I know this because this has happened to me personally.

Gastric Bypass Surgery

Seven years ago, I had gastric bypass surgery.  I have since lost more than 100 pounds, and am now more healthy than I’ve been in years.  I decided several years after my surgery to become self-employed.  When I went to apply for medical insurance, I was turned down by EVERY insurer I applied for  because I had this surgery… Even though it made me healthier. Does that make sense?

Currently, millions of people who are unemployed that do not qualify for Medicaid. They can not afford their COBRA payments on $300 a week unemployment insurance. Do you believe that these people, some of whom worked all their lives but are in circumstances beyond their control, should not have access to health care?  Should they only depend on emergency room care?

Universal health care means universal access to health care.  Everyone should be able to purchase affordable insurance, and everyone should have access to good health care. Many people tend to view health care as a limited resource that they do not want to share.  But believe it or not, you are sharing – sharing the cost of the uninsured. We all pay for the uninsured when they have to go to emergency rooms and can’t pay for their services.  Those costs are passed on to others.  Did you know that 40% of all bankruptcies in this country are medical cost related?  Who has to pay for this?  Why do you think you pay $7 for an aspirin when you are admitted in a hospital?

No one is speaking of socializing medicine.  As a matter of fact, the ONLY group that consistently speaks of socialized medicine are those who want to keep the status quo. Primarily these are Republicans politicians who have for years received millions of dollars in financial contributions from health insurance carriers. This is simply an argument that conservatives are using as an excuse to keep the status quo.  The most “radical” proposal is to have a public insurance OPTION.  No one is talking about MAKING people have to take “government-sponsored” insurance. Since when is giving someone an option for medical insurance considered “socialism?”

What’s in a Name? Defining Health Care Systems by the Center for American Progress

Just to make a point that “socialized insurance” is not as bad as you try to make it seem, ask the average senior citizen do they like or dislike their current insurance?  Ask the average federal employee do they believe their health insurance is inadequate?  Ask members of Congress, all of whom are under Federal health insurance plans, if they feel their “socialized insurance” is horrible? There is a distinct difference in “socialized medical care” and “socialized insurance”, yet many people are trying to tie the two together.

One other point – what exactly is insurance?  In its basic form, insurance is a pool of money that a group of insured have contributed to in order to cover each other in the event of a loss.  That certainly sounds very socialistic to me!

If everyone has medical insurance, and we change the focus of medical care from expensive, after the fact treatments to prevention and on-going treatment, we can cut costs, and I believe we can improve health care for everyone.

There seems to be a growing sentiment across a socialistic-minded segment of our country to expound, and sometimes exacerbate, the millions of Americans who do not have Health Insurance. Many of today’s universal health care proponents and politicians like to use the numbers of anywhere from 30 million to 50 million people who do not have health insurance to promote a Universal Health Care system. They poke and prod at our hearts, explaining that innocent children are victimized by a broken system which seems to have forgotten about them and their needs. Victimization really works to exude a feeling of guilt amongst those of use who are fortunate enough to have health insurance, but the true question arises, is heath care a right or a responsibility? While the nation seems divided over such a volatile issue, it appears there are few coherent arguments for government intervention when we examine all the facts.

So what’s the impetus for this “crisis” the media has bestowed upon society? Cost! Its true that health care costs have risen significantly, but there’s more to the story than simply classifying the perceived problem as “rising costs”. We must ask ourselves why the costs are rising. In the past, we only spent a fraction of what we spend today on high tech medical procedures because there was not as many of them. The same holds true with pharmaceutical drugs because many of the ones today, didn’t exist 20 years ago. Likewise, automobiles didn’t cost the same when you considered the new high tech systems now included in the rising cost of a new vehicle such as navigation, cameras and computers. Many things we buy today have increased in cost because of the addition of new technology, but allowing the government to intervene so they can supposedly wave their magic wand and reduce the price is more than wishful thinking, its unrealistic and its impossible to speculate the effect it would have on the nation.

Truth be told, I do feel sorry for children who don’t have health insurance because their parents cannot provide it for them, but in many, if not most cases, they can, if they’d adjust their lifestyle and prioritize their spending. I won’t say they could “easily” afford it, because its not easy to turn off or cancel your cell phones, cable TV, Internet service, magazine subscriptions, bowling leagues, or alcohol and drug use. Its not easy to pass up “a great deal” on 22 inch rims, 50 inch flat screens, X-Box 360’s, Wii’s, Playstations, or a variety of other amenities vastly less important than providing health care for yourself or your children. Providing health care is not society’s responsibility, for it requires that service be rendered off the backs of others, and slavery was outlawed long ago.

Heath insurance is not medical care and likewise, health care is not the same as medical care. Countries with universal health care do not have more or better medical care than countries without it. Medical care is the issue, however the propaganda is about insurance. Many people who could afford health insurance as I pointed out earlier, choose not to purchase it because they spend their money elsewhere and they know that medical care will be available at the nearest emergency room, whether they have insurance or not. Young folks often do not anticipate long term illnesses and they can always get a broken leg or an allergy attack taken care of at an emergency room, thus allowing them to spend their money on a more upscale lifestyle. This may be a foolish mindset but it is their decision, and there is no reason why other people should lose the right to make decisions for themselves because some people make “questionable” decisions.

Many people critical of the health care industry appear to be cynical, claiming to know the costs of everything, yet they know the value of nothing. Just as medical care, houses and cars were all cheaper when they lacked amenities that they have today, so medical care in other countries is cheaper when they lack many things that are more readily available in the United States. People who believe in “universal health care” really have no concern regarding what that phrase turns out to mean in reality, especially in those countries where it already exists, such as Britain, Sweden or Canada. For example, “universal health care” in these countries translates into months of waiting for surgery that Americans get in a matter of weeks or even days.

In these and other countries, it means having only a fraction as many MRIs and other high-tech medical devices available per person as in the United States. There are more than four times as many Magnetic Resonance Imaging units (MRIs) per ca pita in the United States as there are in Great Britain or Canada, where there are government-run medical systems. There are more than twice as many CT scanners per ca pita in the United States as in Canada and more than four times as many per ca pita as in Britain. In these socialistic nations, it means not only having bureaucrats deciding what medicines the government will and will not pay for, but even preventing you from buying the more expensive medicine for yourself with your own money. That would violate the concept of true “equality” and the right to choose how you wish to spend your money.

If you’d rather have name brand medication, rather than the government prescribed generic brand, you’re out of luck. Its irrelevant if you wish to forgo the surround sound system you were saving up to install to accomplish this choice, for that choice would no longer be available. The cost of developing a new pharmaceutical drug is now about a billion dollars. Neither political rhetoric nor government bureaucracies will make those costs go away because it is government’s strict regulation and thorough testing procedures which has helped drive the cost up. We can, of course, refuse to pay these and other medical costs, just as we can refuse to buy air-conditioned homes with built-in microwave ovens, but that just means we pay attention only to prices and not to the value of what we get for those prices. We can even refuse to pay for so many doctors, but that just means that we will have to wait longer to see a doctor just like people do in countries with government-run medical systems. In Canada, 27 percent of the people who have surgery wait four months or more. In Britain, 38 percent wait that long, but only 5 percent of Americans wait that long for surgery.

Many proponents of a universal health care system will point out the longer life expectancies in some of these countries with universal health care as opposed to our own. On the surface it seems like a valid point to bring up this fact, but does universal health care translate into longer life expectancy? Is there a correlation? That is where the difference between health care and medical care comes in. Medical care is what doctors or hospitals can do for you. Health care includes what you do for yourself, such as diet, exercise and lifestyle. Health care can only be recommended, whether it be a government agency or a doctor, but it is your responsibility to follow those recommendations.

If a doctor arrives on the scene to find you comatose by a drug overdose or shot through the heart by some of your competitors in the illegal drug market, there may not be much that he can do except note the time of death and sign the death certificate. Even for things that take longer to kick the bucket such as obesity, alcohol, cholesterol, and tobacco, a doctor can only tell you what to do or not do, but its ultimately up to you and it’s your responsibility to take their advice or choose to do what you wish to do. On average, Americans tend to be more obese, consume more drugs and have more homicides. To assume any of this would magically change with a universal health care system is not only a very static analysis, but extremely naive.

You must look dynamically at the issue to grasp the reality for accurate medical care comparisons. You never hear supporters of universal health care mention the fact that cancer survival rates in America blow most other countries with universal health care out of the water. No one who compares medical care in this country with medical care in other countries is likely to want to switch, but those who cannot be bothered with the facts may help destroy the best medical care in the world by falling for political rhetoric.

Waiting for MRI’s and CT scans would all become much longer. I cannot emphasize the danger in this enough, as many from our neighbor to the north routinely cross the border and pay out of pocket for these services because of the months they’d have to wait up there. I recently had knee surgery and the MRI took less than a week to schedule and execute. Who knows if I’d had to wait 6 month’s to get one before I could have surgery what would happen. I know that “only” affects me right? Well what happens when everyone on those waiting lists are now drawing 6 months of disability while they’re out of work? What happens if many of them die from tumors during the wait?

The bottom line is health care is your responsibility. A government provided health care system can recommend you stop smoking, drinking and eating unhealthy foods, but they can’t make you. Socialized health care only expands government and destroys more of the freedoms we enjoy, for it must be funded off the backs of those who labor, to pay for those who can’t or won’t. There’s a difference.

A recent poll conducted by Austin Peay suggests that people in this area believe the government should “make sure” everyone has health insurance. While some may interpret this finding as support for universal health care, in reality, it could mean support for people to provide it for themselves and the government to make sure it is required by law, just like the laws requiring auto insurance liability. The disastrous effects of such a plan will have immediate and long term effects on our health care system. There aren’t as many doctors and medical equipment to house the immediate demand socialized medicine will create, oh, and the most important thing, WE CAN’T AFFORD IT. We could have if we were not 11 trillion dollars in debt, but we are.

Surgery may be cheaper in countries with government-run medical systems, if you count only the money cost, and not the painful weeks the patients have to endure the ailments that require surgery, or the fact that some conditions become worse, or fatal, while they wait. A report from the Fraser Institute in Canada shows that patients there wait an average of ten weeks to get an MRI, just to diagnose their condition. Bad things can happen in 10 weeks.

Politicians may talk about “bringing down the cost of medical care,” but they lack the comprehension of the word “costs”. What they bring down is the price, which doesn’t reflect the cost. Anybody can refuse to pay any cost, but then you get what you pay for. It does require us to stop and think before jumping on a Universal Health Care bandwagon. I’m always skeptical of government intervention in the first place because of their history of creating a crisis which doesn’t exists. The urgency with which this “crisis” is being perpetuated by fiery rhetoric coming from the White House and the fact its being rushed through Congress suggests that the politicians don’t want us to stop and think. They just want us to “hurry up” and do it, for rarely are any programs scrapped after they’re implemented. That makes sense, from their point of view, but not from ours. Lets all pause and think about whats occurring and be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. People need help, I understand that, but there’s a difference in asking for it, and mandating it be funded off the backs of others.

As early voting opened in Tennessee to heavy turnouts, Senator McCain’s promised thumping of Senator Obama didn’t materialize. Groups gathered at both local Republican and Democratic party headquarters to watch the debate, discuss their preferences and hear the candidates present their proposals.

The final candidates debate of the 2008 presidential election season was a much anticipated showcase of America’s choices for leadership for the next four years. The debate’s focus was to be on domestic policy, with the recent upheaval in the financial markets to be a focal point. The level of negative ads has increased to  near crescendo as McCain’s campaign unleashed new charges and the Obama campaign refuted falsehoods and returned the fire to McCain. The debate was supposed to offer a clear demonstration of McCain’s superiority to Obama. Sadly, for McCain, the smear adhesive didn’t stick.

Viewers were treated to a consistent presentation of proposals and ideas from Obama as he responded to  McCain’s attempts to hang negatives.

Obama noted that McCain’s own campaign said publicly last week that, “if we keep on talking about the economic crisis, we lose, so we need to change the subject.” Such was the tone for the course of the evening.

The differences in economic stimulation and health care coverage ideas made for strong contrasts.  McCain did not deny that under his health care reforms, employer-based health care coverage would be taxed to the employee, a first in the U.S. He stated that his $5000 tax credit would allow taxpayers to purchase insurance on their own. He suggested that this would afford taxpayers typical coverage, except for such extravagances as cosmetic surgery and transplants. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has stated annual health care premiums average $12,000. McCain had no answer for how that shortfall would be addressed. Senator McCain opposes any tax increases, instead proposing to further President’s Bush’s tax cuts and make them permanent. He says that  Obama would raise taxes on the middle class taxpayer and small businesses. He, however, doesn’t want to raise taxes for anyone.

Obama was reasoned in his calm presentation of his proposals for the American people. He stated under his health care reform, employer-based health care coverage would not be taxed, those with such coverage could keep it and see their premiums lowered; and those without coverage would be offered a coverage plan much like one that he and  McCain enjoy as members of Congress, with no exclusions for pre-existing conditions.  Obama stated that under McCain’s plan, employer-based health care could actually disappear altogether. He based this on a finding released by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a traditionally conservative, non-Democrat, business advocate. Additionally, Obama would use the discount-buying power of the federal government, as a consumer, to purchase drugs at a lower cost from the drug companies.

Obama has proposed a tax plan where ninety-five percent of taxpayers will not see an increase, but rather a tax cut. Obama noted that small businesses typically earn under $200,000 dollars a year. Under his plan, small businesses which earn $250,000 dollars or less a year would also see a tax cut. Obama stated that McCain’s approach would give an additional tax break of $200 billion dollars to some of the wealthiest corporations in the nation. He cited Exxon-Mobil and the oil industry as a whole, would receive an additional $4 billion in tax breaks. McCain did not deny either of these charges.

On foreign oil dependence, the candidates had differences as well. McCain supported immediate offshore drilling, as well as drilling in ANWR, to provide short-term relief to our energy situation. He said this would give us time to develop more nuclear energy plants, support alternative energy programs for wind, solar, natural gas, tide and flex-fuels to cut our dependence on foreign oil. He claimed this will make the U.S. independent of foreign oil.

Obama corrected him that our oil reserves only total three percent of the world’s total oil reserves and we annually consume twenty-five percent of the world’s oil supply. “We can’t drill our way out of this.” He further pointed out that U.S. oil companies already hold leases on sixty-eight million acres of offshore oil drill sites which they are not developing. He proposed they either drill in these areas or lose them to other developers. He also said he is not opposed to nuclear energy development, but we must also pursue alternative energy in wind, solar, geothermal and bio-diesel and high fuel-efficient vehicles to truly reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reinvigorate the American economy. Energy development can play a major role in revitalizing our economy with job creation and retention. Creation and manufacture of high fuel-efficient vehicles in the United States can serve as a revival of the nation’s economic manufacturing segment and thereby give new vitality to the U.S. auto industry. Realigning our energy perspective can give us the ability to realign so many other segments of the American system- adjusting our education system, focusing on preventive health care measures to reduce later demands on Medicare and Medicaid.

When asked if the federal budget can be balanced in four years,  McCain answered, “Sure, …we can do it with this kind of job creation of energy independence.” He offered to implement an across-the-board spending freeze. However he would not declare what cuts he would impose beyond eliminating the marketing assistance program and some ethanol subsidies. Regarding the fine tuning of specific programs being eliminated, he never quite responded with those details.  Obama suggested that it would take ten years to reach a balanced budget. He suggested starting with eliminating the $750 billion dollars in subsidies to the insurance companies, that doesn’t provide seniors with coverage nor improve the Medicaid/Medicare programs. He also insisted that he would require proper structure of the $750 billion dollar rescue package passed by Congress. He stressed that he has been a strong proponent of pay-as-you-go spending. Every spending bill he has proposed has included financial offsets so that they did not add to the federal deficit.

There were additional questions on education reforms, Supreme Court nominees, suitability of opposing vice presidential running mates, negative characterizations of opponents, NAFTA considerations, and support for human rights. The full transcript of the debate is available at the CNN website.

There is plenty of campaign follow-up activity by both parties. Tonight, the College Republicans and Democrats will hold a debate at the APSU Library. On Saturday, October 18,there will be a Voters Rally at Veterans Plaza, starting at 10 a/m. At the conclusion, voters will proceed to the Election commission to cast their votes. On October 29th, the chairpersons of each political party will hold a debate in the Morgan Center Ballroom on APSU. This event will start at 2 p.m. Both parties offer volunteer opportunities for any persons wishing to support their respective candidates.

[Show as slideshow]

12►

With six and a half long months left in office, President Bush and his administration, specifically the United States Department of Health and Human Services, still have time to tinker with laws and regulations that that challenge our civil liberties, human rights, and a woman’s right to choose. President Bush may soon have a new and controversial regulatory issue before him, one that flies in the face of existing laws and which does not need Congressional approval to be put in place.

“One of the most troubling aspects of the proposed rules is the overly-broad definition of “abortion.” This definition would allow health-care corporations or individuals to classify many common forms of contraception – including the birth control pill, emergency contraception and IUDs – “abortions” and therefore to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it.”

– Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Patty Murray in a joint letter to HHS

Yes, the abortion/contraception issue is back on the front burner, this time in the form of a HHS draft regulation that essentially redefines “pregnancy” and could impact every single woman in the country seeking contraceptive services. While the HHS draft is still under debate with no timetable for submission or a seal of approval, its opponents suggest that the changes in regulations fall within the ideological scope of the Bush administration.

The potential law/regulation sparks debate to the most minute moment in time: when conception actually occurs, and could place the idea of “contraception” in the category of abortion. At best, the draft proposal could restrict or limit access to birth control for millions of women. The words “barefoot and pregnant” are not that far back in our legislative history.

According to the Alex Mayer of the St. Louis Dispatch (7.31.2008), “The Bush administration is attempting to re-define ‘pregnancy.’”

Mayer uses an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal:

“The Bush Administration has ignited a furor with a proposed definition of pregnancy that has the effect of classifying some of the most widely used methods of contraception as abortion.

A draft regulation, still being revised and debated, treats most birth-control pills and intrauterine devices as abortion because they can work by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. The regulation considers that destroying ‘The life of a human being.’”

In Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary are the following definitions:

ABORTION: The TERMINATING of pregnancy after, accompanied by or closely followed by the death of an embryo or fetus. Induced expulsion of a human fetus.

CONTRACEPTION: Deliberate PREVENTION of conception or impregnation.

The draft regulation puts both definitions on equal footing. Any change would not impact the legality of birth control pills, morning after pills or any form of contraception, but it has the potential to reduce the availability of such items to the women who need/want them.

Proposed regulations could impact access to birth control

Defenders of this proposed “adjustment’ to current regulations say it would reportedly defend pharmacists, doctors and clinicians who currently prescribe contraceptives but who, based on personal or religious beliefs, would prefer not to prescribe or dispense such medications. While more liberal states might see marginal impact from such a change, states with a stronger religious of biblical base could make a serious impact on the availability of contraception to women. The proposal has the potential to “disrupt state laws securing women’s access to birth control” and “jeopardize federal programs like Medicaid and Title X that provide family-planning services to millions of women.” It would also adversely impact woman who are victims of sexual assault.

The Wall Street Journal report noted that “some on the religious right” see this change as “creating obstacles” for women trying to access birth control and added that the draft regulation could “prompt” insurance companies to “drop coverage for prescription birth control, a move that ultra-conservative Family Research Council’s Tom McClusky said is “fantistic.” Yes, read that again: “Fantastic.” Intruding on a woman’s right to control her own health is “Fantastic.” In this case, add the concept “barefoot and pregnant.”

The proposed rule states that “the conscience of the individual or institution should be paramount in determining what constitutes abortion. This effectively places individual and institutional beliefs over patients’ rights, greatly endangering women’s health.” — David Feinwachs, chief counsel of the Minnesota Hospital Association (as reported in the Star Tribune 7.30.2008.)

In a letter to Michael Leavitt, secretary of Bush’s Health and Human Services Department, Senators Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray, both strong advocates for women’s health and most recently supportive of over-the-counter “morning after” pills, wrote the following:

Sen. Hillary Clinton

Dear Mr. Secretary:

It has come to our attention that the Department of Health and Human Services may be preparing draft regulations that would create new obstacles for women seeking contraceptive services.

One of the most troubling aspects of the proposed rules is the overly-broad definition of “abortion.” This definition would allow health-care corporations or individuals to classify many common forms of contraception – including the birth control pill, emergency contraception and IUDs – “abortions” and therefore to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it.

Sen. Patty Murray

As a consequence, these draft regulations could disrupt state laws securing women’s access to birth control. They could jeopardize federal programs like Medicaid and Title X that provide family-planning services to millions of women. They could even undermine state laws that ensure survivors of sexual assault and rape receive emergency contraception in hospital emergency rooms.

We strongly urge you to reconsider these regulations before they are released. We are extremely concerned by this proposal’s potential to affect millions of women’s reproductive health.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
Senator Patty Murray

This rule change would:

• endanger a Minnesota law that requires doctors to offer rape victims emergency contraception. (Feminist Daily News Wire 7.16.2008]
• expand the definition of abortion to falsely label several types of birth control – including emergency contraception, the pill and IUDs – as abortifacients. (Feminist Daily News Wire 7.16.2008]
• deny federal funds to medical providers who will not hire doctors or nurses that object to abortion. (Feminist Daily News Wire 7.16.2008]
• affect over 500,000 medical facilities (National Partnership for Women and Families 7.30.2008)
• nullify state laws that require doctors to provide the option of emergency contraception to rape victims, would be effectively nullified.( Star-Tribune/MN)
• affect over 500,000 medical facilities (National Partnership for Women and Families 7.30.2008)

The rule change is currently being debated within HHS. There is no timetable for when the final version of the rule will be released.