NEO-LIBERALS ARE DISMANTLING THE ENTIRE PUBLIC HEALTH SECTOR. THINK HOW DEVASTATING IT WILL BE TO HAVE WALL STREET DETERMINING WHAT YOU ACCESS AND WHAT HEALTH INFORMATION YOU GET....WHAT HEALTH STUDIES WILL BE DONE. IT IS CRITICAL TO GO WITH
EXPANDED AND IMPROVED MEDICARE FOR ALL!
THIS IS PUBLIC HEALTH
Daniel Bremmer·3 videos
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpu42LmLo4U CachedThis video was created for the THIS IS PUBLIC HEALTH campaign for the Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH). The campaign consists of 40,000 ...
Please take time to watch this video above as it does a good job showing you what public health involves. Then think what in Baltimore and Maryland is now private non-profit r private and how does that effect the public? Think about how the ACA seeks to move even the larger aspects of public health----the Federal programs to the states to be run by new private non-profits.
Did Obama and/or O'Malley campaign on privatizing public health? I missed that. We know that whether health care reform or education reform....all of the policies being pushed by Obama and O'Malley are republican. Yet, they are running as democrats. THAT'S A NEO-LIBERAL FOR YOU.
We know we do not want he Carlyle hedge fund, Lockheed Martin, and General Electric running our health care. That goes without stating. We know we would not want the very people involved in massive health fraud----as much as 1/2 from entitlements writing health reform laws-----yet they are. We know that all of the payroll taxes and income taxes over several decades has funded all medical research and development and those taxes come mostly from middle/working class-----so they have already paid for access to all health care. We know that Reagan tripled the payroll tax deductions in 1980s so that there would be plenty for the baby boomers when they retired.....so, there is plenty of funds for all of baby boomers.
THIS WE KNOW.
So, why is it when you look at this health insurance exchange you see these tiered categories that basically give you the pleasure of paying a health premium and then making sure you cannot access health care because of the co-pays and deductibles? WHAT IS WITH THAT? Well, that is policy meant to maximize profits for the health industry at the expense of the public's ability to access the health care they paid for! Isn't that wild? It seems that neo-liberals like Obama and O'Malley and all MD pols think that it is OK to take your taxes to create the best health care procedures and products and then not allow you to access them. Johns Hopkins gets hundreds of billions for medical research and then patents what they develop and tells you and I that we cannot participate.
This is what Affordable Care Act is about. Affordable means profit-making not access by people. Public Integrity organizations have calculated that you will need $150,000 a year to have the level of care we have always had. Remember, it used to be a chicken because citizens paid their taxes which paid the doctor who was working as a doctor because of the passion to heal....the hippocratic oath and all! Now, after two decades of stealing trillions of dollars from the Entitlement Trusts through fraud----the health institutions say THAT IS NOT ENOUGH-----WE NEED TO BE AS RICH AS BANKERS BECAUSE WE ARE SMARTER THAN THEM!
That is all health care reform has as its mission and I would like to submit that the ABSOLUTE DISASTER THAT OCCURRED IN ITS ROLL-OUT WAS A HIGHER BEING TOTALLY DISGUSTED WITH THE PEOPLE PUSHING THIS!
This is where the citizens of Maryland are going------Expanded and Improved Health Care for All!! Keep in mind that Medicaid for All is not health care----it is a public health check-up, so we are going for the all in to all access! Vermont has a template but we will see if they place enough emphasis on recovering and eliminating health care fraud and profiteering and less on public taxes. Remember, we have already paid for health care through taxes and don't need to do much more. We will simply combine Medicare and Medicaid, cuts health expenditures in 1/2 by simply establishing oversight and accountability.....tell profiteers to go jump in the lake, and eliminate all of the administrative problems surrounding multiple tax mechanisms with just one!
So, why are Obama and O'Malley going to such a ridiculous heavy-handed approach to health care administration? First, in Maryland Johns Hopkins drives health policy and they are all set with global health institutions and patenting health procedures and are making a killing using taxpayer money to do it. Now, they want to limit even the ability of a hospital to lose money on people without private insurance or cash. So, people with Medicare/Medicaid go to clinics that give limited access to anything other than a checkup......WAIT YOU SAY----THAT HASN'T HAPPENED YET TO MEDICARE!!!!! OH, BUT THAT IS THE GOAL! SEND MEDICARE DOWN TO THESE STATE SYSTEMS AND DISCONTINUE FEDERAL PROGRAMS.
NEO-LIBERALS ARE PREPARING TO END MEDICARE AND MEDICAID====JUST AS REPUBLICANS HAVE WANTED TO DO.
The US is the only developed nation wanting to allow its citizens to die from lack of access to basic medical care but Obama and neo-liberals have worked hard with these International trade agreements to force all nations in the trade circle to end public and subsidized health just so US health businesses can make huge profits! WHAT VISIGOTHS! Raiding and pillaging.....
This will be easy to reverse as all that needs be done is with a stroke of the pen-----Universal care with Medicare administering it! See why Obama just declared that Medicare now needs a CEO and to be made more business-like? HE IS TRYING HIS HARDEST TO SEE MEDICARE IS DISMANTLED BEFORE HE LEAVES JUST AS HE IS DISMANTLING PUBLIC EDUCATION ----AND NO ONE WANTS ANY OF THIS!
We want people to think about who will be earning $150,000 a year and that is rising. Right now, about 5% of US population earns that. That is how much a family will have to make in order to have disposable income for other things. Where will your childrend and grandchildren stand as Johns Hopkins tries to make every job in Baltimore part-time, out-sourced, or full of wage fraud? Isn't it better to recover all of the health fraud from this past decade to fund public health for all and then be able to afford it by eliminating 1/2 the cost from fraud and profiteering?
SHOUT OUT NOW FOR EXPANDED AND IMPROVED MEDICARE FOR ALL BEFORE THESE NEO-LIBERALS DISMANTLE THE ENTIRE PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEM!
Below you see policy that is happening in UK. Keep in mind that Thatcher/Reagan----Blair/Clinton----and Obama/Cameron have and are working towards the same goal----creating global empire and ending all War on Poverty and New Deal programs. So, what you see with Cameron is what neo-liberals here in the US are working. One thing for sure.....if NIH funds go to Johns Hopkins or University of Maryland Medical Center and the research is patented.......the public will not be able to access that research. So, no going to Nature and Science or the AMA to read about medical research. It becomes proprietary. Then, all of the data that comes from a public medical hospital----Maryland does not have one since UMMS is quasi-governmental---will no longer be required to go public as the article below says is happening in UK. Dying from lack of access to health care? NO ONE WILL KNOW!
As a researcher I am already experiencing this with UMMS and we know Maryland deliberately takes itself out of Medicare oversight just so the public does not have that information.
Public health statistics could cease to be published amid wave of budget cuts ONS statisicians also looking at 'a significant reduction in the scale' of David Cameron's 'wellbeing programme'
- The Guardian, Wednesday 10 July 2013 14.58 EDT
A complete halt to the publication of politically sensitive official statistics on smoking, drinking, teenage pregnancies and infant mortality, is being considered for a programme of cuts being drawn up by the Office of National Statistics, documents show.
The statisicians are also looking at "a significant reduction in the scale" of David Cameron's pet "well-being programme" including its analysis of inequalities in Britain and making "significant savings" in the orchestration of the official crime survey from next year onwards.
Details of potential cuts to 23 separate sets of official statistics are outlined in a "restricted" annex to a letter from Glen Watson, the ONS's director-general, sent to other government departments during the recent Treasury spending round, which have been seen by the Guardian.
A spokesman for the ONS confirmed a public consultation on a programme of cuts is to begin within the next month. "Challenging and difficult decisions will need to be made," said a spokesman. Details of the body's Treasury funding for the next three years were only finalised this week.
The letter has sparked alarm amongst health campaigners and the research community who point to the fact that several of the statistical series under threat of the axe, such as teenage conceptions, involve issues where Britain fares poorly in the international comparisons.
Watson says in the letter, dated 5 April, that the ONS is facing "severe funding pressures" but their ability to find savings is restricted because over 80% of their work is required under EU law.
"The scale of reductions in 2013/14, 2014/15 and those likely in 2015/16 mean that significant reductions in statistical outputs would be necessary unless we can secure additional funding from HM Treasury, or directly from other departments. My priority will be to make sure that we can continue to meet the legal requirements placed on ONS, and to ensure that the statistics we do produce are of sufficiently high quality," says Watson.
The letter says that depending on the outcome of discussions with the UK Statistics Authority and the Treasury a public consultation on a programme of cuts would have to begin shortly afterwards.
The annex reveals that the ONS proposed to "stop all statistics on smoking and drinking" and notes that the collection had "already been reduced after the Health and Social Care Information Centre withdrew funding"already been reduced. Other datasets under threat are the ONS's contribution to the cancer survival statistics, ending the publication of analysis of healthy life expectancy figures, and a reducing the coding and analysis of cause of death data to the legally required minimum.
In other areas, the ONS has proposed stopping its labour market analysis, its pension analysis, its annual article on taxes and benefits and halting publication of public sector productivity figures.
Below you see the the goal. Maryland has the same setup with Johns Hopkins running most public health. A PRIVATE NON-PROFIT AS PUBLIC HEALTH IS WHAT LEADS TO WIDESPREAD FRAUD AND PROFITEERING AND CAPTURED PUBLUC POLICY! Notice this is the greater Philadelphia area! This is to what the Affordable Care Act leads as a national goal. By moving to state exchanges all of health care becomes managed by private non-profits. Look at Maryland's Evergreen to see the private non-profit for health co-ops that will become the management corporation below.
Why do we not want private non-profits as public agencies? They are simply corporations that do not pay taxes, public transparency is severely limited and they take the power of the public to write law. THEY BECOME THE STAKEHOLDERS. You can see where Medicare and Medicaid will simply fall to these private non-profits!
Public Health Management Corporation (PHMC)
is a nonprofit public health institute that builds healthier communities through partnerships with government, foundations, businesses and community-based organizations. It fulfills its mission to improve the health of the community by providing outreach, health promotion, education, research, planning, technical assistance, and direct services.
PHMC has served the Greater Philadelphia region since 1972 as a facilitator, developer, intermediary, manager, advocate and innovator in the field of public health. With nearly 1500 employees, 250 programs, eleven subsidiaries --one with programs throughout Pennsylvania, and another nationwide-- 70 sites and close to 200,000 clients served annually, PHMC has become one of the largest and most comprehensive public health organizations in the nation.
For those that look at the video at the top that identifies what makes public health you see how huge this public service is. While looking think to yourself......in Baltimore, is this public or private---private non-profits are private. If you look closely you see that in Baltimore, most everything dealing with health is private where when people had the best and strongest health protections----none of this was private. Private non-profits as I said are funded by corporations and they are working to maximize profit and not public health!
I spoke with a parent with a student attending Baltimore Public Schools. She is very concerned that her child does not receive 30 minutes of recess a day. Indeed, most of Baltimore schools do not unless in affluent neighborhoods. These children only come out if the teacher wants her class to be involved in recess. When they do come out....they may get 10 minutes. This mother took a Department of Health document to demand that her child receive the chance for exercise needed for good health and education and she was told that was not the policy at her school. She asked to be sent to talk with someone to change the policy and attended a school meeting for parents headed by the same teacher refusing to give her child recess. When she asked to speak to the group about the need for recess, she was told that 'management' does not allow talk on recess. That 'management' is no doubt BE WELL, a private non-profit attached to Baltimore City schools but I am sure was created and is run by the Stanford group. So, parents have no say in there childrens school environment and the principals are required to follow BE WELL directives on school public health which obviously does not include recess for elementary school children. Stanford no doubt has patented this university 'company/health process and gets money from Baltimore City to run.
Baltimore has VEOLA Environment owned by HighStar with Johns Hopkins as shareholder writing all of the city's health issues around public waste, public water, and public air. Once again, VEOLA creates policy that will profit the company.
BeWell@Stanford serves as the overarching health and wellness resource for Stanford University. By facilitating a culture of wellness at Stanford, we encourage ...
BeWell is the health and wellness program for City Schools employees. BeWell offers programs and resources to help you manage all aspects of your health: physically, spiritually, mentally, and financially. BeWell
Baltimore City Public Schools will educate children through a workforce that is actively engaged in a culture of Wellness, dedicated to improving their personal health and subsequently the overall productivity and performance of the School System.
The Baltimore City Public Schools Wellness Program will offer a wide array of preventive health and wellness services to help its workforce and their families to achieve optimum health and work/life balance, while helping to curb rising healthcare costs.
Our Goals & Objectives
Our goals for the BeWell Program are to offer programs and resources to improve employee health and help reduce rising healthcare costs.
We'll have to wait in Maryland to be able to see what the bill will be, but Maryland is always on the high end of most costs. I watched a news report with a happy Maryland citizen loving his policy and statements that the system allows people to access all hospitals.....as this article shows small systems with limited access are the norm especially in CA......
On Health Exchanges, Premiums May Be Low, but Other Costs Can Be High
By ROBERT PEAR Published: December 9, 2013
New York Times
Enlarge This Image Kevin Lamarque/Reuters Kathleen Sebelius, seated left, and other officials have said insurance is now more affordable.
Connect With Us on Twitter Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.
Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
Enlarge This Image Healthcare.Gov
Until now, it was almost impossible for people using the federal health care website to see the deductible amounts, which consumers pay before coverage kicks in. But federal officials finally relented last week and added a “window shopping” feature that displays data on deductibles.
For policies offered in the federal exchange, as in many states, the annual deductible often tops $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a couple.
Insurers devised the new policies on the assumption that consumers would pick a plan based mainly on price, as reflected in the premium. But insurance plans with lower premiums generally have higher deductibles.
In El Paso, Tex., for example, for a husband and wife both age 35, one of the cheapest plans on the federal exchange, offered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield, has a premium less than $300 a month, but the annual deductible is more than $12,000. For a 45-year-old couple seeking insurance on the federal exchange in Saginaw, Mich., a policy with a premium of $515 a month has a deductible of $10,000.
In Santa Cruz, Calif., where the exchange is run by the state, Robert Aaron, a self-employed 56-year-old engineer, said he was looking for a low-cost plan. The best one he could find had a premium of $488 a month. But the annual deductible was $5,000, and that, he said, “sounds really high.”
By contrast, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average deductible in employer-sponsored health plans is $1,135.
“Deductibles for many plans in the insurance exchanges are pretty high,” said Stan Dorn, a health policy expert at the Urban Institute. “These plans are more generous than what’s prevalent in the current individual insurance market, but significantly less generous than most employer-sponsored insurance.”
Caroline F. Pearson, a vice president of Avalere Health, a consulting company that has analyzed hundreds of plans, said: “The premiums are lower than expected, but consumers on the exchange will often face high deductibles and high co-payments for medical services and prescription drugs before they reach the cap on out-of-pocket costs,” $6,350 for an individual and $12,700 for a family.
Those limits provide significant protection, even though those sums are substantial for most consumers. In addition, the federal website, HealthCare.gov, informs people that they may qualify for subsidies to reduce their out-of-pocket costs if their household income is below 250 percent of the federal poverty level, meaning that it is less than $28,725 for an individual or $48,825 for a family of three.
These “cost-sharing reductions” are available for a specific kind of midlevel plan known as a silver plan. People with lower incomes can get more help with out-of-pocket costs, but only if they choose silver plans.
Mr. Dorn said the government had not done much to inform people of these potential savings. “Consumers are giving up cost-sharing reductions of enormous value if they enroll in a bronze plan because it has the lowest premium,” he said.
Plans in the marketplace are separated into four categories — bronze, silver, gold and platinum — indicating the generosity of coverage, or the share of costs paid by insurance for an average enrollee.
Many people buying insurance on the federal and state exchanges are expected to qualify for subsidies. But in the first month, for reasons that are not clear, only 30 percent qualified. The others must pay the full premium and will be subject to the full deductible.
Most people shopping in the exchanges are expected to choose bronze or silver plans, which provide less generous coverage than most employer-sponsored plans.
A study by Jon R. Gabel and colleagues at NORC, a research organization affiliated with the University of Chicago, found that 65 percent of employees in group health plans had higher-value coverage that would be classified as gold or platinum under the Affordable Care Act.
At the same time, most policies in the exchanges are more generous than what people have been buying for themselves in the individual insurance market. Mr. Gabel found that 84 percent of policyholders in the individual market had coverage that was less than or equivalent to the bronze level.
James T. O’Connor, an actuary at Milliman, an employee benefit consulting firm, said: “Larger employers generally have more generous coverage than small employers, and small group plans, on average, are richer than what people can typically buy with their own money in the new health insurance exchanges.”
Mark A. York, a 60-year-old freelance writer in Hailey, Idaho, said he began shopping after he received a letter saying that his current insurance policy would be canceled because it did not meet the requirements of the health care law. In the exchange, he said, he found policies with premiums similar to what he is now paying, $440 a month, but “the deductibles were so high — $4,000 to $6,000 a year — that it defeats the purpose of having insurance.”
Brian H. Snoddy, 35, of Palmyra, Va., said his wife and two children had a policy with a $330 premium and a $2,500 deductible, but it is being canceled. For new plans with comparable coverage on the federal exchange, he said, “the deductibles are way higher, $5,000 or $6,000.”
For visits to a medical specialist, many plans on the federal exchange require co-payments of $50 to $75 or more.
Federal officials often point to premiums as evidence that the health care law has made insurance affordable. “Nearly six in 10 uninsured Americans can pay less than $100 a month for coverage in the health insurance marketplace,” Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, has said.
Higher deductibles are one tool that insurers can use to hold down premiums. Many have also held down premiums on the exchanges by limiting the choices of doctors and hospitals available to consumers in their provider networks.
Kellye Norris, 53, of Dallas said that after trying for more than a month, she completed an application on the federal exchange and enrolled in a Cigna plan with a premium of about $500 a month and no subsidies.
“My deductible is nearly $3,000, which is ridiculously high, in my opinion,” Ms. Norris said. “But as someone with pre-existing conditions, I’m grateful to be able to buy insurance at all.”