LJWorld.com

The most important rule in health care is "first do no harm". Unfortunately Congressional Democrats seem totally oblivious to this rule.

Many Democrats are so egotistical that they think anything they do will be an improvement. They seem incapable of understanding that changes can make a situation worse instead of better just like giving a patient the wrong medical treatment can worsen the patient's condition. The wrong medical treatment can kill. Making the wrong changes in the health care system can reduce access to health care and reduce the quality of health care.

In one of my favorite episodes of MASH Captain Hawkeye Pierce is appointed the unit's chief surgeon. Major Frank Burns complains to a general when Hawkeye decides not to immediately operate on a badly wounded soldier who comes in. When the general arrives Hawkeye has been playing cards while the man was receiving a blood transfusion, etc. to stabilize his condition. Hawkeye tells the general he can now safely operate because the patient has been stabilized. Operating too soon would have jeopardized the patient's chances of survival.

Congressional Democrats continue to push a health care plan substantially similar to the one adopted by Massachusetts which is a failure according to the Boston Globe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachu... http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/02/mass_healthcare_reform_is_failing_us/

The program has failed to provide the universal care it was supposed to guarantee. Coverage is not affordable. The cost of the subsidized program has gone from $630 million in 2007 to $1.3 in 2009. High deductibles mean people who buy compulsory coverage may not be able to afford to use it.

Low income families aren't the only ones who have trouble affording health insurance. Many with incomes well above the poverty level like Ron Norton of Worcester, Mass., make too much to qualify for government assistance but not enough to afford insurance. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125304790936413347.html

The key to successful medical treatment is an accurate diagnosis. The problem with American health care is the high cost of health care rather than lack of insurance. High costs make it difficult for persons to afford insurance.

Doctors take x-rays or run tests as appropriate before choosing treatment for any major medical problem. Congress needs to do the same with health care. Congress needs to determine the specific causes of high costs to see if they are unnecessary.

For example, are doctors, hospital administrators, insurance executives, etc. receiving higher incomes than patients can afford to provide them? Are hospitals or other medical facilities making excessive profits by overcharging insurance companies? Are so called non-profit hospitals or clinics actually functioning as if they were profit making organizations? Are the uninsured including illegal aliens really responsible for high costs or are they being used as scapegoats by the health care industry to cover up the real cause? Are courts forcing unnecessary costs on the industry?

This is breast cancer awareness month so perhaps a breast cancer analogy is appropriate. Thirty years ago the treatment for all forms of breast cancer was usually a complete mastectomy. Today some, but not all, forms of breast cancer can be successfully treated with a simple lumpectomy that removes only the small tumors, provided the cancer is detected early enough. http://www.breastcancer.org/treatment/surgery/mast_vs_lump.jsp

Thirty years ago toxic chemicals were used to treat breast and other cancers. Today a growing number of cancers can be treated with milder chemicals that may attack only the cancer cells without damaging other healthy cells. In some cases radiation can be targeted to cancer cells without harming healthy cells. oo The American health care "problem" doesn't require radical surgery or toxic chemicals. Improving American health care only requires a lumpectomy and mild chemicals.

Ultimately the government's ability to force people to comply with its regulations involves the threat of imprisoning those who refuse to comply. If the Democrat controlled Congress decides to arbitrarily force some people to purchase health insurance will it adopt severe measures to insure compliance with its requirement.

Will any government requirement to purchase health insurance include the threat to imprison those who refuse to purchase insurance or pay a fine? Will government confiscate money or property from those who refuse to purchase health insurance or pay a fine?

According to Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold anyone failing to purchase insurance would face a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty.

President Barack Obama falsely compares the purchase of health insurance to auto liability insurance. "What it's saying is ... that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you any more than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance," he said.

I don't know if Obama is deliberately lying or he is so ignorant he doesn't understand the difference between auto liability insurance and personal health insurance.

States don't require everyone to purchase auto liability insurance. States only impose the requirement on those who want to own and drive motor vehicles to insure that drivers who cause injury or property damage will be able to compensate those who suffer loses. Motorists typically have the option of substituting proof of financial responsibility, such as posting a cash bond, in lieu of insurance.

Different couples with the same income might not have the same ability to pay for health care. A young couple might have two large student loans to pay off and still want to start purchasing a house or newer vehicles. A couple might decide to take the risk of going without health and life insurance to start their own business. Some couples may be providing assistance to a disabled parent.

Many of those who could afford insurance do without it because they believe their healthy lifestyles reduces their need for medical care. They don't want to have to pay to subsidize the habits that increase medical costs like smoking, unhealthy eating and drinking habits, failure to exercise, etc. Insurance companies use money taken from healthy people to pay for the medical care of unhealthy people. Democrats who favor compulsory insurance should ask themselves if they want to be forced to pay for Rush Limbaugh's prescriptions.

Who is best able to determine if someone can purchase health insurance -- wealthy members of Congress, government bureaucrats or individual couples?

Is this still the land of the free or is it a police state like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany?

President Barack Obama needs to abandon his obsession with the Democrats' clunker health care proposal. His public relations campaign indicates desperation and an unwillingness to recognize that this clunker needs a new engine rather than a slick advertising campaign.

Obama started out wrong by attempting to force the very complex measure through Congress with limited debate. This high pressure salesmanship approach created a suspicion that something very bad was hidden in the fine print of the measure because high pressure salesmen often hide important information of contracts.

Most of us are especially suspicious of politicians when they ask us to trust them after presenting a measure so complex that it might take a decade of lawsuits to figure out.

The claim about so-called "death panels" might have been false, but many so distrusted the measure that they readily believed the claim. Suspicions about Obama's intent also caused many to believe that he had some ulterior motive with the public option provision.

Obama's frequent public appearances may be counterproductive because he comes across too much like the stereotypical used car dealer who runs ads every half hour.

Democrats need a new health proposal not an expanded public relations campaign to sell the current clunker.

A successful president needs to follow the advice of the "Gambler" in the Kenny Rogers song. He needs to "know when to hold 'em [and] know when to fold 'em." This is the time for Obama to "fold 'em" on health care and wait for Congress to deal a new hand.

President Barack Obama resembles the used car dealer in the CARFAX commercial.

You've probably seen the commercial. A sleazy used car dealer is attempting to push a customer into buying an apparent clunker. The customer says he won't buy without seeing the CARFAX which would provide a history of the car so the customer would know what he was getting.

Obama has been pressuring Congress to adopt some type of health care related program without the lengthy debate that should precede any major change in health care. Obama's attempt to force the issue implied a major flaw with the proposal, perhaps something so unpopular that he was afraid people would find out about if the measure wasn't adopted quickly.

Used car salesmen long ago gained a bad reputation as a group because some of them have misrepresented the condition of the vehicles or the mileage they get. Southern California used car dealers once supposedly would misrepresent a car's use by saying it had been owned by a "little old lady from Pasadena who only drove it to church on Sundays." Or at least they did until the Beach Boys released a song about "The Little Old Lady from Pasadena" who was "the terror of Colorado Boulevard" in her " brand new shiny red super stock Dodge."

Some of today's used car dealers will sell cars that have been wrecked or in a flood to unsuspecting customers who don't insist on seeing the vehicle's CARFAX.

Comparing presidents to used car dealers isn't new. In the late 60's the question was asked about Richard Nixon, "would you buy a used car from this man?"

Did Obama try to force the issue because his proposal really isn't about providing better access to health care but providing money for the health care industry, including insurance companies?

Forcing people to purchase insurance whether they want it or not would certainly increase insurance company revenues. The public option would provide billions more in income for health care providers so that more hospitals can afford to pay administrators such as Michelle Obama $300K salaries. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/21/AR2008082103646.html

The public option can make it easier for insurance companies to reject those with medical conditions and let the government pay for treatment.

Perhaps Obama is worried people will discover the Massachusetts Plan he wants is a clunker that the state is considering a plan to ration health care.
http://www.detnews.com/article/20090827/OPINION01/908270338/1008/Massachusetts--Obama-like-reforms-increase-health-costs--wait-times

Obama's attempt to force the issue provided the atmosphere in which a fear about "death panels" could develop. The idea may have originated from statements by some of those associated with Obama who might play a role in implementing any legislation than specific provisions in the act.

Contrary to denials by Obama supporters, an increased government role in health care could create virtual death panels. Having government control access to health care could create virtual death panels. If a private insurance denies coverage for treatment of a potentially fatal disorder, the patient has the option of asking friends and family raise money for the treatment. If government took control of health care, that option might not be available. A government agency decision to deny payment for treatment might become a death sentence because private financing might not be allowed.

I might have purchased a used car from Richard Nixon, at least before Watergate, but there is no way I would buy one from Barack Obama.

The way some politicians talk I don't think they understand that insurance companies don't pay for health care, their customers do.

Insurance works in one of two basic ways. Life insurance is part investment and part ponzi scheme. Part of the payments to beneficiaries comes from investment of the money the insured paid in premiums and the rest comes from the premiums being paid by others. Life insurance works as long as the death rate remains low and the number of people purchasing life insurance is high.

Health insurance may have operated through investments at one time. Today, the money paid to health care providers comes from the premiums paid by the insured. Health insurance provides a way for many people to pool their financial resources to pay the medical bills of those who become sick or injured.

Health insurance can only function as long as the healthy insured outnumber the unhealthy insured. A health insurance company can only stay in business if most of its customers during any given year pay more in premiums than the company pays for their medical expenses.

The problem in American health care isn't a lack of insurance, but the high cost of medical care. The high cost of medical care hampers the ability of individuals and their employers to pay for medical care or purchase insurance.

Government and private insurance played a role in increased medical charges by routinely paying medical charges without question for decades.

The first step to health care reform should be reduction of costs which will require extensive congressional hearings to determine why costs are so high. The investigation should include determining if health insurance companies are overcharging customers in order to make excessive profits or pay excessive salaries to executives.

For example, what role do malpractice cases play in health care costs? Are medical tests or hospital dispensed medications overpriced? Are doctors' fees too high considering the financial resources of patients? Do states adequately regulate the quality of medical care? Correcting mistakes by doctors and hospitals is expensive and leads to malpractice suits.

During the coming weeks we will be hearing about the nation's best health insurance program. It doesn't cover a wide variety of disorders, but it provides complete coverage for the type of disorders it covers -- the various forms of Muscular Dystrophy.

The Muscular Dystrophy Association provides assistance in the form of wheelchairs as well as medical treatment for those whose form of MD can be treated. The MDA doesn't require patients to have other insurance or make payments.

The MDA isn't the only charitable health organization. St. Jude's Hospital provides treatment to children without regard to ability to pay as do the Shriners' Hospitals.

Charitable hospitals once played a major role in American health care until administrators discovered they could make a profit by charging government and private insurance for health care. The organizations that once funded many of these hospitals gradually allowed the hospitals to become self supporting by charging patients and their insurance companies.

Churches and other charitable organizations need to play a greater role in providing health care to those who find it too expensive. I don't expect Democrats to support this approach because they want to make the federal government bigger even though the federal government doesn't do anything particularly well. It even has trouble running the post office or fighting wars in spite of the fact it has handled both functions since before the current constitution was adopted.

I doubt that the Ferengi Republicans like Rush Limbaugh will be interested in encouraging charitable organizations, but perhaps the religious Republicans might.

Incidentally, I emailed some suggestions on health care to the Obama administration earlier this year when it requested input. I originally wrote it in 1992 and expanded it during the Clinton administration, with occasionally mailings to politicians. It's a work in progress that I haven't done much with for several years. I really need to go back through it and do a better job of making the various parts fit together, but with the politicians we have now, I don't think it's worth the time.

Why should we believe statements about health care from the most secretive president since Richard Nixon? We have no way of knowing if presidents who keep significant secrets in some areas are telling the truth on other matters.

Barack Obama's continued refusal to release minor personal documents like his actual birth certificate, college records, etc. implies he is covering up important information that we should know about. Unless his critics are correct, none of the information should have any adverse affect other than possibly causing some embarassment.

A president who feels he has to keep personal secrets is very likely to also keep secrets about his proposals including those involving health care. He shouldn't be surprised that many people suspect he has ulterior motives for some proposals and may be lying about their impact.

Obama has lied on other important issues. Last year he said there wouldn't be any new taxes for most of us. After being elected he proposed huge tax on carbon emissions that will affect all of us. The purpose of the tax is to allow the greedy financial interests who bought the White House for him to make billions trading "carbon credits".

I don't know if his critics are correct that the refusal to release his actual birth certificate is due to him being born outside the U.S., but there doesn't appear to be any other reason for him to keep the birth certificate secret. Does the birth certificate indicate Obama was born outside the U.S. or could it include information that might indicate that Obama is not the child mentioned on the certificate? Perhaps the real Barack Obama died shortly after birth and his mother in a humanitarian move abopted an African orphan to replace the baby she lost. She then used the U.S. certificate to make it appear her new child was born in the U.S.

Incidentally there is now a claim that someone has found a Kenyan birth registration indicating he was born in Kenya. http://www.obamanotqualified.com/obama-kenyan-birth-certificate-kenya.htm

 As was the case with the document used to claim he was born in Hawaii, the other side suggests it is a forgery.  And, like the Hawaiian document, it merely states that there is a birth certificate rather than being an actual birth certificate.  Those who believe the document is valid suggest it may have been produced in connection with his mother's divorce case.

The current strain of the H1N1 virus needs a better name than the "swine flu". The name has been used before for an over rated flu strain and doesn't accurately describe the current virus. The virus is a new strain and needs a new name.

Calling it the "Y2009" virus would provide a unique name to separate it from past virures. Perhaps the "Y2K+9" virus would be more appropriate in the Twitter era.

The new strain of H1N1 virus was initially called "swine flu" because it contained genes often found in viral strains that occur in North American swine. A more detailed analysis indicated that other viral genes were also present including genes from European and Asian swine viruses as well as genes from avian and human viruses. Scientists call this combination a "quadruple reassortment virus".

The term "swine flu" was used for what turned out to be a relatively mild form of the flu in 1976. In fact the cure was deadlier than the disease including 3 deaths in Pittsburg among elderly people who received a vaccine to prevent it. "The swine flu case of 1976 forever reduced confidence in public health pronouncements from the government and helped foster cynicism about federal policy makers...."

Using the term for this version of the flu could be leading many to believe that this flu isn't any worse than that one. Health officials became concerned in 1976 because of a few deaths, but the subsequent projected death toll didn't happen.

Calling the flu "swine flu" misleads people into thinking it is transmitted by pork instead of people. Even if it were in pork, cooking the pork would get rid of it. The biggest concern in eating should be about the possibility of someone handling the food who has the flu.

The Spanish flu of 1918-1919 may have killed as many as 50 million Since then health officials have become concerned anytime a new version of the flu has appeared.

The deaths in Mexico could indicate a dangerous disease, or they could result from weak immune systems or not having been exposed to forms of the flu than the flu itself. The variety of different genes in the virus strain and the fact they come from different parts of the world could indicate the flu strain was brought in by an international traveler.

The diversity of the genetic makeup of the virus might also indicate it is an artificially created virus. The Obama administration has downplayed the idea that terrorists might have created the virus, but the decision to have Homeland Security play a prominent role in communications with the media indicates administration officials believe the virus might be a terrorist act. If it is an artificially created virus, it might be more likely that it is a laboratory experiment that entered the general population because of carelessness.