Co-opting Hollywood to Teach and Encourage Enrollment in Obamacare.

Hollywood can be a very effective political tool for manipulating public opinion, whether the issue at hand is the "war on terror", "war on drugs", climate change, or, as in this case, healthcare. The California Endowment announced a  $500,000 grant for Obamacare education.  to Hollywood Health and Society, "a program at the USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center that provides entertainment industry professionals with accurate and timely information for storylines on health and climate change."  This grant will be used to educate television writers, producers, and others involved in television programming on Obamacare facts and implementation information so that they can produce prime-time narratives that encourage Americans to enroll.

“Our experience has shown that the public gets just as much, if not more, information about current events and important issues from their favorite television shows and characters as they do from the news media and online resources,” said USC Annenberg professor Martin Kaplan, principal investigator of Hollywood, Health&Society since its start in 2001, and founding director of The Norman Lear Center. “This grant will allow us to ensure that industry practitioners have up-to-date, relevant facts on health care reform to integrate into their storylines and projects.”

Read more...

Merely the Method to Continue the Lie of a Fictitious Political Paradigm.

“Americans are being treated to political theater at its finest. It's not a theater of entertainment, however, but a coliseum of enslavement where in the world of deception, perception becomes reality. This theater requires audience participation, where we, the theater-goers, become part of the play. We are a truly captive audience, entranced into mindlessly choosing sides at the frenzied urging of the corporate media and partisan cheerleaders firmly seated behind the microphones and television cameras of the nationally syndicated media.

As the play progresses, we, the American people, become part of each act, believing that we actually have a voice in this pre-scripted performance. We are bombarded with lie after lie, each worse than the previous in an attempt to convince us that we can making a difference by choosing and cheering seemingly opposing sides on the stage before us. The biggest lie of them all is that there are not two sides, but just one. It’s “them versus us” in a fight to the death playing out before us in this 21st century Shakespearean tragedy. It’s not just death, but the premeditated murder of the middle class and anyone without a reservation at the globalists’ table. And the space at that table is limited.

The actors of this play are ostensibly at odds over funding the Affordable Care Act while a peek behind the curtain tells a different story altogether. Like any play, the ending of this has already been determined. The ending, however, is not the same as written in the commemorative program you were given upon your arrival at this theater.

The house lights have been dimmed not just for the performance, but to induce us into a hypnotic trance further enabled by the media mouthpieces of malice. As you gradually become accustomed to the theater lighting, you’ll see that it’s not just a play, but you’re being played. You’re being manipulated into believing that the government shutdown is the actual plot of the play, while it is merely the method to continue the lie of a fictitious political paradigm.

Audience members who remain seated and captivated by the stellar performances of the actors, while maintaining a mental death-grip on the media cheering “their side,” are sadly in the majority. They are yelling at just above a throaty whisper at us and others who see beyond and behind the curtain, telling us to sit down and shut up, as we are reaching a critical moment in the performance.

Meanwhile, the clock is ticking toward the October 17th deadline when we the U.S. will officially run out of money in this scripted, manufactured crisis. As the play builds up to its epilogue of evil, it serves its critical purpose of entertaining the masses and diverting our attention from the real issue, which is the killing of the U.S. dollar. The premeditated murder of the United States Petro-dollar is the real act taking place behind the velvet curtain. The play merely buys the actors, the murderers of the working class and the world as we will have once known it, time to arrange their own exodus from this coliseum turned theater.

The actors. aided by the media of malice, continue to perform brilliantly and are effectively distracting the majority of us through the final curtain call. Then, as the actors take their bows amid thunderous applause by the uninitiated, the majority of the audience will never see “it” coming.

They will not see the stagehands open the cages of the lions while simultaneously closing the doors and blocking the exits. The thunderous applause at the curtain call will hide the sound of the engines on the Lear jets and the rotor noise on the helicopters that will whisk the actors to safety, away from the unspeakable carnage that was planned from the beginning.

By the time the screams from those who remained dutifully seated become unbearable, the globalist bankers, the money changers, the power brokers pulling the strings of the political puppets, will be far from earshot. When the house lights are turned on, the remaining theatergoers who survived will suddenly awaken to a different life. For it was never about what was seen, but always about what was hidden. It was never about the government shutdown, but the shutdown of the majority. The same majority that continues to cheer for their side, unable or unwilling to comprehend that there is only one side. Their side." -- -- Global Research

Read more...

Is Poverty a Death Sentence in the US?

According to Senator Bernie Sanders, there is no question that "thousands more Americans will die earlier than they should...that they are being sentenced to death without having committed any crime other than being poor". On the other hand, Rand Paul, in so many words, says the poor are getting richer.

Rand Paul is an idiot. Census data recently released show that while the poverty rate increased, median household income declined, and the percentage without health insurance coverage was not statistically different from the previous year.

Garrett Adams, a medical doctor in the southeastern U.S., backed up Senator Sanders when he said,  "financial constraints are preventing people from getting the life-saving health treatments they need." He went on to say, "there is a cycle in which poverty can be a death sentence and illness can be a poverty sentence"

Read more...

Big Profits for Insurers, but Almost Nothing for the Insured

Mini-med plans, a very limited health-care benefit package that limits payouts to as low as $2,000 a year, often leaving over two million  unsuspecting customers on their own.   Of course, it's the firms with low-wage, and/or part-time workers who rely on  these junk insurance policies.

By 2014, President Obama's new health-care law eliminates them entirely, and starting this year, all are required to up their annual coverage limit to at least $750,000. Sounds good, right? Not so fast. As usual, the Obama administration caved in to corporate threats, and  granted waivers to 1,040 "mini-med" plans.

Making a Killing on "Mini-Med" Plans, by Wendall Potter

One of the reasons I left my job as a PR executive for the health insurance industry was because I could not in good conscience be a pitchman for the sort of fabulously profitable benefit plan that often provides little more than the illusion of coverage.

Known as "mini-meds," these plans have become popular among businesses like fast-food chains that have many low-wage employees. The common features of these plans: high deductibles, modest benefits and low annual caps on medical coverage. Some of these plans provide as little as $2,000 worth of care each year.

Consumer advocates call these plans "junk insurance." That's because what workers get in these plans for their hard-earned money may actually put them at risk of going bankrupt or losing their homes if they get seriously sick or injured.

My view is that these mini-med plans should be illegal -- and they will be in 2014, thanks to the health care reform law. They would disappear even sooner if employers and insurance companies that sell these plans had to comply with a provision of the law already in effect that requires them to provide at least $750,000 in medical coverage annually. Trouble is, many insurance firms and employers are squirming their way out of complying with that provision.

Corporations Threaten; Obama Administration Issues Waivers

They're doing so with a time-honored form of sabre-rattling. Many employers that offer mini-meds -- most notably McDonalds -- say they will stop doing so if they have to meet the annual limit this year, because adequate coverage would cost them more money. McDonalds, by the way, is a $79 billion company that makes a tidy profit. Most Wall Street analysts who cover the fast-food industry recommend to investors that they buy the company's stock, and for good reason. Last year, according to Yahoo! Finance, McDonald's profit margin was 20.55 percent, and its return on equity was almost 35 percent.

But the threats seem to be working. The Obama administration is worried that many Americans would be dumped into the ranks of the uninsured if it doesn't offer temporary exemptions from that $750,000 annual cap. So the administration has been granting waivers of that provision to hundreds of employers, insurers and even unions that provide benefits to members. Republicans and other critics of "Obamacare" have cited the number of waivers as evidence that the law isn't working.

The administration counters that the ability to grant waivers shows both that the government is flexible and that it is taking prudent steps to ensure that people can keep what coverage they have, until better options are available when the law is fully implemented in 2014. In 2014, states must have health care "exchanges," or virtual insurance marketplaces, up and running.

Here's what Stephanie Cutter, assistant to the president for special projects, wrote in a White House blog post last October as the first round of waivers were about to be granted:

"In extreme cases, when this new policy will cause market disruption and decrease access to health care, the law allows the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) to issue waivers from the ban on restrictive annual limits for mini-med policies."

She noted that the waivers would be approved only if the insurers, employers and unions requesting them could show that the new annual limit rules would lead to significantly higher premiums or a significant decrease in access to care.

"The good news is that in 2014 'mini-med' policies will be a thing of the past," Cutter added. "The bad news is that today they are the only option for many Americans who can't afford coverage in the individual market."

The growth of mini-meds is a key reason why the ranks of the underinsured had reached 25 million by 2008, according to a Commonwealth Fund study. Mini-med growth is also a reason why some insurance firms have been reporting record earnings.
Big Profits for Insurers, but Almost Nothing for the Insured

I talked about mini-meds in June 2009 testimony before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. I told the panel that big insurers, Aetna and CIGNA in particular, have spent millions acquiring companies that specialize in mini-meds. CIGNA, for instance, paid $175 million to buy Phoenix-based Star HRG and its 200,000 policyholders in 2006. To explain why big insurers wanted to get into this business, I noted in my testimony that the underwriting criteria established for these plans essentially guarantee big profits. It is almost like shooting fish in a barrel.

Money bagsIn CIGNA's Starbridge Select mini-med plan, according to a Web site entry that was removed after my Senate appearance, pre-existing conditions are not covered during the first six months, and employers offering the plan must have an annual turnover rate of 70 percent or more, so most of the workers don't even stay on the payroll long enough to use their benefits. The average age of employees must not be higher than 40, and no more than 65 percent of the workforce can be female. Employers don't pay any of the premiums -- the employees pay for everything.

In May 2009, Consumer Reports carried an investigative story revealing that many mini-meds provide little or no hospitalization. The magazine also reported that people who buy these plans are often misled by marketing materials into thinking they're purchasing far more comprehensive care. In many cases, the magazine noted, it is not until they actually try to use the policies that they realize the insurer will provide little help in paying the bills.

Of the 1,040 one-year waivers that have been granted by HHS so far, most have been to employers. Two of the largest, as measured by the number of people affected, however, went to -- you guessed it -- Aetna and CIGNA. A government Web site listing the waivers shows that each of the insurers has more than 200,000 people currently enrolled in mini-meds. While that is not a big percentage of the their total number of policyholders, the premiums those people pay to be underinsured make a substantial contribution to the firms' bottom lines. No wonder the insurers want to use mini-meds to the max.

Read more...

Lack of Health Insurance #3 Killer

Jay Weaver, creator of the blog, other people's emergencies: random thoughts of an urban paramedic, talked about the 22 years of the utter heartbreak to the miraculous joy he's encountered as a paramedic on the streets of Boston on the NPR radio show, Here and Now. In the beginning of his career, Jay went on to describe a call from a mother, living in the poorest section of the inner city, whose child had had a bad cough for several weeks.

"At first", Jay said, "I did not understand why anyone would call a paramedic for a cough but I soon realized lack of health insurance gave her very little choice and that she was only trying to protect her child. "

"Why not walk?", said radio host, Robin Young.

Jay went on to explain, "The ambulance was the safest form of transportation due to the stray bullets so common in that area."

The mother and daughter Jay spoke of are not the only ones caught between the destructive path of illness and the destitution of poverty. Using hospital emergency as a form of "health insurance" is the only thing available to some uninsured people and only one of the many hidden costs to having so many uninsured citizens. By not getting the preventive care needed, the uninsured are much more likely to wind up in emergency rooms, where care is much more costly.

"People have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room." -- President Bush, addressing

Uh, Mr. President, emergency care is far more expensive than a doctor visit. Who do you think pays for the high cost of unnecessary emergency care? "We the people" do, of course and we pay out far more than we would if those same people who use emergency care were insured.

Lack of health insurance kills more people than homicide, most types of cancer, and several other killers out there that we try so hard to prevent. Yet, lack of health insurance is the easiest problem to solve, cost the least amount of money to implement and would overall, not only enhance our quality of life but save a hell of a lot of money over time.

"Things are getting worse," Maria Gomez said. "What we are seeing is a lot of people coming in who cannot qualify for government programs." These families earn too much to qualify for free care but don't make enough to pay for their own health insurance, she said.

Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont are the only states that have enacted and are implementing reform plans that seek to achieve near universal coverage of state residents. Twelve states, WA, OR, CA, CO, MN, WI, IL, NM, PA NY, CT, KS, are moving toward health care reform.

Read more...

Could Lack of Health Insurance be a Form of Population Control?

Jay Weaver, creator of the blog, other people's emergencies: random thoughts of an urban paramedic, talked about the 22 years of the utter heartbreak to the miraculous joy he's encountered as a paramedic on the streets of Boston on the NPR radio show, Here and Now. In the beginning of his career, Jay went on to describe a call from a mother, living in the poorest section of the inner city, whose child had had a bad cough for several weeks.

"At first", Jay said, "I did not understand why anyone would call a paramedic for a cough but I soon realized lack of health insurance gave her very little choice and that she was only trying to protect her child. "

"Why not walk?", said radio host, Robin Young.

Jay went on to explain, "The ambulance was the safest form of transportation due to the stray bullets so common in that area."

The mother and daughter Jay spoke of are not the only ones caught between the destructive path of illness and the destitution of poverty. Using hospital emergency as a form of "health insurance" is the only thing available to some uninsured people and only one of the many hidden costs to having so many uninsured citizens. By not getting the preventive care needed, the uninsured are much more likely to wind up in emergency rooms, where care is much more costly.

"People have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room." -- President Bush, addressing an audience in Cleveland.

Uh, Mr. President, emergency care is far more expensive than a doctor visit. Who do you think pays for the high cost of unnecessary emergency care? "We the people" do, of course and we pay out far more than we would if those same people who use emergency care were insured.

Lack of health insurance kills more people than homicide, most types of cancer, and six times the number of people who died on 9/11...well over 18,000 people annually. Why is this so? Insuring all our citizens is a relatively easy, cost the least amount of money to implement and would overall, not only enhance our quality of life but save a hell of a lot of money over time. America spends the most money on health care in the world yet ranks 37 out of 191 countries in quality of health care. "We the People" spend more than any other country on covering our citizens, however, not only do so many of our citizens lack coverage but our wealthy nation has a lower life expectancy than countries who spend much less.

“Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States. Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage.” —Institute of Medicine

"Things are getting worse," Maria Gomez said. "What we are seeing is a lot of people coming in who cannot qualify for government programs." These families earn too much to qualify for free care but don't make enough to pay for their own health insurance, she said.

Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont are the only states that have enacted and are implementing reform plans that seek to achieve near universal coverage of state residents. Twelve states, WA, OR, CA, CO, MN, WI, IL, NM, PA NY, CT, KS, are moving toward health care reform.

The World Health Organization (WHO) performance on level of health ranking measures how efficiently a system translates spending into overall health.

Recently, the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation compared health care across six countries.

"Overview: Despite having the most costly health system in the world, the United States consistently under performs on most dimensions of performance, relative to other countries. This report—an update to two earlier editions—includes data from surveys of patients, as well as information from primary care physicians about their medical practices and views of their countries' health systems. Compared with five other nations—Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom—the U.S. health care system ranks last or next-to-last on five dimensions of a high performance health system: quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives. The U.S. is the only country in the study without universal health insurance coverage, partly accounting for its poor performance on access, equity, and health outcomes. The inclusion of physician survey data also shows the U.S. lagging in adoption of information technology and use of nurses to improve care coordination for the chronically ill."

Could the lack of health insurance coverage in a country as wealthy and competitive as ours be an under-the-radar "Katrina" like program to control population growth at the lower end of the spectrum?

No way! That's crazy! Only those idiots, prone to conspiratorial thinking, could conceive of such a ridiculous theory. Rational people know there is a perfectly logical explanation such as the words 'health' and 'wealth' rhyme and therefore are compatible. The word 'poverty' rhymes with nothing.

Read more...

How Many Hours of War Spending Would it Take to Fund Health Insurance?

"We the People" apparently have no problem with spending over $14 million dollars an hour to injure and kill others but can't scrape up the cash to provide health care for our own children. I know I'm repeating myself over and over, trying to present the information in a slightly different way each time, but the basic message is we better liposuction the lip-service and start proving what our priorities are with the real deal, cold hard cash.

It's too easy to blame Bush. Just as Hitler would be powerless without the Nazis, Bush would be powerless without "us". I didn't vote for Bush but I include myself as a "Bush supporter" because it took me far too long to catch on to his plans to eliminate the "New Deal" and shred the Constitution.

I sit safely at my desk typing whatever the hell I feel like without worrying about whether I am risking anything but my eyesight or if I'll hear my alarm clock tomorrow morning. At the same time, I realize all this freedom and security I enjoy could disappear in a flash if America becomes victim to another act of terror.

The opportunity cost of this war is incomprehensible. Not only are we paying out $3,850 per second to fight this war but the cost of what we could be doing with the time and energy devoted to this war is astronomical.

"That translates into $333 million a day, $14 million an hour, $231,000 a minute and $3,850 a second. Even for the world's richest country, this is serious money."

On top of what this war is costing Americans, the toll this war is taking on Iraqis is beyond comprehension.

"Many of the internally displaced Iraqis -- IDPs in the language of aid organizations -- live in grim conditions, in makeshift camps without running water, electricity, even latrines.

[...]

This summer, the Iraq Chief of Mission of the International Organization of Migration (IOM), Rafiq Tschannen, said "only a fraction" of internally displaced Iraqis were getting basic assistance. It was difficult to understand, he said, why there was so little response to appeals for help.

[...]

U.S. contributions to various relief organizations quadrupled in 2007, to just under $200 million from $43 million in 2006, pocket change in terms of the war's cost. The sharp increase makes Washington the biggest single donor in the refugee crisis, according to the U.S. Department of State.

As to the $85 million appeal by the IOM, made in June -- by September, the organization had received $6 million, 5 million from the United States and 1 million from Australia.

The shortfall, $79 million, would be covered by less than six hours of war spending.

Read more...

President Bush's Hidden Agenda

There is no doubt in my mind that President Bush's hidden agenda is to give the working class a break. Possibly, he's thinking ..."What the hell...this country already owes more than $9 trillion...so, why not give all these hard working Americans a chance to relax? After all, isn't that the reason Medicaid and other federally funded domestic programs were created? If it gets to expensive, we can always pull the plug. Look at all the North Koreans, they seem happy that "Big Daddy" is taking care of them."

Ten years ago, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was created to cover kids whose parents work but can't afford health insurance on their own. Millions of children were and are covered under this program. But there are still a whopping 9.4 million more children that are still living without health coverage in America. President Bush wants to veto SCHIP which would add millions more to that number.

Currently, in most states, the income cutoff to qualify for SCHIP is twice the federal poverty level or about $41,000 for a family of four...I'll call them the Schippers. The Schippers earn $41,000 per year which is meager income to meet their needs even without having to pay for health insurance on their own. If you add the expense of an average policy, about $12,000 per year, the Schippers spiral down to just above the poverty line.

The average insurance policy that the Schippers purchased, many would argue, is insufficient to safeguard the family, should one of the Schippers experience a health problem requiring a great deal of medical care .

Considering so many families, like the Schippers, spend most of their waking hours contributing to the labor force but are living near the poverty line anyway, the Bush Administration's message is loud and clear,

"Stop working! It's not worth it. We'll take care of you."

It seems as if President Bush is even further to the left than the most liberal democrat on this issue...perhaps, "Socialist" would be a more appropriate label.

Resources for the uninsured:

Cover the uninsured.
Voice for the uninsured.
eHealthInsurance
NSCL Resources

Read more...

US Hospitals Charge Uninsured Two-and-a-Half Times More

Tue May 8, 12:12 AM ET

U.S. hospitals are charging uninsured patients about two-and-a-half times more than those with health insurance, a mark-up that has been steadily rising despite pressure to level prices, a study released on Tuesday found.

In 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, hospital patients without health insurance and others who pay for medical care out of their own pockets were charged an average 2.57 times more than those with health insurance, according to the study published in the May-June issue of the journal Health Affairs.

That number has been rising steadily since 1984, but has jumped more quickly since 2000, the analysis of government data said.

Hospitals in the United States have come under fire from patient groups and lawmakers for marking up prices for those lacking the negotiating clout of a health insurer. But the price discrepancies are steadily worsening despite some reform efforts, the article said.

"The mark-up on hospital care for these individuals, especially for those who can afford it least, is unjustifiable," said Gerard Anderson, director of the center for hospital finance and management at Johns Hopkins University's school of public health, and study author.

The American Hospital Association (AHA), which represents most of the nation's 5,000 or so hospitals, said the report was out-of-date and methodologically flawed.

The group said it is misleading because the study predates U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid guidance, which hospitals say they needed before they could give discounts to uninsured patients.

"Before that, there was a lack of clarity as to whether hospitals could charge differentially," AHA policy analyst Carmela Coyle said.

Hospitals set rates based on a list called the chargemaster, which is generally believed to inflate prices substantially, in the belief that prices will come down during a negotiation process.

For-profit hospitals had the highest discrepancy between costs estimated by Medicare and prices charged, the study found.

UNINSURED WEIGH

But patients without health insurance, about 45 million people in the U.S., lack the ability to negotiate. As it stands, hospitals only collect about 10 cents on the dollar charged to uninsured patients, Anderson said.

"When a hospital presents a bill that has charges on it, those charges are the same for everyone. What is different is how much insurers may negotiate in terms of discounts with hospitals," Coyle said.

More than 60 class-action lawsuits have been filed against U.S. hospitals over the issue. Anderson has been an adviser on some of them. About a year ago, the American Hospital Association enacted a voluntary policy for poor and uninsured patients.

But that policy has yet to show an impact and it is unclear how many hospitals are abiding by the price suggestions, Anderson said.

Anderson recommends pursing the ongoing class-action lawsuits and having the government set a maximum amount that hospitals can charge as prescriptions to remedy the problem.

Several states are exploring the issue, including Illinois and Ohio, Anderson said.

There is one element in the debate in which Anderson and Coyle agree. Both say efforts to provide health insurance to greater numbers of people would ease the problem.

"The real problem of course, is that we live in a country where we don't guarantee coverage for everybody," Coyle said.

Read more...

Most Americans Support Universal Healthcare.

I would hope most people would support the federal government guaranteeing health insurance to every American, even if it is only out of self-interest. The status of our nation's health and health-care system greatly factor into how our nation will rank in all categories in the future. Common sense should tell you that in order for our nation to be a strong nation we must also be a healthy nation, overall.

A recent cross-national evidence suggests that the greater the degree of socioeconomic inequality that exists within a society, the steeper the gradient of health inequality. As a result, middle-income groups in a less equal society will have worse health than comparable or even poorer groups in a society with greater equality.

Read more...