I finally received a response from Bart Gordon, my Congressman. He totally ignored my request for a debate. Now I know why.

I had challenged him before the August recess. As September has arrived, that means it took him a month to respond. It is obvious from his email that he would have had to come unarmed to any battle of wits. I will present that email as proof. Remember, he sits on the Health Subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Dear Crawford,

Thank you for contacting me about national health care reform legislation. Like most hard-working Americans, I believe we need to make health care more affordable for everyone.  But, on an issue this important, it is much better to take the time and get it right than to get it done quickly.  That is why I helped ensure that no bill would be considered in the House this summer.

I am disappointed in his response to the concerns I expressed about healthcare reform. First, I offered to debate him in a public forum during the August recess. There is no mention of that in his email. Also, I find his email regrettable in its lack of consistency, facts and logic.

Notice also that he brags about delaying consideration of any reform bill. Let’s be honest. Delay is no more nor less than the favored tactic of the health industry. He is taking credit for following orders. Teddy Roosevelt  included a universal healthcare proposal as a part of his campaign platform in 1912. FDR proposed it. HST proposed it. JFK proposed it. Jimmy Carter proposed it. Bill Clinton proposed it. And, Bart Gordon thinks we need to take our time. How many have died and will die while Bart diddles?

Currently, we spend one out of every six dollars in the United States on health care, and the cost of health care is rising twice as fast as inflation with no end in sight.  Tennessee’s small business owners and other hard working people are telling me they can’t keep up with the cost of their health insurance premiums.  Insurance costs for small businesses have risen 129% since 2000.  If we do nothing, these costs will further strain families and businesses, and will threaten to bankrupt the country as well.  It will be impossible to cut the national debt unless we deal with health care spending.

So, small businesses, families and the national debt will just have to wait while Bart diddles. Also, notice how he begins speaking of healthcare reform but quickly changes the subject to health insurance.

There are several principles that I believe must be addressed in any health care reform measure: the package must be deficit neutral;

Other than single-payer (HR676), none of the proposals can be deficit neutral without significant tax increases or massive cuts in other necessary programs. Such “savings” as al-PhARMA’s $80 billion concession are silly promises from proven liars. The bulk of that $80 billion goes to seniors in the do-nut hole to buy brand name drugs instead of generics. It will be a bonanza for the drug companies. And, that is only $8 billion per year. The immediate savings of single-payer are more than $400 billion annually from one category alone. Every other plan increases the number of customers, income and profits for AHIP and al-PhARMA. Much of that will cost the government in massive subsidies. The other plans are not deficit neutral. Delay is not deficit neutral. Bart can’t count.

it must make health coverage more affordable for individuals and small businesses;

Eliminating preexisting condition bans will require higher premiums. Requiring small businesses to cover more people doesn’t seem to be a way to make it more affordable. The first point of this paragraph would also apply to individual coverage.

it must ensure coverage is portable when you change or lose your job;

He wants to maintain our traditional method of employer-based plans. Can you imagine the complexities and inefficiencies of making these portable? Will your new employer provide the same plan, or any? Will the government or your former employer pay for your policy while you are unemployed? Some will lose a gold-plated plan along with their job. Others will lose a less attractive plan. Will both plans be maintained? Will there not be cries of that being inequitable?

it must end barriers to coverage for people who get sick or have a pre-existing medical condition; and it must ensure that insurance companies are not able to deny, limit, or specially price your insurance because of a pre-existing condition.

The insurance companies publicly and explicitly promised the Congress that they would accomplish universal coverage and eliminate preexisting condition prohibitions in 1993. Who will guarantee that if not the government?

I do not support a single-payer health care system.  Health care reform must preserve the employer-based health care system so Americans can choose their own doctors and hospitals. No one, including the government or your insurance company, should be able to make life-and-death decisions for you.

Here is where Bart proclaims his devotion to employer-based plans. Why? So that we can choose our own doctors and hospitals. In the past 6 years I have had more than 30 doctors and more than 15 surgical procedures. Nashville is known as a national center for healthcare. Medicare has never questioned any choice of doctor or hospital. I have friends whose private insurance has refused to pay for certain doctors or hospitals. I consider myself knowledgeable enough to find the best doctors in the area. Such nonsense as Bart is spouting are mere scare tactics straight from the lobbyist-supplied playbook of talking points. He is on a government-run healthcare plan. Does it deny him his choices? I think not.

As here, I frequently hear, explicitly or implicitly, that we must preserve our private health insurance system. However, no one has dared to say why. The reason for that lack of an answer is that there is no reason. No health insurance company has ever cured a single malady. They are, however, responsible for innumerable deaths through denial and other forms of rationing. I don’t give a fig for the insurance companies. They add absolutely no value to healthcare.

The best analogy I can come up with for the health insurance industry is the Mafia. If someone comes in and insists that you must pay them 30% of the value of your inventory for protection, you consider that a protection racket, a criminal enterprise. That analogy fails because the Mafia will actually protect you as long as you make payments.

The private insurance companies commonly make life and death decisions for their customers. I have yet to run into that with Medicare. It seems unlikely that people on Medicare would rate their plan more favorably than any other group if the government was trying to kill them. The intended inference is that only single-payer will take those decisions from you. Bart is full of bat feces.

There has been a great deal of misinformation out there.  AARP and other organizations are working to clarify this information. To read about myths and facts related to health care reform, you can visit AARP’s health page at http://www.aarp.org/health.

True. There is a great deal of misinformation out there, and in his email. He and his owners are the ones responsible for promulgating it. He suggests checking with AARP. Does that make sense? AARP receives the bulk of its income from selling insurance and publishing ads for the health industry.

There is no single bill before Congress right now, there are five different health care reform proposals in the House and Senate and several more steps in the legislative process before any legislation will be enacted.

Actually, there are only four bills. The Senate Finance Committee members, aside from the Gang of 6, have been complaining of being kept in the dark. Their bill has not surfaced. Again, Bart can’t count.

Passing no bill at all is better than passing something that makes things worse.

That is a truism. It’s difficult to imagine creating worse than what we presently have but politicians such as Bart are fully capable of pulling it off.

I hope that we can improve the health care system for everyone, and will continue to work with my Democratic and Republican colleagues to accomplish this.

Other than the select group of Blue Dogs, I see no evidence of his working with the Democrats. I hope he is not wasting his time working with the Republicans on this issue.

Thank you again for contacting me.

G

How cutesy.

Sincerely,

BART GORDON

Member of Congress

It should now be obvious why he fails to respond to my challenge.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The President has a headache. His healthcare reform is in trouble. He can’t even get a bipartisan agreement that Dr. Seuss ate green eggs and ham.

Two noted health reporters, the Washington Post‘s Ezra Klein and Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic, this week had major articles marking the difficulties the President’s reform was running into in Congress. While Speaker Pelosi continues to insist that the House will produce some vague public option that is to Obama’s liking, the Senate is still taking their marching orders from the healthcare industry.

It seems that the President is refusing to take medical advice. David Scheiner, MD was for 22 years his primary care physician, until he moved into the White House. Dr. Scheiner is a strong advocate for a single-payer system. Mr. Obama would be well-advised to listen to this man. He recently stated, “It’s nonsense that the private insurance companies need to be protected. Why? Because they’ve done such a good job?”

Let me answer the good doctor’s question. Let me do it emphatically. The only valid reason for not supporting a singe-payer system is that it does not generate bribes.

Reid Cherlin, the President’s assistant press secretary for health issues, wrote in an e-mail, “The President has been clear that while a single-payer system may work in some countries, it makes the most sense for us to build on what works in the system we have and to fix what’s broken.” What about the present system is worth saving? To quote Obama’s own physician, “Because they’ve done such a good job?”

I would suggest that the entire system is broken. If you have a complete junker of a car, a Yugo, if you will, that would cost more to repair than buying a brand new Lexus, what is your choice? This question presupposes that comfortable, economic, reliable transportation is your primary consideration. Your answer may be different if you have some strange Yugo fetish.

You may demur. You may say that there are things about our system that are worth saving. You would be missing the point.

The question is not how good the latest MRI machine is. The question is what should replace the present insurance morass. The question is how to structure a system we can afford. The question is how to incentivise preventive healthcare. The question is why do we need to waste nearly $750 billion each and every year on paperwork and on profits for people who don’t heal anyone; for people who ration what we can get; for people who stand between us and our physician?

The denizens of the Congress work for us (supposedly) yet enjoy a far superior healthcare plan than most of the people they work for. Let’s put it this way. Either we should be able to get what they have, or they should get what we have. If they produce a “reform” plan that is not as good as theirs, we need to force them to participate in whatever plan they devise for us or we need to rid ourselves of these parasites.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

They are arguing the inarguable. The Regressives in Washington are arguing an issue that should have been settled during the Truman Administration.

Had we instituted a national healthcare system based on a single-payer, we would now be without a national debt. This would be true even if all the wasteful spending on the military and in other areas remained unchanged. This would be true even if the leeches on Wall Street and the prostitutes in Congress had behaved exactly as they have. How does that grab you?

While all of this unnecessary arguing has been going on, the healthcare leeches have been sneaking around putting another of their favorite ripoffs on the agenda. They have reportedly garnered the support of President Obama for banning malpractice suits. This is intended to become a part of any “reform” package.

There is no questioning Obama’s intelligence or political skills. This, however, could be a matter of his plate being too full for him to be able to adequately juggle everything being tossed into the pot.

Most people reading this have likely already formed an opinion on the issue of malpractice that differs from mine. Stay with me on this. The marketing of this nonsense has been so successful that most people are in a position of being against rationality, legal tradition, and their own self-interest, their own rights.

The American Medical Association would have you believe that all malpractice suits are frivolous. Absolutely Wrong. They would have you believe that malpractice suits are driving up the costs of health care. Wrong again. You need to take a look at malpractice suits and malpractice insurance.

Malpractice insurance rates are not tied to malpractice claims. Since the year 2000, malpractice claims have gone down substantially. Malpractice insurance premiums have risen substantially. Why? The insurance companies put the premiums into Wall Street. Part of their problem was the bursting of the dotcom bubble. Actually, since 2000, these insurance companies have done significantly worst than just about all other major investors.

These malpractice insurance companies, just as the health insurance companies, are going to continue making those obscene profits. In this instance the physicians get screwed. As the premiums increase, the physicians try even harder to protect themselves. They order more unnecessary tests; tests that end up costing everyone more. The physicians are riding a dead horse. Whatever they do will have little or no effect on the premiums they pay.

All of that was just about money. Let’s get to the real obscenity.

Prescription drugs are the 4th leading cause of death. Physicians receive almost all of their pharmaceutical training from the drug pushers. They are encouraged to use drugs in what is called “off label.” This means using these potions and nostrums for problems not authorized by an already too industry-friendly FDA.

They are also encouraged to prescribe these drugs for children when they have never been tested on children. Children are not medically just little adults. There are numerous physical, chemical and physiological differences between children and adults. Additionally, their systems are weaker and less resilient.

There is a particular problem with the area of mental health. Eighty percent of all prescriptions for psychopharmaceuticals are written by physicians in specialties other than psychiatry. Psychiatrists are incorrectly trained on the subject of mental illness. But, the other specialties are completely untrained. Eighty percent of prescriptions are written by people who rely entirely on the lies of drug salespeople. They do this out of either hubris, a desire for greater income or both.

That is just a small sample of the problems with drugs. That does not speak to the multitude of other types of problems that may be classified as malpractice. Remember, 50% of all physicians finished in the bottom half of their class.

As I write this, the television is on. President Obama is smoozing a meeting of the AMA, that group of totally unbiased people who have fought every attempt to bring healthcare to all Americans. But, back to the topic at hand.

You have probably never heard any “authority” speak simply of a malpractice suit. It seems to always be a “frivolous malpractice suit.” Can they all be frivolous? That’s unlikely. The well is being poisoned. The discourse is being intentionally slanted.

What if you have reason for seeking redress for a problem caused by a physician, a hospital, a drug company, the denial of coverage by an insurance company, et al. Do you want to be denied your chance for redress? I thought not.

We have had the right to ask the courts for relief for several hundred years. Civilization has not crumbled. If you are charged with a serious felony, you put your hopes in 12 of your fellow citizens. They are your most important barrier to unbridled government power. Do you really want to discard the judgment of your fellows if you or a loved one has been sentenced to death or disability by the ineptitude of one you pay to heal you or yours?

Are you willing to cast aside all of the legal protections you have that were developed over several centuries? Are you prepared to deny yourself any chance of redress of your grievances because one group of elitists wants a free ride? Once the medical industry gets exemption from accountability, who’s next? Will Walmart want to be exempt if one of their big screen televisions falls off the shelf and breaks your big toe? Where will it stop?

Some physicians only see their premiums rise and accept the explanation of the insurance company. Few really understand the dynamics, logistics and operations of the corporation sending them that bill. They are not the ones best placed to tell you why you should give up your rights.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Having been treated by at least 28 physicians and surgeons in the past three to four years, the subject is close to my heart, and my spine, and my artificial hip, and, and, and. Some are absolutely wonderful but 50 percent of all medical students were graduated in the lower half of their class. Not all are devils but neither are they all angels. Actually, there is another reason for this to be a subject of interest to me but I’ll get to that in a bit.

Some lawyers enjoy lawyer jokes. Others go ballistic. Many in the medical community will take offense at this post. Others, hopefully, will not see it a denigration of their chosen profession.

There may be a few old-timers remaining who remember Fidel Castro being referred to as Doctor Castro. Why was that? No, not why are there still a few of us geezers left. Why was Castro ever called Doctor Castro? It is due to a cultural convention. In some societies, mostly in Latin America, they address lawyers as doctor. It is an honorific.

Surprise, surprise. Here in the States we call lawyers many things, but not doctor. We do, however, apply that as an honorific to physicians and surgeons. They are doctors, you say. Wrong. They are honorary doctors.

The word was apparently first used for the trainers of gladiators. Think of trainers as teachers. Later, the word was used to identify teachers, professors. A master was someone who may have studied the same body of learning as the teacher but was not a teacher. As humans commonly do, some envied the title of doctor but didn’t want to teach. The coverage of the word was then extended to those who had endured higher learning but had also contributed to their academic discipline.

There are two kinds of doctorate degrees: earned and honorary. If it isn’t earned, it’s honorary. How do you earn a doctorate? You contribute something original to your area of academic interest. You write a dissertation. You defend that dissertation before a group of professors. You earn it. Sitting in class and learning an extensive and difficult body of knowledge is commendable. It is not the earning of a doctorate.

Am I straining over a gnat? What’s the big deal? Pharmaceutical companies are required to test their new drugs. They don’t always want their progeny subjected to rigorous testing, real testing. They design the tests. They set down the protocols. They often provide the test subjects. Sometimes they even write up the study. Sometimes a ‘doctor’ conducts the study. Sometimes the ‘doctor’ merely puts his/her name to the study and presents it to a medical journal.

The drug companies have a definite preference for physicians over people with earned doctorates. Why? Those with earned doctorates have had at least minimal exposure to research methods and methodology. Physicians have not usually had the benefit of that same training.

It is easy for someone without expertise, training or experience in research to not recognize the tricks used by the drug companies. They use techniques that contradict the most basic requirements for any scientific study. They frequently design their studies with protocols that determine the results. The study doesn’t even need to be made. The results are already known. Actually, the studies do need to be made, or claimed to have been made, because the FDA needs paper.

The drug companies know that the studies are scientifically worthless. The FDA knows that the studies are scientifically worthless. A few of the ‘doctors’ conducting the studies know that they are scientifically worthless. Very few of the clinicians responsible for writing the prescriptions know. Very, very few of the patients know.

Physicians are trained to treat patients. Researchers are trained to do research. The confusion caused by our traditional, cultural convention of calling a physician a doctor allows the drug companies an opening to exploit. They do not miss many opportunities to pervert the system to their advantage.

The next Vioxx will be the result of unscientific studies being conducted by the drug companies and accepted by the FDA.

Back in the early 1970s, the hubris of some of those in the medical profession reached its zenith. The Kansas Medical Association lobbied the Kansas legislature to pass a bill prohibiting Ph.D.s from using the title Dr. with their name. The honorary doctors wanted to call themselves Dr. and bar the real ones from doing so. There are some great individual physicians but, as a profession, they need to be categorized alongside the legal profession. Perhaps the Latin countries have it right.

Just think of this post as me doing my part for the national morale. It momentarily distracts you. It temporarily interrupts your obsessing over the price of gasoline.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Involvement in mental health often draws my interest to broader issues in matters of health.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites