Uwe
Thanks for raising the blood pressure blossom!
This guy deserves a gold for mischevious use of data
best wishes
Alan

On 31/07/2012, Uwe E. Reinhardt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> A very right-of-center blog—FYI.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Heartland Institute: Ben Domenech [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 5:16 PM
> To: Uwe E. Reinhardt
> Subject: Consumer Power Report #333: England’s Misplaced NHS Pride
>
> [https://staticapp.icpsc.com/icp/loadimage.php/mogile/231583/72a005d887211f4b5758294359a2e854/image/jpeg]
>
>
> Consumer Power Report #333:
> England’s Misplaced NHS Pride
>
> July 30, 2012
>
> Welcome to the Consumer Power Report.
>
> If you happened to watch the opening ceremonies of the Olympic games in
> London, you may have been surprised at the degree to which the bizarre
> performance turned into a defense of the National Health Service, taking
> some odd-looking
> forms.<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=14310030&msgid=600478&act=HIG5&c=231583&destination=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-23vRSw74AME%2FUBRzq_0f-gI%2FAAAAAAAAAl4%2Fz62BCbLtJEs%2Fs1600%2Fbaby-opening-ceremony.jpg>
> As Tim Blair writes at the
> Telegraph<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=14310030&msgid=600478&act=HIG5&c=231583&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailytelegraph.com.au%2Fnews%2Fopinion%2Flimelight-on-london-as-it-sings-a-song-of-socialism%2Fstory-e6frezz0-1226438084490>,
> “World War II didn’t rate a mention, apart from the briefest possible
> glimpse of Winston Churchill, but government-run hospitals sucked up a whole
> nine minutes.”
>
> Let’s leave it to John Fund to describe the
> scene:<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=14310030&msgid=600478&act=HIG5&c=231583&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalreview.com%2Farticles%2F312573%2Fbritain-s-nhs-no-fun-and-games-john-fund>
>
> The Boyle ceremony got underway with images of a bucolic Britain being swept
> away by a cigar-chomping elite that builds satanic mills filled with
> oppressed workers as steeplejacks hang from the towering chimneys. Later,
> 600 doctors and patients recruited from National Health Service hospitals
> were featured in a bizarre tribute to socialized medicine, with children
> bouncing up and down on 320 hospital beds arrayed in front of a giant
> Franken-baby wrapped in bandages. Villains from British children’s
> literature, ranging from Cruella de Vil to Lord Voldemort, sweep in on the
> children, in an apparent reference to conservative forces seeking to reform
> the tottering NHS. The 15-minute sequence ended with a series of red lights
> triumphantly spelling out “NHS.”
>
> Left-wingers were thrilled. “Brilliant that we got a socialist to do the
> opening ceremony,” tweeted Alastair Campbell, former communications chief
> for the Labour party. Boyle denied he was promoting a political agenda. “The
> sensibility of the show is very personal,” he told reporters. “We had no
> agenda other than ... values that we feel are true.” At a news conference
> beforehand, he explained that one of the reasons he “put the NHS in the show
> is that everyone is aware of how important NHS is to everybody in the
> country. One of the core values of our society is that it doesn’t matter who
> you are, you will get treated the same in terms of health care.”
>
> But is that really true? Not at all. The vast bureaucracy of the NHS--the
> fifth largest employer in the
> world<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=14310030&msgid=600478&act=HIG5&c=231583&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuknews%2F9155130%2FNHS-is-fifth-biggest-employer-in-world.html>--actually
> isn’t all that appetizing to Britons who can afford better care.
>
> Sunday’s British papers report that a study by the research firm Lloyd’s TSB
> Premier Banking found that nearly two-thirds of Britons earning more than
> $78,700 a year have taken out private health insurance because they don’t
> trust the NHS. A survey by the British health-care organization Bupa found
> that two-thirds of its customers cited the risk of infection from superbugs
> as a top reason for buying private insurance. Shaun Matisonn, the chief
> executive of PruHealth, says that “patients today are sophisticated
> consumers of health care. They research the treatments they want, but cannot
> always get them through the NHS.”
>
> So why would the wealthy want to escape the NHS? Perhaps because the NHS
> system has the worst cancer survival rates in the Western
> world.<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=14310030&msgid=600478&act=HIG5&c=231583&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fhealth%2Farticle-2001248%2FUK-cancer-survival-rates-worst-Western-world.html>
> The U.K. trails well behind its fellow European countries in survival rates
> from some of the most common cancers according to the King’s Fund think
> tank<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=14310030&msgid=600478&act=HIG5&c=231583&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kingsfund.org.uk%2Fpress%2Fpress_releases%2Fcancer_performance.html>,
> often because of systemic delays that prevent people from seeing an
> oncologist until the cancer has progressed to more serious stages.
>
> Catherine Foot, Senior Fellow at The King’s Fund and a member of the
> International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, said: ‘England still has a
> way to go to reach cancer survival rates that are ranked with the best
> international performers.
>
> ‘The evidence points to early diagnosis as being key to improving outcomes.
> We hope urgent priority is given to closing the gap in survival rates
> between different groups in society.
>
> ‘We found that older people are particularly burdened by this, being more
> likely to have cancer, to be diagnosed later, to be under-treated and to
> experience worse outcomes.’
>
> Indeed, the problem of “ageism” in cancer treatment is more pronounced in
> Britain than almost anywhere in the Western world. Consider these horrific
> statistics regarding breast cancer
> treatment:<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=14310030&msgid=600478&act=HIG5&c=231583&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fhealth%2Fhealthnews%2F8577619%2FNew-fears-of-ageism-in-NHS-cancer-care.html>
>
> New figures show that women over 70 are almost a fifth less likely to have
> surgery on breast tumours than younger ones.
>
> Among the over-80s, the situation is even worse with only half of sufferers
> being operated on …
>
> The latest figures, presented on Thursday at the National Cancer
> Intelligence Network (NCIN) conference, are based on the records of 23,000
> women who were diagnosed with breast cancer in the West Midlands, Yorkshire
> and North East of England between 1997 and 2005. In total more than 48,000
> women are diagnosed with the disease in Britain every year and about one in
> four dies.
>
> The researchers found that women who had other illnesses were less likely to
> undergo a mastectomy, but even taking this into account chances of having
> surgery dropped with age.
>
> Over 85 per cent of those aged between 65 and 70 had surgery but this figure
> fell to 70 per cent among women in their seventies and just 50 per cent
> among the over-80s.
>
> Some people never get seen because the wait times are too long. Some don’t
> get care because bureaucrats bollix their
> paperwork.<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=14310030&msgid=600478&act=HIG5&c=231583&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fhealth-18709671>
> And still others, some NHS doctors allege, don’t get care because they are
> put on a cost-saving pathway toward
> death.<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=14310030&msgid=600478&act=HIG5&c=231583&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fhealth%2Fhealthnews%2F9385674%2FHospitals-letting-patients-die-to-save-money.html>
> But whatever the reasons, the outcomes are stark.
>
> According to this Lancet Oncology survey in
> 2008<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=14310030&msgid=600478&act=HIG5&c=231583&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpubmed%2F18639491>,
> 91.9 percent of American men diagnosed with prostate cancer were still alive
> after five years. In the U.K., just 51.1 percent were still alive. And
> another study around the same
> time<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=14310030&msgid=600478&act=HIG5&c=231583&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fjrsm.rsmjournals.com%2Fcontent%2F103%2F7%2F283.abstract>
> found that among women diagnosed with breast cancer in 2000–02, 90.1 percent
> were still alive five years later--while only 77.8% were still alive in
> England, even after massive investments in closing that gap.
>
> The point here is a simple one. Some in England would rather have everyone
> receive equally bad care--care that offers pain pills in place of surgery or
> seeking a cure--just so long as it remains equal. And it doesn’t even do
> that. Maybe it’s time for people to ditch the nationalist pride and wake up
> to the reality of the systems they’ve created, one where cancers that are
> perfectly treatable elsewhere end up being a death sentence.
>
> -- Benjamin Domenech
>
> ________________________________
>
> IN THIS ISSUE
>
>   *   New York Times Notices Obamacare Dramatically Increases Doctor
> Shortage
>
>   *   Oklahoma Continues to Resist Obamacare Implementation
>
>   *   States Have to Determine Their Basic Coverage in September
>
>   *   How Obamacare Became Less Affordable
>
>   *   The Government Has Your Health Information Already
>
>   *   NCPA Wants to Fact Check Your Political Ads
>
> ________________________________
>
> NEW YORK TIMES NOTICES OBAMACARE DRAMATICALLY INCREASES DOCTOR SHORTAGE
>
> Wait a minute, says the New York Times--is this even going to work?
>
> In the Inland Empire, an economically depressed region in Southern
> California, President Obama’s health care law is expected to extend
> insurance coverage to more than 300,000 people by 2014. But coverage will
> not necessarily translate into care: Local health experts doubt there will
> be enough doctors to meet the area’s needs. There are not enough now.
>
> Other places around the country, including the Mississippi Delta, Detroit
> and suburban Phoenix, face similar problems. The Association of American
> Medical Colleges estimates that in 2015 the country will have 62,900 fewer
> doctors than needed. And that number will more than double by 2025, as the
> expansion of insurance coverage and the aging of baby boomers drive up
> demand for care. Even without the health care law, the shortfall of doctors
> in 2025 would still exceed 100,000.
>
> Health experts, including many who support the law, say there is little that
> the government or the medical profession will be able to do to close the gap
> by 2014, when the law begins extending coverage to about 30 million
> Americans. It typically takes a decade to train a doctor.
>
> “We have a shortage of every kind of doctor, except for plastic surgeons and
> dermatologists,” said Dr. G. Richard Olds, the dean of the new medical
> school at the University of California, Riverside, founded in part to
> address the region’s doctor shortage. “We’ll have a 5,000-physician shortage
> in 10 years, no matter what anybody does.”
>
> Experts describe a doctor shortage as an “invisible problem.” Patients still
> get care, but the process is often slow and difficult. In Riverside, it has
> left residents driving long distances to doctors, languishing on waiting
> lists, overusing emergency rooms and even forgoing care.
>
> “It results in delayed care and higher levels of acuity,” said Dustin
> Corcoran, the chief executive of the California Medical Association, which
> represents 35,000 physicians. People “access the health care system through
> the emergency department, rather than establishing a relationship with a
> primary care physician who might keep them from getting sicker.”
>
> As Michael Cannon of Cato
> notes,<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=14310030&msgid=600478&act=HIG5&c=231583&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cato-at-liberty.org%2Fcoverage-will-not-necessarily-translate-into-care%2F>
> “But isn’t the important thing that they’ll have a piece of paper that says
> ‘health insurance’?”
>
> SOURCE: New York
> Times<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=14310030&msgid=600478&act=HIG5&c=231583&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2012%2F07%2F29%2Fhealth%2Fpolicy%2Ftoo-few-doctors-in-many-us-communities.html%3F_r%3D2%26hp>
>
> ________________________________
>
> OKLAHOMA CONTINUES TO RESIST OBAMACARE IMPLEMENTATION
>
> An update from the Washington Post:
>
> The Supreme Court may have declared that the government can order Americans
> to get health insurance, but that doesn’t mean they’re going to sign up.
>
> Nowhere is that more evident than Oklahoma, a conservative state with an
> independent streak and a disdain for the strong arm of government. The state
> cannot even get residents to comply with car insurance laws; roughly a
> quarter of the drivers here lack it, one of the highest rates in the
> country.
>
> When it comes to health insurance, the effort to sign people up isn’t likely
> to get much help from the state. Antipathy toward President Obama’s
> signature health-care overhaul runs so deep that when the federal government
> awarded Oklahoma a large grant to plan for the new law, the governor turned
> away the money--all $54 million of it.
>
> The idea that the federal government will persuade reluctant people here to
> get insurance elicited head-shaking chuckles at Cattlemen’s Steakhouse, an
> iconic old restaurant in the Stockyards City neighborhood, which is lined
> with street banners reading “Where the Wild West still lives.”
>
> “That kind of frontier mentality maintains in Oklahoma, and it’s not a bad
> thing. It’s a good thing,” said Mark Cunningham, 64, an Army veteran having
> breakfast with a couple of friends in a dimly lighted booth recently.
> Considering the car insurance statistic, he said, “I suspect they’re going
> to run into the same kind of trouble on health insurance.”
>
> SOURCE: Washington
> Post<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=14310030&msgid=600478&act=HIG5&c=231583&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fpolitics%2Fhealth-insurance-mandate-faces-huge-resistance-in-oklahoma%2F2012%2F07%2F29%2FgJQAeji0IX_print.html>
>
> ________________________________
>
> STATES HAVE TO DETERMINE THEIR BASIC COVERAGE IN SEPTEMBER
>
> So you better get on it, like Connecticut just did--unless, of course,
> you’re refusing to implement:
>
> Insurers participating in the exchange, or otherwise selling individual and
> small group coverage in Connecticut, will have to offer, at a minimum, the
> coverage offered in the benchmark plan.
>
> To come up with their plan, board members decided to add a few things that
> ConnectiCare HMO does not provide, including prescription drug coverage and
> pediatric dental and vision services.
>
> The ACA requires states to offer essential benefits in their benchmark
> plans, such as preventive care and mental health and substance abuse
> treatment as well as basic doctor and hospital care.
>
> But Connecticut’s plan would also include other benefits, including in-vitro
> fertilization treatments and special autism care.
>
> Abortion services are also part of the benchmark plan. But federal law
> prohibits federal money to be used for abortions, so those receiving federal
> subsidies to purchase health insurance will be required to pay for abortion
> services out-of-pocket, Counihan said.
>
> Mickey Herbert, a member of the exchange board, said he raised concerns
> about the benchmark plan at a health exchange board meeting held Thursday.
>
> “My question was ‘what’s this all going to cost’ and nobody knew,” Herbert
> said.
>
> SOURCE: Connecticut
> Mirror<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=14310030&msgid=600478&act=HIG5&c=231583&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fctmirror.com%2Fstory%2F17029%2Fconnecticut%25E2%2580%2599s-health-exchange-board-determines-basic-coverage>
>
> ________________________________
>
> HOW OBAMACARE BECAME LESS AFFORDABLE
>
> From Chris Jacobs:
>
> Hidden in CBO’s updated analysis of Obamacare in light of the Supreme Court
> decision is new information about a little-known provision of the law that
> will have major effects on how much millions of Americans pay for
> government-mandated health insurance.
>
> At issue is an Obamacare provision, added during the reconciliation process,
> that slows the growth of Exchange insurance subsidies, beginning in 2019, if
> federal spending on said Exchange subsidies exceeds a pre-determined limit.
> In its analysis last week, CBO concluded that the Supreme Court’s ruling
> means fewer people will obtain insurance through Medicaid, and more people
> will utilize subsidized insurance on Exchanges instead. As a result,
> projected spending on Medicaid fell by $289 billion, and projected spending
> on Exchange subsidies rose by $210 billion.
>
> These changes mean the indexing provision slowing subsidy growth is
> virtually bound to be triggered beginning in 2019. The statute calls for the
> indexing provision to kick in if subsidy spending exceeds 0.504% of gross
> domestic product in the preceding year. As the below chart demonstrates, in
> CBO’s March 2012 baseline, Exchange subsidy spending was just slightly above
> the 0.504% of GDP level – meaning that while it was possible the indexing
> provision would be triggered, it was also possible it would not be,
> depending upon general cost trends, how many people enroll in Exchanges,
> etc. However, the projected 20-25% increase in Exchange subsidy spending as
> a result of the Court ruling now virtually guarantees the subsidy indexing
> provision will be triggered beginning in 2019.
>
> SOURCE: Chris
> Jacobs<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=14310030&msgid=600478&act=HIG5&c=231583&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.demint.senate.gov%2Fpublic%2Findex.cfm%3Fp%3Dfreedom-on-call%26ContentRecord_id%3D97f99ae1-2aa3-41d6-9398-fe3fc1a9e029%26ContentType_id%3De915486e-a0be-46eb-9fff-75dc61f28710%26Group_id%3D78a5977a-062b-4259-ae04-d82a78579699>
>
> ________________________________
>
> THE GOVERNMENT HAS YOUR HEALTH INFORMATION ALREADY
>
> Don’t worry, they’ll only use it to chase fraud, I’m sure.
>
> In the past, privacy laws have prevented such a partnership, but the
> Department of Health and Human Services and the insurers will scrub out
> patients’ personal information from the bills to address privacy concerns.
> They can then look for fraud trends and use those to stop recurrences …
>
> The data exchange means private insurers and the government can share
> prevention tools that work, as well as alert everyone if they spot a fraud
> scheme, Sebelius said.
>
> Attorney General Eric Holder called it another step in a buildup of
> fraud-fighting. “The reality is, we have more to do,” he said. He touted the
> administration’s record-breaking progress, including recovering $4.1 billion
> in health care fraud cases in 2011. He said that’s about $7 for every $1
> spent in fraud prevention, up from about $5 for every $1 spent from 1997 to
> 2008.
>
> The new effort brings in 21 health insurance companies. Karen Ignagni,
> president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, said the partnership will
> allow the group to share information, spot identity fraud early and protect
> patients.
>
> SOURCE: USA
> Today<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=14310030&msgid=600478&act=HIG5&c=231583&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fwashington%2Fstory%2F2012-07-26%2Fhealth-care-information-shared-fraud%2F56507586%2F1>
>
> ________________________________
>
> NCPA WANTS TO FACT CHECK YOUR POLITICAL ADS
>
> Via email, the folks at the National Center for Policy Analysis want to hear
> from you about those political ads you see:
>
> The National Center for Policy Analysis is embarking on a new project called
> Reality Check. With fewer than 100 days until the Nov. 6 elections, Reality
> Check will serve as a fact checker on presidential and pivotal congressional
> health care ads. The NCPA is using social media to sift through true and
> untrue claims, and promote free market, private sector solutions. But we
> need your help! Please alert us to any controversial health care ads running
> in your state and we will verify their accuracy. Submissions can be e-mailed
> to us at [log in to unmask]
>
> SOURCE: National Center for Policy
> Analysis<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=14310030&msgid=600478&act=HIG5&c=231583&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fncpa.org>
>
>
> ________________________________
> [https://app.icontact.com/icp/loadimage.php/mogile/231583/60330a8974e197a02c5b86d2bc65ca8d/image/jpeg]<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=14310030&msgid=600478&act=HIG5&c=231583&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fhome.php%23%2Fpages%2FHeartland-Institute%2F16775672689%3Fref%3Dts>
>
> [https://app.icontact.com/icp/loadimage.php/mogile/231583/65b4c78ea02ce6401c6fe4b76e9882a5/image/jpeg]
> <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=14310030&msgid=600478&act=HIG5&c=231583&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freedompub.org>
>
> [https://app.icontact.com/icp/loadimage.php/mogile/231583/bfd095df2e942ec356c5e8d4646e9a87/image/jpeg]
> <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=14310030&msgid=600478&act=HIG5&c=231583&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fgroups%3Fgid%3D1447587>
>
> [https://app.icontact.com/icp/loadimage.php/mogile/231583/15c66efffeec1459f0a6d436fe699f4b/image/jpeg]
> <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=14310030&msgid=600478&act=HIG5&c=231583&destination=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fheartlandinst>
> [https://app.icontact.com/icp/loadimage.php/mogile/231583/00e1185835acccee27c13df1a813d94e/image/jpeg]
> <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=14310030&msgid=600478&act=HIG5&c=231583&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fuser%2FHeartlandTube>
> The Heartland Institute
> One South Wacker Drive #2740 * Chicago, IL 60606
> 312/377-4000 phone * 312/377-5000 fax *
> http://www.heartland.org<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=14310030&msgid=600478&act=HIG5&c=231583&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heartland.org>
>
>
>
>
>
> This message was sent to [log in to unmask] from:
>
> Heartland Institute | One South Wacker Drive #2740 | Chicago, IL 60606
>
>
> Email Marketing by [iContact - Try It Free!]
> <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186>
>
>
> Manage Your Subscription
> <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=14310030&l=11331&s=HIG5&m=600478&c=231583>
>
>
>