[pickledpepperRN]

December 7, 2007, 2:58 pm

Nurses’ Health-Care Ad Takes Aim at Cheney
Susan Davis reports on health care.

Vice President Dick Cheney would “probably be dead by now” if not for his federally funded health care, according to an eye-catching ad calling for universal health care that will run Monday in ten Iowa newspapers. The ad is union-funded by the California Nurses Association and its national arm, the National Nurses Organizing Committee, which represents 75,000 nurses.

“The patient’s history and prognosis were grim: four heart attacks, quadruple bypass surgery, angioplasty, an implanted defibrillator and now an emergency procedure to treat an irregular heartbeat,” the ad states, referencing Cheney’s lengthy medical chart. “For millions of Americans, this might be a death sentence. For the vice president, it was just another medical treatment. And it cost him very little.”

The group is calling on the presidential candidates to support a single-payer government-run health-care bill introduced in Congress by Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) that has 88 co-sponsors, including long-shot Democratic candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.

The three Democratic front-runners have all proposed sweeping plans to cover all or nearly all uninsured. Republicans have offered more modest plans and none advocate a single-payer system. The nurses group opposes the plans of Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards because they argue that each plan will “continue to rely upon the wasteful inclusion of private insurance companies.” The single-payer plan would take insurance companies out of the equation altogether. ...

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/1...aim-at-cheney/

[Jolie]

If this "headline" was not so irresponsible, it just might be funny.

The notion that there are no options available to the American people other than federal healthcare or death is simply ridiculous.

By most estimates, approximately 45 million Americans lack health coverage. For the purpose of this discussion, I will accept that as an accurate number. Assuming a current population of approximately 300 million, that means that 15% of Americans lack health coverage. I have no problem with devising a means for those who need and want health coverage but can't afford it, to obtain it. But there is no need to concoct a sweeping federal entitlement and force the other 85% of Americans who are currently insured into it. As government bureaucracies go, bigger is never better, and forcing individuals who are satisfied with their private insurance plans into a government plan is neither necessary nor desirable. To do so would indicate an attempt by politicians not only to cover those in need of healthcare, but to control the choices of those who aren't in need.

From the article, "The nurses group opposes the plans of Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards because they argue that each plan will “continue to rely upon the wasteful inclusion of private insurance companies.” The single-payer plan would take insurance companies out of the equation altogether. ..." If a single payor plan prevails, what will be next in terms of control of private citizens' lives? Will politicians decide that private schools, colleges and universities must be done away with because they are they are "wasteful"?

[pickledpepperRN]

Remember when the Vice President got his ICD on a Saturday?

CNN NEWSROOM
Aired July 2, 2001 - 04:30 ET

...BAKHTIAR: United States Vice President Dick Cheney plans to get back to business as usual today after surgery this weekend. Mr. Cheney returned home from the hospital Saturday just hours after being fitted with a defibrillator. It's a device meant to correct any irregular heart rhythm he might experience. Now, the vice president has a history of heart trouble but says he's in good shape and feeling fine....http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../02/nr.00.html

Commentary
Can the HMOs Now Retreat From the Cheney Standard? The vice president's case speaks volumes about physician judgment and patient access to therapy....

...The recommendation of an ICD for Cheney is light years beyond what is being done in the general medical community. Of the 40,000 new ICDs implanted in the U.S. annually, almost all are for patients who have already been resuscitated after a cardiac arrest. Only 5% to 10% now are for the preventive indications used in the Cheney case.

It helps to be a high profile patient. Cheney had his problem identified and was in the hospital the next weekend.
Where was the primary care physician in the decision-making process, unless it was the widely quoted chief of medicine at George Washington University Hospital? Was there a managed care official involved, or was President Bush standing in for the HMO when he said that he thought the procedure was a good idea?

In California, a patient like Cheney might be referred to a specialist. Then the struggle would begin with the managed care provider for approval to implant an ICD.
No quick Saturday implant in Los Angeles. Rather, the treatment request would go to a procedure approval system that is slow, arbitrary and designed to postpone or prevent care. If such a patient (with Cheney's indications) is uninsured, forget it:..." Dr David S Cannom (Good Samaritan Hospital, Los Angeles):

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/...esc=Commentary

"In this cost-conscious world, physicians are not usually encouraged to look for expensive therapies like the defibrillator. This data, from my standpoint, speaks for itself. The device works it's incredibly effective at defibrillating the heart."

In July of this year when Vice President Dick Cheney received an ICD, Cannom took on the issue of how this expensive therapy will be used in an editorial that appeared in the LA Times. He pointed out if Cheney had not been who he is, the process for use of an ICD in a preventive indication would have been long and arduous, going through an HMO approval system, "designed to postpone or prevent care."
Given the decision in Cheney's case, it would be more difficult for insurance plans to back away from the "Cheney standard," Cannom added. "Enabling high-risk cardiovascular patients such as Cheney to be treated in the right way medically may be one of the major accomplishments of the Bush administration," he wrote.

http://www.theheart.org/viewEntityDi...legacyId=27067

[HM2Viking]

Tricare works

VA medical system works

FEHP works

Medicare works

The assorted state employee health plans work

Why not build a large group plan to cover ALL Americans?

We cannot continue to spend 31% of our health care dollars on Administration and profit.

The evidence shows that single payer will provide better care at a lower cost...

Most Americans believe that this should be a shared responsibility:

[HM2Viking]

[HM2Viking]

This graph tends to support the original post....

[pickledpepperRN]

My question is, "What do health insurance companies do?

Professionals call for Medicare-style health plan

Nurses' ad cites Cheney's heart troubles as evidence of universal need

By Russ Britt, MarketWatch
Last update: 7:24 p.m. EST Dec. 7, 2007

LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) -- While health-care reform may play second fiddle to the war in Iraq among voters this election season, it appears that the domestic issue is taking on new life thanks to medical-industry professionals.

An advertisement, due to appear Monday in Iowa newspapers ahead of upcoming caucuses there, calls for a single-payer, national health-insurance plan similar to Medicare, and cites Vice President Dick Cheney's chronic heart troubles as evidence of its need. It is sponsored by the Oakland, Calif.-based California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee.

At the top of the ad, there's a news story about a recent visit by Cheney to the hospital for treatment of an irregular heartbeat. Underneath, it says: "If he were anyone else, he'd probably be dead by now."
The ad goes on to note that under the government health-insurance program that covers Cheney, he is not turned away for preexisting conditions or unable to be treated for what an insurance company might label "experimental treatments."

"There's a whole set of barriers that he has never faced," said Michael Lighty, director of public policy for the nurses' group.

Welcome to the 2008 elections, where medical professionals are turning up the heat in favor of a universal, single-payer system that represents a radical departure from what most of the major presidential candidates are proposing. They know that such a system is a long shot at this point, but the numbers in their camp are growing....

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...306E3A2406B%7D

[HM2Viking]

This is part of the solution.

[HM2Viking]

Deny coverage for the needed procedures, or cancel his policy for undisclosed hyperlipidemia in his 30's.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by spacenurse

My question is, "What do health insurance companies do?

The premise of the thread is laughable. Without 'national healthcare', Dick Cheney would be uninsured? Please, even YOU don't believe that. Besides, even uninsured, as a multi-millionaire, I suspect he could pay cash for almost any healthcare service he would desire.

The answer to your question, what do health insurance companies do?: manage the neomercantile (google it) influence of gov't in the provision of your care. THAT is why they fail to live up to your expectations: they are a vehicle for gov't interference. The solution is NOT more gov't interference. You say you want more of the very thing that creates the distaste you have regarding health insurance. What a contradiction! However, it's not. You want something you think the gov't can give, but, it can't. Instead, it gives the very thing you despise about 'health insurance companies'. It gives bloated bureaucracy that gives advantage to the few at the expense of the many. Gov't. Health Insurance, Inc. No difference.

Let me ask you THIS question: What do car insurance companies do? What do life insurance companies do? Are THEY just useless grifters for the people THEY serve?

For the record, I suspect my daughter's current bill will end up being somewhere north of half a million dollars. My out of pocket maximum cost will be 3 grand. For me, THAT is what health insurance does. But see, THAT kind of expense is what insurance is SUPPOSED to cover: a protection against a catastrophic loss. Health Insurance today, in the main, can't really be called insurance: it is pre-paid healthcare. If car insurance were run like health 'insurance' then it would cover gas and oil changes - - - and cost 550 dollars a month. Oh. And 47 million drivers would be unable to afford it, depending upon their own means to put gas in their cars, not to mention, totally unprepared for 'catastrophic' need, such as an accident.

Maybe the government should provide us all with universal car insurance? To do less would be uncompassionate. Yes? By the gov't's definition of 'insurance', that would mean, gas would be 'free'. All the gas you want, all the time, at no cost to you (except for taxes and the 'rich' will pay most of that). And all the gas stations will be open, full of gas, with no lines. Right? (Hint, don't let the gov't's price fixing/gas rationing of the '70's influence your opinion of this great idea.)

~faith,
Timothy.