Author: Sarah Riordan

Apparently, there’s a problem in the drug world.  If you’re thinking gang banging, traffic carting, gun toting drug dealer, you’re thinking of the wrong kind of drugs. The drugs in question are the legal ones that often provide life-saving medications to Americans everywhere.

So what seedy activities are occurring in this immensely profitable financial market?  Well, I’ll give you a hint; it has to do with mass amounts of money, competitors and payoffs.

Because “name-brand” drug companies put all the legwork into providing medication, (legwork equals research, testing, and initial distribution) they automatically get a twenty-year exclusive patent on new products.  This permits the company to recoup some of it research and development cost and make some profit on the product.  It also seems perfectly fair and provides the necessary incentive for companies to continue bringing new products to market. 

After twenty years however, the patent runs out, and generic drug companies have a chance at making a profit by selling the same drug at a much cheaper rate.  So much cheaper in fact, that generic drugs cost consumers up to 80 percent less than their name-brand competitors. 

With the current system in place, every body gets a chance to play without unduly burdening the name-brand drugs original manufacturer.  So everyone should be happy right?

Well, judging by what we know of human nature, no one is ever completely satisfied.  As a result, brand-name companies have, according to the bill, decided that twenty years and billions of dollars isn’t quite enough time to make money.  To protect their profits, drug companies have come up with some “creative financing” to get around the problem of the limited patents.  And when you have millions of dollars at your disposal, it can become a very effective tool to protect your interests.  Consequently, according to the Federal Trade Commission, the owner of the name -brand drugs have been paying other companies not to enter the market. 

So, say you’ve been taking the allergy medicine Zyrtec for twenty years.  (Zyrtec is already provided over the counter in generic form, so this example is purely an illustration.  I am in no way implying that this is Pfizer’s practice.)  Soon that drug will become available in a much cheaper form.  Pfizer sees this, and decides to pay the generic company an amount equal to that of the profit they would make off of the generic form of Zyrtec.  Therefore, Pfizer protects its monopoly on Zyrtec and continues charging consumers 80 percent more than the drug is actually worth. 

That’s why Senator Herbert Kohl, a Democrat from Wisconsin, decided to sponsor S.369. The bill basically makes it illegal for the big companies to skirt around their twenty-year patent by buying off their competitors. 

No one is trying to limit a company’s abilities to make profit off of their products.  Exclusive rights for twenty years is a long time and most companies recoup their R&D cost and then some in that time.  The bill is simply trying to make sure the game is played fair and the consumer is given choices to help reduce drug cost. 

As a bill that doesn’t increase taxes, the simple response is simply, “Why not?”  With all of the Americans who need prescriptions, and the ridiculous price of prescription drugs, giving the “name-brandys” a monopoly would make the problem drastically worse. 

So by all means, keep those drug companies honest, and keep Americans healthy! 

Author: Sarah Riordan

 To quote the oh so diplomatic Judge Judy…don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

 The above quote pretty much sums up Congresswoman Louise Slaughter’s new bill, H.R. 463.  In fact, the first paragraph is where the deceit begins. Here Slaughter states that the bill wants to provide contraceptives to girls with the intention of reducing the number of abortions. 

Okay, first things first, when reviewing the long list of Congressmen and woman who signed their names supporting the bill, something seemed odd.  The typical pro-life advocates were absent from the list.  For example, Fortenberry, Akin, and Lipinski were neither listed as sponsors or cosponsors.  So naturally, something about this bill just felt off.

When reading through the first pages of the bill, nothing obvious stands out.  It follows the format of a typical bill beginning by citing research about unplanned pregnancies, and the number of women in lower socio-economic circumstances that don’t have access to birth control.  Wait a minute…that does spark a thought, who was the famous woman that longed to provide minorities and poorer woman with birth control? Oh wait, that’s right, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, which is also the largest abortion provider in America.

Sanger’s goal was to eliminate people she saw as inferior through birth control.  Now for those of you, who view Sanger as a saint; let’s review some of her most infamous writings.

“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” 
Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race 

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America.

“More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

Whenever a bill aims to provide birth control, it nearly always focuses on minorities within the US.  That is exactly what Sanger’s goal was.  Apparently Sanger and Slaughter both think they know what sort of women should be discouraged from having children.  According to Sanger, it’s not about providing a service to women, but about eliminating the poor and minority groups.

Now at about page four, the bill becomes incredibly transparent.  Suddenly, the bill goes from speaking about birth control, to speaking about emergency contraception. (The morning after pill.)  Even the most ignorant of college students can tell you that the morning after pill is used in case conception has occurred.  A true pro lifer would be against the use of this emergency contraceptive because its goal is to cause a very early abortion.   If the public does not view the morning after pill as an abortifacient, it should.  So either Slaughter is ignorant, or she thinks the public is stupid enough to be convinced that this pro-choice bill has a prolife message.  Come on Slaughter, stop being an elitist and give the public a little more credit.

Honestly, the problems mentioned above don’t even touch the surface of all the wrong stated in H.R.463.  The bill also mentions birth control providers helping with the elimination of STD’s.  Are they planning to do this by providing birth control?  If anything, providing girls with the pill is going to give them license to be more sexually active.  The pill does not protect against STD’s.  Neither does the morning after pill.  No birth control (other than abstinence) can truly keep a person safe from disease.

This bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.  It’s trying to seem prolife friendly while forcing taxpayers to go against their convictions by providing emergency contraception funding for girls.  If Slaughter’s bill is passed that‘s what will happen.

Slaughter, who do you think you’re kidding? 

Oh, and does anyone else find it ironic that her last name is Slaughter? Anyone…anyone?  

Author: Sarah Riordan

Eating disorders are more serious and prevalent than most people realize.  They can range from binge eating to near starvation to making yourself purge daily. Each and every version of an eating disorder can have serious consequences on a person’s health.   In many cases, they can lead to death.

That’s why it’s hard to form an opinion on Congresswoman Mary Bono’s bill, H.R. 2677. The bill addresses the issue of eating disorders and proposes giving money to facilities that treat them.  On the one hand that sounds perfectly reasonable, but there’s just something about the text of the bill that doesn’t feel right.

Perhaps it’s because most of the 26-page bill has to do with childhood obesity.  Someone please tell me why childhood obesity has become the new craze.  Everyone understands that it’s healthier to be in shape, and most people understand how to fix the problem of being a little less than fit.  Pretty much every Joe Blow on the street corner can tell you that diet and exercise fix obesity.  So why are doctors and teachers acting as if the world is ignorant to the problem?  NEWS FLASH: No one is ignorant to weight issues, and not a single obese person is unaware of their condition.  There are plenty of news stories, fliers, and doctors who are more than willing to tell a child that they should be fit and active.  So ultimately, that side of the bill is a waste of taxpayer dollars.  The bill wants to treat childhood obesity as an eating disorder, but it doesn’t quite fall in the category. Congress shouldn’t use our money to tell people what they already know. 

Now, there are some parts of the bill where Bono starts to actually make some decent points.  Anorexia is a serious disease, and the bill states that of all psychiatric disorders, (depression, anxiety etc.) anorexia has the highest death rate.   Treatment facilities for anorexia are also hard to come by.  They exist, but only if you can pay thousands of dollars a year for treatment.  On the other end, you can go to a hospital psychiatric ward, but the treatment is not specialized, and a young girl will most likely end up sharing a room with a person who suffers from schizophrenia.  So clinics that are somewhere between the two extremes are needed.

Bulimia is similar.  Most girls who suffer from anorexia also have bulimia.  Every once in a while, a girl with anorexia will binge eat, and then force herself to regurgitate.   Because the two go hand-in-hand, treatments for both are important.  So again, the idea of giving grants to treatment centers for bulimia is a good idea.

To summarize, while the bill does address some important issues it seeks to strong of a governmental role.  If it simply focused on providing much needed treatment facilities for eating disorders , then it’s a good way to use taxpayer dollars.  Childhood obesity however, should be left to doctors and families.  Until more research is conducted on the matter, and obesity is diagnosed as an official mental problem, then for the time being let’s stick with the main food-related issues of which we have a better understanding.

Author: Crystal Fontaine

As Herbert Hoover once said, “Children are our most valuable natural resource.” We look to oil, trees, land, and so forth as the natural resources that we need to protect in order to survive and thrive. However, in order for future generations to enjoy those lush resources, we must take care of ourselves and our families, especially the wellbeing of our children.

Unfortunately, too many people go without going to see the doctor because they do not have health insurance coverage. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 45.7 million Americans or 15 percent of the population, were uninsured for the year of 2007. Although these figures represent an improvement from the previous year, the statistics show a fall since the year 2001, which showed six million fewer people were without health insurance compared to the year 2007. The report continues to state the main reason for the lack of insurance is due to the decline of employer-sponsored health insurance programs over the past several years.

President Obama has emphasized the importance of health care, especially health care coverage for our children. Not even a month into his presidency, President Obama has already signed into law the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009. The legislation, sponsored by Frank Jr. Pallone, will become effective on April 1 of this year. The bill establishes the Child Enrollment Contingency Fund for payments to a state to abolish its shortfall and instructs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make performance bonus payments to states to counterbalance additional Medicaid and CHIP child enrollment costs.

Subtitle B of Title 1 of the bill focuses on low income children and pregnant women, giving states an option to cover targeted low-income pregnant women under CHIP through a state plan amendment. It also provides for a phase-out of CHIP coverage for non-pregnant childless adults; however, there will still be an option to apply for a Medicaid waiver in order to continue coverage. Under Title II, the SSA Title XXI is amended so that the Secretary may award grants during the fiscal years 2009-2013 for outreach and enrollment efforts to boost enrollment for eligible children. Subtitle C of Title VI continues this outreach effort by creating a task force to carry out a national campaign of education and outreach for small business concerns concerning the accessibility of coverage for children through Medicaid and CHIP.

In this bill, the Senate acknowledges that there is a necessity to improve the affordability and access to health insurance for all Americans, the value of building upon the existing private health insurance market, and verifies its intent to pass legislation  that expands access to significant and reasonable health insurance coverage for employees of small businesses and individuals. 

Author: Crystal Fontaine

In 2004, lung cancer accounted for more deaths than breast cancer, prostate cancer, and colon cancer combined. Approximately thirty five million Americans now live with chronic lung disease, making it one of the leading causes of death in the United States as it is responsible for one in six deaths. The financial costs of treating lung cancer are incredibly high, costing approximately $9.6 billion per year. One does not have to be a smoker to develop lung cancer as there are many factors that are added into the risk of getting lung cancer. However, smoking does increase one’s odds considerably.

According to a 2005 C-STATS data sheet for the state of California, there are 14.3% of Californian adults (ages 18-65) that are current smokers with 10% being daily smokers, leaving the remaining 4.3% claiming they are only occasional smokers. Unfortunately in 2008, there was an estimated total 18,060 Californians who were diagnosed for lung cancer with an expected number of 13,000 dieing from the disease. Due to these increasing numbers, California Assemblyman Tom Torlakson introduced Assembly bill 89, which increases the states cigarette tax. The legislation is similar to California Senate bill 24 that Torlakson introduced last year. AB 89 would provide “much needed funding for Lung Cancer Research while saving our State billions in tobacco-related health care costs”. The bill provides a good way to gain the money needed for research and to help protect the health of many Californians.

AB89 would impose an additional excise tax on the distribution of cigarettes at a rate of $0.105 for each cigarette sold. Cigarette dealers and wholesalers would be required to file a return with the State Board of Equalization, showing the number of tobacco products in their possession that is under their control. The revenues collected would be deposited in the Tobacco Excise Tax Account, which would be created under the legislation. The revenue would go towards certain education and health related purposes, such as child’s health care, tobacco cessation services, and lung cancer research. The law could raise approximately two billion dollars annually if it should go into effect.

Since 2000, there have been 42 out of the 50 U.S states that have increased their cigarette excise tax. According to Torlakson, this should be a win for California’s schools and public health. If the bill is to pass, approximately one billion of the estimated two billion that it is to generate would go towards California’s vast educational system. The other billion would go towards health care needs. As we face a struggling economy, it is just one way to look at different revenue options to help fund important things, such as lung cancer research and education. 

Author: Crystal Fontaine

Recently, the United Health Foundation, in conjunction with the American Public Health Association, released a study rating the healthiest and least healthy states in America. The study ranked the fifty U.S states on per capita percentages of obesity, cardiovascular disease, child poverty, smoking, and so forth. Each state was ranked accordingly with the national average. The report focuses on four key areas that include personal behaviors, public and health policy, clinical care, and community and environment.

One must head north, apparently, to find some of the healthiest states in America, including Washington and Massachusetts. Leading the charts of the healthiest state in the nation is Vermont. The state has the fewest children living in poverty as well as growth in the specialty of prenatal care, climbing the rankings from twenty-nine to number two in the nation. Although Vermont’s obesity has doubled since the 1990’s, it still falls below the national average. On the other end of the spectrum, Mississippi is considered the unhealthiest states with the highest rate of children living in poverty with the overall highest levels of obesity, cardiovascular disease, and smoking rates.

Unfortunately for Americans, the United States as whole is failing when it comes to health. Compared to the international community, the United States average life expectancy is sixty-nine years, falling behind twenty-seven other developed nations. Leading at an average life expectancy of seventy-five years, Japan seems to be doing something right in the health department. Key factors contributing to the United States decline in health include the rising of obesity as well as a growing number of people who are uninsured.

Addressing this issue, Obama’s plan calls for an overhaul of the nation’s health care system with high hopes not to repeat the same line of costly mistakes of the Clinton Administration some 15 years ago, leading us into the negative health trends we are facing today. The Early Strategy Plan starts with giving the public a chance in voicing any concerns and experiences, which confronts a major criticism that former President Clinton’s plan had been too enigmatic. Other lessons include the need to move fast and to not let go until the job is done. According to Tom Daschle, Obama’s recently announced Secretary of Health and Human Services, “Details kill…if we get too far into the weeds…we’re going to get hung up on all the details and we’re never going to get to the principles”.

As wonderful as re-configuring the health care system sounds, the immense costs for restructuring the system are daunting. During his campaign, President-elect Obama planned to pay by increasing taxes on the wealthy and requiring larger businesses to either offer health coverage or supply some of their payroll to a new public insurance plan. However, this might prove to be difficult with the current economic situation and the United State’s seemingly insurmountable debt.

Author: Sara Hilbert

Obesity is a national public health concern, a serious problem that faces this coming generation with a furry. According to 2006 data by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United States has the highest prevalence of obesity among the world’s developed nations. We need to step up and become more than an advocate – we need a revolution. S.3584, sponsored by Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), is looking for something more than a national e-diet. He is looking for ways we need to “to comprehensively prevent, treat, and decrease overweight and obesity in our Nation’s populations.”

Fast Facts:

o   Obese individuals have a 50-100% increase of premature death

o   Being overweight/obese increases the risk of chronic disease like: diabetes, heart disease, stroke, certain cancers, and arthritis

o   32% from ages 2-19 are obese/overweight

o   66% of adults are obese/overweight

o   About $117,000,000,000 was spent in 2001 in overweight/obesity caused problems

o   70% of adults are getting less than 20 minutes of regular physical activity per day and many are completely sedentary

o   For children born in 2000, estimated lifetime risk of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes is 40% for females and 30% for males

In order “To comprehensively prevent, treat, and decrease overweight and obesity in our Nation’s populations”:

Bingaman‘s “Obesity Prevention, Treatment, and Research Act of 2008,” will create a council called “United States Council on Overweight-Obesity Prevention” (USCO-OP). Membership will consist of 20 secretaries or representatives from the following departments: Agriculture, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Federal Trade Commission and Transportation. Members may also be selected from other government groups, such as the Federal Communication Commission, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health and the Healthcare Research and Quality, Medicare/ Medicaid, and the FDA. This mega group will work together in an attempt to develop strategies, interagency cooperation, and gain community involvement with one goal in mind: to comprehensively prevent, treat, and reduce overweight and obesity.

If it were to pass, the bill’s specific consumer-choice provisions would help consumers make better choices, empowering the choice of the individual and thereby placing responsibility on one for one’s one health. About 30% of American’s total calorie intake is high-energy dense and low-nutrient dense food. These foods can be over-consumed easily because the brain’s pathways that regulate hunger and influence normal food intake are not triggered by these foods. Over the years, the packaging industry and product placement strategy use more manipulation and encourage consumption at the expense of our health.  Food and beverage labeling reform is necessary because it is a large contributor to the epidemic. In addition, due to such products being made in mass quantities they tend to be significantly cheaper than healthier alternatives.

This bill will also take into consideration eating disorders and related various chronic medical conditions to help better prevent. This committee will involve discussions through varied strategies with patients from at-risk and diverse populations to promote positive behavior change and healthy lifestyles. Discussions will include topics such as weight and the Body Mass Index (BMI) measurement and monitoring as well as appropriate treatment services, medical nutrition therapy services, physical therapy or exercise training and behavioral health counseling. This program will make amendments to the social security act to give Medicare coverage of medical nutrition therapy services for people with pre-diabetes within the system.

No one wishes for his or her child to have low self-esteem or to grow up very sick. No one wishes to spend their life savings on medical bills for themselves. Nevertheless, the actions we are making today are causing every one of these problems. This bill gives us that extra push and support to help us make better decisions. It will regulate marketing strategies to make consistent and accurate labeling. It is never too late begin a healthier lifestyle. Knock it off with the fad diets and quick weight loss strategies. It is time for a transformation. Take the challenge. 

Need a place to start? Try these:

http://www.50millionpounds.com/

http://www.shapeup.org/ 

Find out your BMI:

http://www.obesityinamerica.org/

Author: Sara Hilbert

After reading through page one of the HeLP America Act, I could not be anything less than an advocate for health care reform.  I have heard the same empty promises for change and reform as you. To be honest, I began the project a little biased, thinking it was going to be another cheap proposal where we still end up short changed. As I read this detailed 173-page proposal I became more and more surprised – it is more than a campaign speech to get votes, it is more than a demonstration chanting about some cause, it is more than a committee to study the problem. Gather round everyone for the long awaited solution.

The Health of the Nation

H.R.2633, the “Healthy Lifestyles and Prevention America Act” seeks to improve the health of Americans and reduce health care costs by reorienting the nation’s health care system toward prevention, wellness, and self-care. It acknowledges the fact that the per capita health spending in the United States is 56 percent higher than the median country that is a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation. By 2014, America will be spending an estimated cost of $3,600,000,000,000 a year on health care. It is evident these representatives have done their homework. They bring the most recent data and cost compelling facts, explaining that an astonishing 75% of health care costs go directly to chronic diseases like cardio vascular disease, stroke, obesity, cancer, and diabetes. In addition, 65% adults are overweight or obese in America. Everyday there are 4,000 new users of tobacco products, all under the age of 18.  About 25% of adults and 40% college students smoke. For those whom need mental health treatment, only 1 in every 2 people receive it.

As I already said, there is no need to make tee shirts with these facts; the deficient, unsuccessful health care system affects us directly. So where is this new approach to health in America? 

Details of the bill:

Children and schools

This bill begins to tackle childhood problems. First, this bill would generate a task force to decrease childhood obesity with strategy, inter-agency coordination and evaluation. School programs will revise the definition of “food minimal nutritional value” that was set back in 1966 with the Child Nutrition Act. Then enforcing this new definition and a fresh fruits and vegetable program in all school meal programs, any food sold on school campus at anything during the school day, excluding infrequent fundraisers. There will an increase in funds of the Richard B Russell National School Lunch Act and grants for select schools. Initiatives made to push hospitals and programs to be baby friendly and support breastfeeding excellence. By awarding hospitals certified with increased “un-restricted breastfeeding” education with a onetime award of $20,000. This strategy will include a strong partnership with organization or group to focus on families to increase communication, wellness, play, support, and other assistance. Grants issued to support schools that work with families to implement school-wide prevention strategies, based on mental health research, which will support early and intensive interventions. Other grants include promotions of university community partnerships to reduce youth problem behaviors in our communities and early head start programs.

Communities and the workplace

In an attempt to support healthier communities and workplaces this bill will include tax credits to employers with wellness programs, and campaigns to help employees. These wellness programs motivate employers to implement awareness, education, screening, and employee engagement. The whole idea supports prevention and behavioral change assistance for a long list of issues: tobacco use, obesity, stress management, physical fitness, and more. A national worksite health policy, facilitated by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, would e created to improve existing employer-based health programs or implement new ones.

Other:

By working through administration, this bill shapes public policy and awareness. It also requires the Secretary to establish a National Advisory Committee on Community Sports Programs for Individuals with Disabilities. Another part provides incentives for states to ensure the safety and convenience of all users of a transportation system, including pedestrians and bicyclists. The most important use of this proposal lies within the details of the research and development to help prepare and improve the future.

Conclusion:

Health is far more important than the absence of disease. When you take this plan and look at ways to prevent and cure diseases, you are creating and maintaining optimal health. Our current system waits for illness, and then spends huge amounts of money to solve the problem, sometimes ignoring the underlying lifestyle related to the problem. This is like waiting for a leaky roof to destroy the infrastructure of the house, then going in to repair the damage without fixing the leak. There will not be a change unless we can convince all involved that this “rescue” medicine is killing us and strive to work from a true picture of the status quo.

This bill takes the initiative to convince doctors and professionals, government, organizations, research and other companies through education and structural reforms for a widespread adoption and smooth transition to a healthier America. Most of all, this new mindset empowers patients to take responsibility for their own health. When you move the power out of hands of those profiting from our illness and rescue medicine society, you are giving America a stronger future and a healthier life. 

Author: Sara Hilbert

Time has passed since her health reform campaign in the nineties, but Hillary Rodham Clinton is still fighting for change. Hillary is trying to claim that her newest plan is not a new bureaucracy, but would build on the good parts of system while improving parts that are failing. (I wonder who’s writing the checks that might have changed those opinions from her first plan.) Either way, the results would look the same as herfirst proposal ten years ago with S.3674, “The 21st Century Wellness Trust Act.”

The Looming Crisis

Predictions in the introduction of the bill say that by 2025 nearly half of the United States population will suffer from at least one chronic disease. Currently, 70 percent of deaths and health costs in the United States are attributable to chronic diseases. These are preventable diseases! The United States has the highest rate of preventable deaths among 19 industrialized nations and lags behind 28 other nations in life expectancy. Unarguably, our health care system is dysfunctional.

This bill claims that, “If effective risk reduction were implemented and sustained by 2015, the death rate due to cancer could drop by 29 percent. Improved blood sugar control for people with diabetes could reduce the risk for eye disease, kidney disease, and nerve disease by 40 percent. Similarly, blood pressure control could reduce the risk for heart disease and stroke by 33 to 50 percent.” It also deems the workforce to deliver prevention as insufficient. In addition, the supply of health care providers trained to emphasize prevention is shrinking. Between 1997 and 2005, the number of medical school graduates entering family practice residencies dropped by 50 percent. There is an acute shortage of community health workers. Between 25 and 50 percent of the existing Federal, State, and local public health work force is eligible for retirement in the next 5 years. As of 2008, more than 75 percent of the existing public health workforce has no formal public health or prevention training. There is no national, uniform credentialing system for public health or prevention workers that would ensure that these workers are trained in the basics of preventive care.

Hilary’s Proposal

This is a loud call for preventative services that reduce these unnecessary costs and improve the quality of life and health of Americans. In quick reaction to these harms, Ms Clinton would create a “trust fund board” composed of seven president appointed members to oversee improvement and change. First, this board would spend their first year examining and researching the system and then attempt to find the best plan to develop. After the first year, these select seven would report on broadening prevention in the workplace, “payment methodologies,” connecting incentives with goals to increase community organization involvement with prevention, and present funding spent on prevention.

After which they will then organize “delivery systems” to provide finances for prevention priorities and implement pilot programs. This group would become the central for prevention information. If by this time, there were no nationwide electronic medical record systems already in place, this bill would create an electronic prevention record. Most importantly, plans would oversee the additional training and credentialing prevention of health workers.

Funding would come no later than January 2011 from the “Wellness Trust Fund”, increasing by a percentage for each subsequent year, as seen fit by the board of trustees.

After assuring prevention priorities are in place this bill would approve “eligible individuals the prevention services to the uninsured.” It seeks coordination with Medicare and other private insurers, but again only to make sure that they receive funds for the health workers that are providing the prevention-oriented health care option.

Why Hilary Would Find Failure 

At reviewing the bill’s provisions, it is clear that Hilary’s elite group of seven would not have the capacity to make decisions that bring about the best outcome for all. Furthermore, with little support and authority, they do not have the ability to carry out all the necessary improvements. It just feels like an organized list of boxes to check for our overwhelmed health professionals. Reform will not take place when you tack on a longer working week for our nation’s overworked nursing staff. It will not happen if you ask our doctors to require more training and qualifications. We have yet to admit a larger problem: the intense control of insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry and the American Medical Association. We have certified health care employees. What we do not have is a system that allows patients complete access to these opportunities. True, moving the focus onto preventive care will be the best solution. However, the mindset associated with this plan has a very limited picture of the system as a whole and still allows these problematic groups to stand in the way of a greatly needed solution.