Is your waist larger than a "Japanese woman's"?

Here's the latest rumor about health care reform. Are you ready? It's a great one. Easily the best one I've heard yet.

Some women are dressing after working out at a local health club, talking to each other in the women's locker room. They begin languishing about "ObamaCare," and how, if Obama has his way, every single woman in the USA will be forced to have her waist measured. If her waist size is larger than "the average Japanese woman's" waist - then she will be denied health care.

The women friends who told me this said that even though they weren't friends with the other women, they had to say "No, that's not true." And the women said "Yes." And my friends said "No." And I guess that's as rough as things get in the ladies locker room.

But can you believe that one? That's terrific. "Now, ma'am, remember, if you can't fit through this tiny hole, then I can't help you medically in any way, under any circumstances." I'm not even sure where this stuff comes from. It sounds like something nine-year-olds would make up sitting on a street corner.

Successful, sustainable preventive medicine doesn't work that way, where you're forced to do something or meet a requirement, and if you don't, then they take away your health care. In universal systems - everyone has health care. They don't take it away. That's the whole point of having universal care. Effective preventive medicine provides monetary incentives for medical personnel to have healthier patients. It would even be possible to give, say, tax breaks to people for maintaining their health within their power to do so, like by joining the YMCA, quitting smoking, altering their diet, taking prescribed medications properly, etc.. But I'm pretty sure there's no point in measuring people's waists, and then denying X% of American women health care based on that. That would be a large percentage, like what, 70%? 80%? How would any official ever be elected or re-elected into office supporting such a plan? What would be the purpose of it? Why wouldn't someone in the market simply pick up 80% of women after they were rejected? The list of faults with this idea is very, very long.

But it does shed light on some of the folks that are worried about losing the health care they already have, at least the kind of person that would believe such a story. I guess it's lost on some people with care that if they're so worried about losing their care that they'll believe the waist line story (when their health plan is not even in jeopardy beyond their imagination), then imagine how stressful everyday life is for people that don't have any health insurance right now. Or for a person dying of cancer in an uninsured household, with bills piling up to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I'm guessing the next argument will be, "If we cave in to Obama's health care plan, they're going to take our guns away and force our children to be socialist Muslims." I mean, that wouldn't even surprise me at this point.

When you think about health care, think about health care. Ignore politics. What do you think Americans need? Who's talking about what you think is important? Who's not talking about those things? That's what we need to be asking ourselves to encourage strong debate. There are good ideas on both sides, but emotional hysteria solves nothing.

Lazy People Looking for Free Care?

I keep hearing from people against any type of universal care (whether private, hyrbid, or government) that the people who go to clinics are just lazy people looking for a handout. "It's free!" they say, "of course they go!" But most issues you can solve by looking at yourself. I have had insurance over the years, so for me it's "free" to go too, but I only go when I need to. Why would you go wait in line all day to get rushed health care or dental work among thousands, in a tent, unless you had no other choice?

The real litmus is to hear the docs and nurses that work the free clinics speak - you know, the people on the ground doing the grunt work. They say the care they give for free in tents and stadiums is just like working in the third world, and that most of the folks they see are working and don't have care of any kind.

It's either hard for some people to imagine not having care, or they just don't care, but a great way to illustrate it is to watch the latest Bill Moyers show, called Critical Condition. Three families are highlighted. One guy in the show works two jobs for an annual total of $14k, and really illustrates the point. He works two jobs, makes $14k, and obviously cannot afford insurance. His wife gets ovarian cancer, delays treatment for fear of the bills, but ends up needing to have her ovaries removed and follow-up chemotherapy. After surgery, treatment, and medicine, the bills go up over $100k, approaching $150k in the end. How's he supposed to pay for that? How's he supposed to afford medicine and chemotherapy? This guy works hard in the USA.

Another guy has a back problem that starts off as pain but slowly hunches his back over and fuses the bones of his spine to his ligaments. He makes $45k w/3 kids and a wife. They live in a below-average apartment, and can't afford insurance. He couldn't even get a diagnosis for his hunch-back condition. Over time, and as a result of being part of this high-profile documentary, UCLA eventually agreed to do his corrective surgery for free. The surgery was worth $300k, but would have been less had he had insurance and there was early intervention. He even went to Mexico and got a quote of $40k, but even that was too much money since he had to have it all at once. All the surgeons on the show said that 50 million without coverage was a problem. Another guy that works hard, who almost died and left his wife with three kids - which, had that happened, would have been another type of financial burdon on the state, since it's unlikely that with a fourth kid on the way and no skills, that she would have been able to find work.

I ask anyone who's against health care reform to take 45 minutes and watch this show. I have real trouble seeing what could be biased about a show that depicts three hard-working American families struggle with health care issues. The reality is separte of politics. If you consider yourself an American that really cares about hard-working Americans instead of just yourself, I implore you to not only watch the show but also start thinking more objectively about this issue.

Comments from an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner on Health Care reform

Here's an interesting note from an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner concerning the health care debate. She's been working in the emergency room for almost 30 years. Her note was in response to an inflamatory email regarding the futality of health care reform. I offer this note here not as a way to say anything in particular, but simply to share the point of view of a seasoned ER practitioner with anyone who is interested:

She says:

First of all, if you ask a great many nurses, mid-level providers and physicians there are many in favor of a single payer system but have not been allowed to be at the table for discussion. This is in most part to fear from the conservative right and the power of the insurance and pharmaceutical industry lobby.

Secondly, we already ration health care. Many insurance companies take months to schedule proceedures, if they agree to pay for them at all. We are ALL paying for the lack of health care of both our own citizens as well as others here illegally. We pay because they come to the ER and we have an obligation to care for them. We pay because people without health care are far sicker as they get older and have been unable to receive preventative care or early diagnosis and treatment of chronic illness resulting in more severe chronic illness and more secondary complications. We pay because these people are far less productive in our society.

The United States far outspends other countries on our health care and we are NOT healthier. We practice medicine to avoid lawsuits, many of them frivolous because after all, my illness or misfortune MUST be someone else's fault and there MUST be some way for me to benefit at someone else's cost. Without tort reform, we cannot hope to decrease unnecessary spending in the health care system.

A single payer system would insure that everyone is covered and golly you might need to wait a little while for that plastic surgery boost or elective bunion repair. Suppose anyone will die from that? I do not believe we will ration necessary care to those who are truely ill and in need. We do not have to duplicate the Canadian system or any other. We can create our own but we have to start somewhere to begin to change what is a topheavy, overmanaged, corporate and insurance and CEO benefiting system that is NOT making us a healthier country. So there you have it, for whatever it is worth."

M. Allin

ARNP

Keep your eye on the ball, America

Can you believe this?

Congressman Barney Frank of MA was holding a town hall meeting, when a person got up and asked him this question on health care:

"They say we need to limit Medicare expenditures in order to reduce the deficit, that’s the origin of this [healthcare] policy. This is the T4 policy of the Hitler policy in 1939, where he said certain lives are not worth living, certain people, we should not spend the money to keep them alive. Why do you continue to support a Nazi policy, as Obama has expressly supported this policy, why do you support it?"

Frank replies, "On what planet do you spend most of your time?"

Never mind that Medicare is a government program, and the long list of things associated with that when compared to the T4 "argument." Overall, however, this woman's statement clearly shows the lunacy of the current discussion. The hysteria created when people in high positions and on mass media put out false comments and confuse the debate at hand.

It obviously stems from Sarah Palin's comments on "death panels," and ties in with more and more disturbing comments I hear from everyday people on Facebook or in person today. About how Obama is a "dictator" or an "emperor." An emperor? How so? Obama was elected into office in the strongest democracy in the world, partially on a platform of health care reform. To avoid the mistakes of the Clinton administration, he set broad goals and is having the Congress work out the details of reform on a committee made up of 3 members from each political party. His administration's officials have stated over the weekend that they're open to dropping the public option entirely. That's called compromising.

Where's the emperor part come in? I'm having trouble seeing that. Maybe someone can help me out there.

The idea on the table is how to improve health care. Let's try to keep that in mind. Let's keep our eye on the ball here.

Chuck Grassley Comments on Health Care

One of the fundamental problems with the current healthcare debate is that of inaccurate portayals of other health care systems worldwide. Opponents are continuously bringing up single-payer discussions as a method of attacking reform, when a single-payer (government) health care system is not even on the table. In interest of improving health care, we should be looking at what works/doesn't work from single-payer systems, private systems, and hybrids, and applying that knowledge to our own healthcare design. We should not be attacking any attempt at reform AS a single-payer "government run" system and only looking at the negative aspects of a single-payer system, often using false-negative statements on top off that incorrect context as well. This creates a smoke-screen of misinformation in an already complex debate.

Adding to the distortion of mischaracterizing reform as a single-payer "government run" system are many statements that are just flat out false. A terrific example is when the Investor's Daily Editorial page said that if Stephen Hawking had lived in the UK, the British health care system would have let him die. Specifically, they said:

"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service (NHS) would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

Never mind that Hawking is actually from the UK, and credits the NHS with the treatment of his condition and his existence. A hilarious, short editorial on this was done by Ezra Klein of the Washington Post.

But the Investor's Daily editorial is printed. The unfortunate readers of the Investor's Daily are already misinformed, already repeating the rediculous statement on the golf course, or in their daily conversations, or on Facebook. The misinformation spreads rapidly, and it further entrenches opinions that are not based on fact.

Inaccurate editorials are one thing, and are bad enough. But when leaders involved in deciding the direction of our health care system don't get basic principles right, that worries me even more. Of particular interest were comments I heard yesterday from Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa concerning, again, the NHS in the UK. You can hear his comments here, but he said:

"I’ve been told that the brain tumor that Senator Kennedy has because he’s 77 years old would not be treated the way it’s treated in the US, in other words, they say well he doesn’t have long to live, even if he lives another 4 or 5 years. They’d say, well, we have to spend the money on people that can contribute more to the economy."

The problem with the quote is that it's completely false. As with the Stephen Hawking example, the NHS would care for a 77-year old with a brain tumor, plain and simple. There would not be a meter running next to the bed. There would not be a limit on care. There would not be refusal to treat based on pre-existing conditions, as in the US, and there would also not be a cutoff to what's covered - as in the US. Is the US treatment of cancer and some other critical conditions better than the UK? Certainly. But nobody is advocating throwing away all US medical knowledge and adopting the NHS system. Most thinking humanoids are advocating taking what works, and adapting it to the US system.

Lord Ara Darzi is one of the world's leading surgeons at St. Mary's Hospital, in London. Upon hearing Grassley's above comment, he replied,"That's the most ludicrous thing I've heard. Not just false, but lies to set fear against reform." He went on to say, "it's not just false and distasteful, it's not what I expected, someone in senior political roles to be disseminating fear against the system."

Grassley's misinformed comment goes along with whole concept of government-run, single-payer systems deciding who lives and who dies with "death panels." Even though that's not on the table as a White House-sponsored option, it's considered part of the "slippery-slope" argument, where if we cover the poor with a government plan then everyone will run from private insurance to public, and soon it would be government run. Two problems with this argument. The first is the basic fault of the "slippery slope" argument, that if you do this one little thing then the whole world will collapse. The second is that all of the health care systems that perform better than the US are government run. They are mostly universal, single-payer systems run in democracies - not socialist countries. Some socialists countries, like Cuba for example, do rank higher than the US on the WHO rankings, but most are democracies.

I would take more time to research a magazine article than Grassley is doing to make policy decisions, and that worries me. He's making decisions to shape our medical care, and he has no idea how things work in the UK.

And again, Grassley's comment is out there in the public. It carries weight because he's the ranking member of the Finance Committee, and he's working directly on health care reform. Talk shows will pick it up, run with it, and repeat it over and over. People will start to believe it's true, even though it's not.

The sad thing is that Grassley has some good ideas about health care reform, but his whacked out, false ideas jeopardize the whole process and fuel an overly-emotional debate. The even sadder thing for all of us is that maybe the reform opponents are right about some things. But they muddy the water up so badly with false statements, that all of that is lost too. In the end, the everyday folks that are suffering now...will continue to suffer later - only they'll be many more of them as time goes on because costs are soaring and fewer companies and people can afford it anymore. But Grassley will still have his insurance, which in the end, is likely what he's most concerned with.

Important Message from SGT. Vaja U. Mailier

Today I got a mission-critical email from SGT. Vaja U. Mailier, Georgian Soldier. IRAQ:

Good day and compliments, I know this letter will definitely come to you as a huge surprise, I am SGT. Vaja U. Mailier, a Georgian Soldier, serving in the Infantry battalion, Iraq.

I am desperately in need of your assistance and I have summoned up courage to contact you. I am presently in Iraq and I found your contact particulars in an address journal. I am seeking your assistance to evacuate the sum of $8.750,000:00 to the States or any safe country, as far as I can be assured that it will be safe in your care until I complete my service here. This is no stolen money and there are no dangers involved.

Respectfully,
SGT. Vaja U. Mailier
Georgian Soldier. IRAQ

I didn't know my contact particulars were in an address journal anyplace. But the chance to evacuate $8.750,000:00 seems very appealing, even though I'm not sure how much money that actually is. It was obviously earned on the up-and-up by a Georgian Soldier working honestly, in Iraq. And there is no danger involved. It's a win/win!

I can't wait to get involved and help this person out.