A new report published today from the American Public Health Association has detailed the failures of Obama Care to properly fund public health issues. The Affordable Care Act had intended that these areas specifically be addressed and now moving forward the funding for such areas of importance are either not being funded or are substantially lower than needed. This is how rationing begins.
From the summary of the report:
[Obama Care] “has thus far failed to adequately invest in the public health workforce, jeopardizing the goals of the sweeping health measure.”
On preventive disease and community health issues overseen by 19 new programs “But to date, only 11 of 19 provisions assessed in the report have received funding.”
And “Those that have received monies have been funded at substantially lower levels than authorized.”
The report also does well in documenting the effects of the “accelerated decline” in the public health sector services in relation to our current economic reality. Nine out of ten state health agencies have cut services between 2008 and 2010. Also in the same time period 19% of the public health workforce has been lost.
So while massive stimulative efforts in spending have stalled the economy it inadvertently has hurt their baby, health care reform. And just like all measures taken by leftists, the people that they claim they are helping are the first to suffer. This report was created because of the devastating reality being created. The first to lose their jobs are middle class and the first to lose health services are the ones who need it the most; the poor.
The three critical challenges the public health sector now face are:
1) Substantial decreases in funding, resources, and staff
2) Inadequate training and
3) Inequitable distribution in areas of the greatest need
So now its back to the emotional class warfare talking points. This report identifies the problem(s) and offers solutions. No where in the report are yacht and private jet owners cited as being part of the problem or involved in any solutions. Government is cited as the problem and wrangling government is the key to their solutions before this gets wildly out of control.
During the debate over Health Care Reform, now dubbed “Obama Care”, support from organizations like the AARP were called into question. Journalists and Bloggers handled this from afar while Jason Mattera was the only one who had the balls to actually confront executives at the AARP. (See his video section)
Just before passage of the bill most informed people that were in opposition had understood that the AARP’s support of this bill would sell out their paying members.
But what if we had concrete proof that the AARP polled Health Care, got results that absolutely DID NOT support change in the US health Care system, and still went ahead with their endorsement?
Well folks, we do have that info now. Below (Click Image for Doc Stoc full file) is the AARP’s private polling report done in respect to current Health Care issues. Judging by the results from the AARP’s own polls there was no reason for them to endorse the legislation. (if you have problems viewing or downloading doc Contact me and I will email it to you)
This is from Sept. ’09 but the questions and their results reflect the basics of Health Care Reform and what wouldve been, and is now, in jeopardy. I found this file kicking around on an AARP affiliate’s server. It was labeled “Secured”. Obviously it wasnt. But never mind that. Lets take a look at the results.
In the Introduction the AARP report states that in association with Woelfe Research Inc polled citizens “at least 50 years of age” on current health concerns. And results were released jointly with the American Medical Association and the American Nurses Association (Both endorsed Obama Care)
The Raw Numbers
7 in 10 “heard a lot” about health care reform
8 in 10 felt it was “very” or “somewhat” important that [Medicare] doctors receive adequate reimbursement. (remember the doctor fix that got thrown on the deficit? And the reduced compensation to Medicare providers in the years to follow?)
97% thought it was “very” or “somewhat” important to chose one’s own doctor (we now know that the legislation as written abandons this principle)
78% were “very” or “somewhat” confidant that if they developed a major illness that they would receive needed health care and prescriptions regardless of financial hardships (pg 7)
Starting on page 6 you can see the breakdown of the questions and the responses.
So why did they support it? Well, Jason Mattera was right, it was to line their pockets at the expense of Seniors hoping to get windfall gains off of Medigap coverage. His hunch was dead on, but he, nor the rest of us had the evidence. Until now.
In the video at 3:06 AARP’s Nancy Leamond admits that they “survey their members probably more than any other organization” Yes they do, and they made the decision to go against their members
AARP one month earlier produced a video that looks similar to a 1980’s Sex-Ed date rape profile. They seem to stand up for everything their members support-then did the opposite (aka lied their asses off the whole time) In November 2009 the AARP endorsed the House Bill
Any kindergarten student can tell you that fruits and vegetable are good for you. But last year, only one third of American adults had fruit or even fruit juice twice a day as recommended. Only a quarter ate vegetable the recommended three times per day.
She continues her justified war on groceries by stating:
Lots of people want to eat healthy, but they’re not sure what’s good for them and what’s not.
Citing her experiences as a mom she reflects back:
When you have a kid tugging on your arm, you don’t always have time to read the nutrition facts on every box of cereals or snacks.
Well, if you search state by state there is 8.9-14.7% of adults that actually do have the time to read every nutritional label…The Unemployed!
Secretary Sebelius also states that healthy food is more than “1 mile” away from a citizen’s house.She claims it takes “20 minutes” to get to these locations that offer healthier choices and it is totally unacceptable. Are they all walking?
And then it becomes time to state the obvious:
And we’re revamping the federal dietary guidelines to emphasize what everyone in this room already knows, that fruits and vegetables need to be a part of a healthy diet.
Thanks for spending our $$$ to “revamp” a program you admit will address common knowledge.
Let us revisit some of the common problems of Government run everything. During an interview in Cuba last year a local rapper, Panfilo, buts in to tell the camera man “What we need is food (jama-comida), the hunger [in Cuba] is great!”This stunt landed him in prison This sounds similar to Sebelius’ “zero tolerance” threats to health insurers raising premiums due to Health Care Reform mandates
And lets revisit Diane Watson praising Fidel Castro’s system of perfection
It’s really nothing new; the study of Climate Change and its effects on human health dates back to the 70’s. Ironically, these are the exact same studies cited in the new White House/HHS task force (formally named the IWGCCH) uses to justify their latest project. On Wednesday April 21, 2010 the White House issued the following via Health and Human Services:
“A report released by a federal working group highlights 11 key categories of diseases and other health consequences that are occurring or will occur due to climate change” (click image for full report)
In an attempt to finally set the stage to tie the most extreme health related conditions to rising health care costs, the administration has rounded up all the kids you use to beat-up during recess to set this into stone.
One of the key issues addressed in this report is “Heat Related Morbidity and Mortality” (pg 29) In the summary they address that death rates amongst the elderly are dramatically higher during heat waves. (obvious) They fear that an increases in Global Temps will trigger additional deaths. They are, in fact, correct. However, one of their sources for that claim comes from the Journal of American Medical Association’s 1982 case control study “Kilbourne, E.M., et al., Risk factors for heatstroke”.
The most recent studies supporting the need to study this claim comes from the mid 90’s; The first a 15 year study starting in 1980 (Piver, W.T., et al., Temperature and air pollution as risk factors for heat stroke in Tokyo, July and August 1980-1995), and the other from 1994 (Wainwright, S., S. Buchanan, and H. Mainzer, Cardiovascular Mortality – the Hidden Peril of Heat Waves). So what is the strongest weapon to fight heat stroke? Air Conditioning!
Upon initial glance the layman would qualify this as a true peril. However, we need some context and statistical studies to easily put the previously worried parties at ease. In Alan Reynolds’ Income and Wealth we learn that as recent as 2001 75% of households below the poverty line were equipped with air conditioners. Compare that to 1971 when only one third of all American households had the privilege of creating their own climate change. In the 70’s heat wave related deaths amongst the elderly was higher than it is today. To further prove how effective air conditioning is think about the “cooling centers” opened during heat waves and the government’s efforts to alert the elderly as to where to find them.
(Side note: the entire commission and report is citing studies that are 4 decades old to address the 11 named issues-this is just one example)
Take my breath away (“in Situ“)
Another area of concern for is Asthma. As the report states:
Climate change will likely amplify existing environmental stimulation of asthma
Along with asthma other respiratory allergies and diseases could be greatly affected and create an “increase in the overall burden of these conditions”
The report states that the first of the research needs in this field are:
Developing and validating real-time remote sensing and other in situ monitoring techniques to evaluate air quality, aeroallergens, etc.
The term “in situ” in Latin translates to “in the place”. Are these remote monitoring techniques done from a patient’s home or are these techniques used in cooperation with technology within a medical facility? The report does not clarify this. Nor does it explain the devices and/or measures that will need to be implemented to get an accurate reading on data. However, if additional equipment and technology is needed then that will carry a cost. The report does not even begin to address this new possible cost or where and how this study will be conducted.
This study is full of either problems that have already been solved in the past 4 decades or addressing new ones with no real plan of action. If you enjoy researching the ridiculous this commission and supporting report should cater to your interests perfectly. Its the old wooden roller-coaster in the theme park; sure it doesnt do loops and cork screws but it is a piece of entertainment built with precision and achieves a precocious charm using dated materials.
The bottom line is that this commission carries a price tag; so do their findings and soon to be proposed solutions. These costs will either show up on the federals books or in your health care premiums. In essence another arm of the great bureaucracy is created to help justify the rising cost of health care.
Now under Health Care reform the expansion of government exchanges (Medicaid) we learn,from a University of Virginia study, that surgery patients with Medicaid die at a greater rate than those with no health insurance. What’s more is that the uninsured have a shorter hospital stay which in turn makes the overall costs lower.
Originally the quagmire of expanding this failing system was first pondered in the Wall Street Journal 12 days before Obama was inaugurated. The fact that Medicaid was inefficient, fraudulent, and overly complicated was not news to anyone. It is, after all, the original “Death Panel”.
Medicaid: “You can’t handle the Tooth!”
Dying from an infected tooth was common over 100,000 years ago. Since the advent of modern medicine that cause of death is so rare that even mentioning it as a possibility today sounds like preposterous fiction. Except for 12 year-old Deamonte Driver. The family had grown accustomed to relying on the Medicaid system so when they lost it his brother’s six rotten teeth became the priority.
An $80 procedure could’ve saved his life. But the infection as a result of the abscess had already reached his brain. Deamonte Driver’s predicament is far from being unique. The article goes on to outline the dismal results of children’s dental care on Medicaid:
Some poor children have no dental coverage at all. Others travel three hours to find a dentist willing to take Medicaid patients and accept the incumbent paperwork.
In spite of efforts to change the system, fewer than one in three children in Maryland’s Medicaid program received any dental service at all in 2005…
The figures were worse elsewhere in the region. In the District, 29.3 percent got treatment, and in Virginia, 24.3 percent were treated, although all three jurisdictions say they have done a better job reaching children in recent years.
The most disgusting part of this conundrum is that Deamonte was eventually treated for a headache (given a pain pill) in school and the next day was much worse. Its particularily grotesque because we see the same type of non-caring, uneducated intervention endorsed by the President himself in the video below. Notice that the answer to the question has nothing to do with personal responsibility and/or choice. It has to do with “certain rules”. The Driver family found it near impossible to navigate the “rules” and Mrs. Sturm’s mother should be another victim to those rules according to the President’s plan. Just take a pill and we’ll square up with each other in the after life
In conjunction to the pill he (Obama) discusses “End of Life” care. Well, Medicaid helped determine Deamonte Driver’s “end of life” care. I hope poor Deamonte made the best of his 12 years