve this problem.  We don't need to give the government 1/6th of our economy to manage like they have social security, medicare, and the post office.

Now they are talking about a 250,000 fine and five years in jail if you don't enroll in their healthcare plan.  That won't bankrupt people?

Even if the plan were implemented tomorrow, it won't help the uninsured until 2013, but it will cut millions to medicare immediately.  Tricky, huh?

However, it could be that none of us will need much healthcare in the future, so the problem will become moot.

[Seth]

I think the Senate removed that portion of the bill regarding the fine.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/interview-with-the-president-jail-time-for-those-without-health-care-insurance.html

[natcat86]

You're right, it's a joke.  It's a made up number.  It's more like 10 million who could easily be absorbed by an improved medicare/medicaid system which we already have.

That figure comes from the Census Bureau.

[Molly]

I think the Senate removed that portion of the bill regarding the fine.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/interview-with-the-president-jail-time-for-those-without-health-care-insurance.html

That would be nice but Obama says he doesn't want people to 'free ride' his socialized medicine system, so there will be penalties.  What about the provision that guarantees the pensions of unions with tax payer dollars?  Is that a 'free ride'?  What about asking doctors to work way below their payscale?  Is that a 'free ride'?  What about forcing small business to bear a bigger burden.  Is that a 'free ride'?  What about spending money we do not have.  Is that a 'free ride'?  What about forcing our grandchildren and the rest of the world to pay for us? Is that a 'free ride'?  What about controlling the medical schools and who gets money to become a doctor?  Is that a 'free ride'? What about asking nurses to do the work currently reserved for doctors?  Is that a free ride?  What about panels deciding who gets what medical care based on age and illness?  Is that a free ride?

Free ride and socialism go hand in hand.  But, it's always a free ride for some and a nightmare for others.

[Molly]

You're right, it's a joke.  It's a made up number.  It's more like 10 million who could easily be absorbed by an improved medicare/medicaid system which we already have.

That figure comes from the Census Bureau.

Oh and that makes it a true and accurate number?


The Myth of the 46 Million
By Philip Klein on 3.20.09 @ 6:10AM

"Even for folks who are weathering this economic storm, and have health care right now," President Obama said at this month's White House health care summit, "all it takes is one stroke of bad luck -- an accident or an illness, a divorce, a lost job -- to become one of the nearly 46 million uninsured..."

Whether it's in political speeches, commentary, newspaper features, or hard news stories, the statistic of 46 million uninsured is one of the most-widely cited numbers in the health care debate. It promotes the idea that nearly one out of every six Americans does not have access to health care and it plays into the arguments of those calling for massive expansion of government to fix the problem. Yet the ubiquitous figure is highly misleading.

To be clear, the statistic is not pulled out of thin air. It comes from an annual report by the Census Bureau, which most recently pegged the number of uninsured at 45.7 million for 2007. But the problem lies in the way the statistic is commonly cited and understood.

For starters, the statistic does not mean that there are "46 million uninsured Americans," as the New York Times reported in a recent story on health care, and as is echoed throughout the media. Just a quick look inside the Census Bureau data shows that 9.7 million of the uninsured are not citizens of the United States. Liberals can argue that we still have a moral duty to cover non-citizens, but this doesn't change the fact that as a matter of accuracy, the Census data only tells us that 36 million Americans are uninsured.

But this doesn't fully convey the problematic nature of the 46-million statistic. As even the authors of the Census Bureau report themselves acknowledge, "health insurance coverage is likely to be underreported" in the Current Population Survey from which the health insurance data is derived. The reason is that respondents are asked in February through April about their health coverage status in the previous calendar year. Some may answer the question as intended, but others may cite their current insurance status, and others may say they were without insurance even if they only spent a portion of the year without coverage.

"[T]he estimate of the number of people without health insurance," according to the report, "more closely approximates the number of people who are uninsured at a specific point in time during the year than the number of people uninsured for the entire year."

In reality, a person who goes without coverage for a few months while between jobs is in a completely different boat from somebody who is permanently without insurance. But the broad citation of the headline figure would have you believe that there are literally 46 million people who never, ever, have coverage.

How many people actually spend the whole year without health insurance? It's difficult to say, and recent data is hard to come by. But in 2003, the Congressional Budget Office took a stab at answering the question, and looked at two studies from 1998 that conducted interviews multiple times over the course of the survey period. One study pegged the number of people who were uninsured for the entire year at 31 million, while another put it even lower, at 21 million. In either case, the number was significantly lower than it was in 1998's Current Population Survey, which found 43.9 million uninsured.

Another problem with citing the 46-million figure is that many of those who are identified as uninsured are actually eligible for existing government programs but simply never bothered to enroll. In 2003, a BlueCross BlueShield Association study estimated that about 14 million of the uninsured were eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP. These people would be signed up for government insurance if they ever made it to the emergency room.

In addition, some of the 46 million could theoretically afford health coverage, but chose not to purchase any. In 2007, 17.6 million of the uninsured had annual incomes of more than $50,000 and 9.1 million earned more than $75,000. In fact, as Sally Pipes notes in the Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide, those making more than $75,000 per year are part of the fastest growing segment of the uninsured population.

The Census figures also show that 18.3 million of the uninsured were under 34. Some in this age group may have simply determined that they are young and healthy and thus can do without coverage.

When all of these factors are put together, the 2003 BlueCross BlueShield study determined that 8.2 million Americans are actually without coverage for the long haul, because they are too poor to purchase health care but earn too much to qualify for government assistance. Even being without insurance still doesn't mean they won't have access to care, because federal law forbids hospitals from denying treatment to patients who show up at the emergency rooms.

This exercise isn't about downplaying the problems facing the American health care system, but a necessary part of devising the proper remedies. Under current state laws, mandates force insurers to provide certain benefits, meaning that young and healthy Americans must choose between paying exorbitant premiums to cover treatments that they don't need or going without health insurance. Many of these so-called "young invincibles" who are included in the ranks of the uninsured could be wooed into the market were they allowed to purchase catastrophic insurance with lower monthly premiums.

Right now, the tax code exempts people from paying taxes on health care benefits purchased through their employer, while denying the same tax advantages to individuals. Ending this discrimination would make health care more affordable to those who are self-employed or not covered through their workplace. In addition, this would allow Americans to have health care policies that are portable, so it would reduce the gaps in coverage people can face when they quit or lose a job.

Those pushing for a major government intervention in health care are distorting the 46-million statistic to boost their cause, and by disseminating it so widely without further elaboration, the media is rigging the game in their favor. 



http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/20/the-myth-of-the-46-million

[natcat86]

That article is all, "some may" or "theoretically" lots of supposition and opinion so not too reliable.

But we shall agree to disagree, I can understand why people are passionate on both side. The fairest way to decided if there is a public option is already taking place. Obama voted in by the majority of American's who knew he would want a public option. The bills have been voted on in the house, so its the most democratic and fair situation it can be! The majority of Americans want a public option so... there you go! God bless democracy!

[Seth]

I think the Senate removed that portion of the bill regarding the fine.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/interview-with-the-president-jail-time-for-those-without-health-care-insurance.html

That would be nice but Obama says he doesn't want people to 'free ride' his socialized medicine system, so there will be penalties.  What about the provision that guarantees the pensions of unions with tax payer dollars?  Is that a 'free ride'?  What about asking doctors to work way below their payscale?  Is that a 'free ride'?  What about forcing small business to bear a bigger burden.  Is that a 'free ride'?  What about spending money we do not have.  Is that a 'free ride'?  What about forcing our grandchildren and the rest of the world to pay for us? Is that a 'free ride'?  What about controlling the medical schools and who gets money to become a doctor?  Is that a 'free ride'?

Free ride and socialism go hand in hand.  But, it's always a free ride for some and a nightmare for others.

Trust me, I am not defending or opposing gov't sponsored healthcare. Just thought it was a pertinent enough point that the Senate removed the bill's portion regarding a $250,000 fine and jail time as far as what I saw in the article.

[Molly]

That article is all, "some may" or "theoretically" lots of supposition and opinion so not too reliable.

But we shall agree to disagree, I can understand why people are passionate on both side. The fairest way to decided if there is a public option is already taking place. Obama voted in by the majority of American's who knew he would want a public option. The bills have been voted on in the house, so its the most democratic and fair situation it can be! The majority of Americans want a public option so... there you go! God bless democracy!

Does this look theoretical to you?

When all of these factors are put together, the 2003 BlueCross BlueShield study determined that 8.2 million Americans are actually without coverage for the long haul, because they are too poor to purchase health care but earn too much to qualify for government assistance. Even being without insurance still doesn't mean they won't have access to care, because federal law forbids hospitals from denying treatment to patients who show up at the emergency rooms.

How about this?


In addition, some of the 46 million could theoretically afford health coverage, but chose not to purchase any. In 2007, 17.6 million of the uninsured had annual incomes of more than $50,000 and 9.1 million earned more than $75,000.


How about this?


Just a quick look inside the Census Bureau data shows that 9.7 million of the uninsured are not citizens of the United States.

Where do you come by the opinion that most Americans want the public option?  The polls show that most Americans do not want any part of their healthcare boondoggle.  We have, after all, watched them bankrupt medicare, social security, and the post office.  Nor do we want them to have access to our most private medical files or control over any part of our lives.

[jabcat]

I personally doubt, if the truth were really known (if the polls weren't manipulated) that most Americans really do want a public option.  At least in my opinion, those that have an understanding as to what that would mean and where it ould almost undoubtedly lead.  The government selling health insurance?  :mshock:   I believe some things need fixed, health INSURANCE  (this is an insurance bill) and access be made available to all - just don't mess up the whole system.

Also, IMO, as far as people having gotten to know Obama so they voted him in - I think there's much more involved in that.  I believe people were already so disillusioned with what was going on with the previous administration, as well as, for whatever reason, not being able to fully realize at the time all that Obama really stood for, that those factors had a lot to do with his being elected.  I think and hope there will be a return to something closer to (the good parts) of what our founding fathers envisioned - minus some of the things they were blinded on (slavery, conquest, etc.)  True justice, liberty, equality....

HOWEVER, I still personally believe things will be a mess until God, however He chooses to do it, truly ushers in His Divine Government.   I'm not up for an argument here, God veils and reveals, and these are my  :2c:.  It's a complicated issue, but I do believe we should be praying for our leaders and for God to overcome evil with good - as He will.

[natcat86]

I followed that logic that Obama was voted in by a majority therefore the majority of americans must support a public option. There are polls showing the majority do and polls showing the majority dont. But the fact is that the majority voted for obama.

[Molly]

I followed that logic that Obama was voted in by a majority therefore the majority of americans must support a public option. There are polls showing the majority do and polls showing the majority dont. But the fact is that the majority voted for obama.

well, following that same logic, his approval ratings have fallen well below 50 percent, and he hasn't even been in office for one year.

[natcat86]

Well this is only my opinion but I think that the amount of lies that have been told, death panels, forced abortion etc have probably added to a drop in public opnion. Also many dems have lost faith because they wanted a stronger public option and they feel he has allowed too much to be given up and too much pandering to the repubs and blue dogs.

[CHB]

I personally doubt, if the truth were really known (if the polls weren't manipulated) that most Americans really do want a public option.  At least in my opinion, those that have an understanding as to what that would mean and where it ould almost undoubtedly lead.  The government selling health insurance?  :mshock:   I believe some things need fixed, health INSURANCE  (this is an insurance bill) and access be made available to all - just don't mess up the whole system.

Also, IMO, as far as people having gotten to know Obama so they voted him in - I think there's much more involved in that.  I believe people were already so disillusioned with what was going on with the previous administration, as well as, for whatever reason, not being able to fully realize at the time all that Obama really stood for, that those factors had a lot to do with his being elected.  I think and hope there will be a return to something closer to (the good parts) of what our founding fathers envisioned - minus some of the things they were blinded on (slavery, conquest, etc.)  True justice, liberty, equality....

HOWEVER, I still personally believe things will be a mess until God, however He chooses to do it, truly ushers in His Divine Government.   I'm not up for an argument here, God veils and reveals, and these are my  :2c:.  It's a complicated issue, but I do believe we should be praying for our leaders and for God to overcome evil with good - as He will.

Jabcat, my thoughts exactly.  :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

CHB

[Raggedy Anne]

Here in Blighty we have like a single payer system. Even with so called rationing 100% of Britons get to see a doctor and get treatment, the draw back is tht waiting lists are long. BUT I would take that any day over the US system. That 45.7 million Americans are with out health care, its a joke. To me it seems the christian thing to do to give everyone health care. Those who can afoard there own can keep their own and those who are bankrupting themselves and getting into massive dept, families breaking down from stress of huge bills, people having to wait until they qualify for the ER to get care, all these people will be offered a ray of hope with the public option. So you will never please all the people all the time but at least with a public option you can treat all the people.

Also it isn't Obamacare. Obama hasn't had anything to do with the bill as it stands now, he gave it up to the house and now its in the senate so how is it obama care? its as more Grassley care than obama care!!

Exactly, Natcat.   Americans must look so stupid to the rest of the world.  In fact, I've been told how stupid we look from a good number of on-line friends who are not Americans.   There has been a real dumbing down of the people here.    We have become a people manipulated by fear.  It's pathetic.   The Bush/Cheney administration used fear as their choicest weapon.   Obama is a man of reason who is the leader of many unreasonable people.  His situation reminds me of that which Moses had to deal with. 

Anne

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Not pertaining to healthcare comment here; is anyone aware that Obama is busy putting in devout Muslims in key positions, including our National Security department? I find that unsettling personally, only 8 years after 911. Blessings.....

[Raggedy Anne]

:cloud9: Not pertaining to healthcare comment here; is anyone aware that Obama is busy putting in devout Muslims in key positions, including our National Security department? I find that unsettling personally, only 8 years after 911. Blessings.....

I don't know, but it sounds like a typical right-wing rumor that very well may be untrue.   You know like "He was born in Kenya" and is actually a "Muslim" etc... all lies. 
Why isn't Karl Rove in jail?

Anne

[Molly]

:cloud9: Not pertaining to healthcare comment here; is anyone aware that Obama is busy putting in devout Muslims in key positions, including our National Security department? I find that unsettling personally, only 8 years after 911. Blessings.....

I don't know, but it sounds like a typical right-wing rumor that very well may be untrue.   You know like "He was born in Kenya" and is actually a "Muslim" etc... all lies. 
Why isn't Karl Rove in jail?

Anne

You really should give up the 'right wing/ left wing' nonsense.  This is their way of dividing our country into 'teams.'   We are not teams in a game, we are each citizens, and should behave as such.

I wouldn't mind seeing Karl Rove in jail, too, if he's broken laws,  and I'd also like to see Obama's original and complete birth certificate.   I would have to produce mine if he requested it.

[natcat86]

Here you go Molly  :happygrin:

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg

Unless you would like him to bring it round your house for you to inspect personally I dont know what else he can do to prove he was born in US???

[Molly]

Here you go Molly  :happygrin:

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg

Unless you would like him to bring it round your house for you to inspect personally I dont know what else he can do to prove he was born in US???

That's not his birth cerficate.  That's a certificate of live birth, which has also been claimed to be a forgery and since it's on the internet, could be anything.  It doesn't name the hospital where he was delivered or the doctor who delivered him.  He has repeatedly been asked in the courts to produce his birth certificate and he's spent over a million dollars fighting the request.  Why?