Arizona Center for Advanced Medicine - Martha M. Grout, MD, MD(H)

Scottsdale, Arizona 480.240.2600

MEDICAL SERVICES

OUR MEDICAL TEAM

Martha Grout, MD, MD(H) Associates Staff

LOCATION and CONTACT

9328 E. Raintree Drive
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Maps & Directions

RESOURCE LIBRARY

Health conditions, articles Newsletters

INSURANCE QUESTIONS

SEARCH THE SITE

Health Care Community Discussion

Synopsis | Electronic Correspondence | Discussion Summary | Participant Survey Questionnaire

II. ELECTRONIC CORRESPONDENCE SENT TO US IN CONNECTION WITH THE MEETING:

I have several issues with the healthcare system, as it currently is defined.

First, "healthcare" in the current paradigm really means "disease management" – wait until you are sick enough to get a diagnosable illness, and then get a pharmaceutical medication which will treat that given diagnosis equally well in all people.

Second, "healthcare" insurance rewards disease, not health. If I remain healthy, take no medications and have no surgery, my premiums still go up just as fast as the next guy who is not healthy.

Third, the medical profession has given up a really good opportunity for meaningful interaction with patients, by allowing payments to be made for medical care through a third party, namely an insurance company. People tend to value what they pay for. When they pay me directly for my services, they are more likely to take my advice because they have paid for it directly, and I am more likely to be careful of their pocketbook because I know that it is not bottomless.

Fourth, "healthcare" insurance has very little provision for initiating healthy habits, or for maintaining health, or for using non-invasive methods of diagnosis and treatments over invasive methods. Complementary methods should be the FIRST employed, not the last. Acupuncture does more for chronic back pain than opiates. Removal of gluten from the diet does more for chronic abdominal pain and brain fog than antispasmodics and serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Chiropractic or osteopathic manipulation is effective for many pain conditions, and the manipulation is not addictive, nor does it make people unable to drive or operate machinery safely.

Fifth, "preventive" health care needs to be redefined. Prevention does not mean early diagnosis. Prevention means "goes before" – that which one does to stay healthy, to avoid the necessity for early diagnosis of illness.

The current medical paradigm is adequate for much acute physical illness or injury. It is woefully inadequate to manage chronic illness. It is incapable of preventing illness or maintaining health. Our current healthcare system is a shambles, as you are well aware. Let us implement some of the truly preventive practices, and allow people to pay for these services with part of their insurance premiums – through an HSA (health savings account) or some similar mechanism.

Martha M Grout, MD, MD(H)
Dual licensure in the State of Arizona, as a medical doctor and homeopathic medical doctor.
www.ArizonaAdvancedMedicine.com

I would like to address the preventive health recommendations that were distributed along with the invitation from the Obama team to hold community discussions on health care.

I. Cholesterol Screenings

About a year ago, the surprising outcome of the Vytorin trial led to a series of newspaper stories about the shaky foundations of the cholesterol theory of cardiovascular disease.

"The idea that cholesterol plays a key role in heart disease is so tightly woven into modern medical thinking that it is no longer considered open to question. This is the message that emerged all too clearly from the recent news that the drug Vytorin had fared no better in clinical trials than the statin therapy it was meant to supplant," wrote Gary Taubes in the New York Times, January 27, 2008.

"Not long ago, most doctors thought ... anyone with high LDL levels was at greater risk of developing heart disease. There's just one problem with that explanation: it's dead wrong. Half of all heart attacks occur in people with normal cholesterol levels. Not only that, as imaging techniques improved, doctors found, much to their surprise, that the most dangerous plaques weren't necessarily all that large." Time Magazine, Feb. 23, 2004

And this, from Duane Graveline, MD, MPH, former USAF Flight Surgeon: "The use of EDTA chelation to reduce the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease has resulted in a 30- year battle between proponents and opponents. The opponents are organized medicine and the pharmaceutical industry. The firm stand of organized medicine is no doubt largely derived from the alternative medicine "flavor" of chelation combined with the extraordinary economic gain from such orthodox treatment options as by-pass surgery and angioplasties, whereas the pharmaceutical stand is basically an economic one of "no money to be made" on such a bio-chemically simple and therapeutically safe procedure. We are talking here of a minor "twist" of acetic acid - household vinegar. Imagine, of an estimated 20 million intravenous infusions of EDTA, no ill effects when properly done. This is an extraordinary safety record, far surpassing the other 'safe' household favorites, aspirin and acetaminophen. 'Chelation doesn't work' choruses the medical establishment yet Kauffman's tabulation of some 50 clinical trials document an extra-ordinary 87% success rate based upon very reasonably objective indicators of benefit. His documentation of under-handed and deliberate manipulation of clinical data in support of medically orthodox views for journal presentation makes one cringe."

When a family member had a heart attack recently, his cardiologist gave him a fist-full of prescription drugs, and told him to come in regularly and get his cholesterol checked. Insurance would have paid for those visits, but he choose instead to pay out of pocket for weekly chelation and a daily dose of fish oils which has documented results in softening the red blood cells. He also started on an anti-inflammatory diet and had his mercury fillings removed.

II. Mammography Screenings

The official doctrine is that mammography can reduce breast cancer mortality. Yet many doctors and researchers have found little or no benefit. For example, in the July 2005 Journal of the National Cancer Institute, a study was published that showed no benefit to such screening. This study was carried out in the "real world" – that is, in the community setting, as opposed to in the rarefied context of a clinical trial in a major teaching hospital. The patients, the screening methods and overall outcome are therefore more likely to reflect the true worth of screening, "warts and all" (Elmore 2005). The researchers found no statistically significant reduction in mortality for patients receiving community-based screening mammography.

Yet instead of calling for a re-examination of the worth of mammography, the lead researcher, Joann G. Elmore, MD, emphasized that women should continue getting mammograms on a regular basis from the age of 40 onwards. "I'm encouraging everyone to continue with current recommendations," she said. An accompanying editorial also urges the profession not to allow these negative findings to change current practice.

Mainstream medicine and the Obama campaign still recommend mammograms. To do so does not protect human health, but it does do nice things for some bank accounts: a $100 mammogram for all 62 million U.S. women over 40, and a $1,000+ biopsy for 1-to 2-million women, is an $8 billion per year industry.

There is much evidence mammograms do far more harm than good. The ionizing radiation mutates cells, and the mechanical pressure can spread malignant cells. In 1995 The Lancet reported that, since mammographic screening was introduced in 1983, the incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which represents 12% of all breast cancer cases, has increased by 328%, and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography. This increase is for all women: Since the inception of widespread mammographic screening, the increase for women under the age of 40 has gone up over 3000%.

Mammogram interpretation is often wrong. In 1996, the journal Archives of Internal Medicine published results of a test of 108 radiologists throughout the United States. The test used a set of 79 mammograms where the diagnosis had been verified by subsequent biopsies, surgeries or other follow-up. The radiologists missed cancer in 21% of the films, thought 10% of the women with no breast disease had cancer and thought 42% of benign lesions were cancerous.

Mammograms too frequently lead to unnecessary breast biopsies. Not only does this drive up the cost of health care, but the invasive surgical procedure causes extreme anxiety for many women who do not have cancer. Statistically, a woman who has annual mammograms for 10 years has at least a 50% chance of having at least one biopsy -- even if she never develops breast cancer.

Mammography cannot detect a tumor until after it has been growing for years and reaches a certain size. Thermography is able to detect the possibility of breast cancer years earlier, because it can image the early stages of angiogenesis, the formation of a direct supply of blood to cancer cells, which is a necessary step before they can grow into tumors of size.

Thermography is a superior alternative, and it makes no use of radiation or compression. Screening, no matter what the type, is not prevention. The Susan G. Komen, in conjunction with the Silent Spring Institute, released a study in the spring of 2007 that concluded that breast cancer is an environmental disease. Along with the emphasis on screening, we need an emphasis on prevention.

From the Boston Globe, October 27, 2008: "For all the pink ribbons, breast-cancer awareness events, fund-raisers, and celebrations of "survivorship," the facts remain grim. In this country, a woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer is one in eight. In 1975, the risk was about one in 11. Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic chemicals has gone hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer. About 80,000 synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and their number increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of them have been screened for their health effects. These chemicals can persist in the environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a recent review by the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and radiation sources cause breast cancer in animals."

III. Flu Shots

The annual flu shot is a product of the educated guesses of a group of vaccine researchers. Every February, they try to predict which flu viruses will circulate the next winter. Their three top choices are put into the vaccine. The CDC claims the vaccine will be 70 to 90 percent effective against just those strains of flu.

But the virus mutates from year to year. In 2003-2004, the CDC admitted that it completely missed the virulent Fujian flu strain that hit hard that winter. In the 2005-2006 season, a strain not included in the vaccine hospitalized 31 children in Houston.

A yearly flu vaccine has not been shown to prevent flu-related deaths in people over the age of 65, according to the 2005 and 2007 Cochrane Collaborative's reports in the Lancet medical journal. "Recent excess mortality studies were unable to confirm a decline in influenza-related mortality since 1980, even as vaccination coverage increased from 15% to 65%."

The CDC kicks off the annual flu shot campaign with the statistic that 36,000 Americans die from the flu every year. But other researchers find that is more propaganda than fact. The American Lung Association's report from August 2004, titled "Trends in Pneumonia and Influenza/Morbidity and Mortality" found far fewer than 36,000 deaths per year from flu:

Year  USA Flu Deaths

1979    604

1981   3006

1983   1431
	
1985   2054
			
1987    632
	
1989   1593
	
1995    606

1997    720

1998   1724

1999   1665
		
2001    257

A study reported in the British Medical Journal reported vaccines just don't work too well for people of all ages: "The optimistic and confident tone of some predictions of viral circulation and of the impact of inactivated vaccines, which are at odds with the evidence, is striking. The reasons are probably complex and may involve a messy blend of truth conflicts and conflicts of interest..."

Internationally renowned vaccine researcher Dr. Sherri J. Tenpenny found that 70-80% of the sniffles, fevers and body aches generally characterized as "the flu" between 1999-2004 were not caused by influenza viruses, but by other organisms not covered by a vaccine.

Between October 1, 2003 and April 9, 2004, the CDC identified 863 antigenically different influenza viruses. If you assume that flu vaccines work for the three chosen strains, the vaccines do not provide protection against the other 860 influenza viruses known to be in circulation.

Flu vaccine is preserved with thimerosal, which is 50% mercury. So with each shot comes a dose of a neurotoxin. Several states have prohibited the use of thimerosal in children's vaccines because of the debate over its role in autism and other developmental delays.

"There is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza...they are worthless." - Dr. J. Anthony Morris, research virologist and former Chief Vaccine Control Officer of the FDA.

So the flu vaccine is said to be virtually worthless at best and loaded with toxic chemicals at worst. On top of that, many people come down with the flu shortly after receiving the shot. How does that happen? Because it weakens the immune system, making you more predisposed to the illness.

IV. Vaccinations

Increasingly, parents are rejecting the CDC's pro-vaccination campaigns because they are questioning the safety of vaccines – everything from the timing and the contents, to the efficacy and attempts to mandate them.

Opponents to mandatory vaccinations have asked, but not gotten, a study proving that vaccines are safe over the long term. Hundreds of published medical studies have documented both vaccine failure and vaccine harm, but because the CDC has been mum, most parents remain unaware of these studies. (For a collection of hundreds of peer reviewed, published articles on the dangers, side effects, and inefficacy of vaccination, see Vaccination: 100 Years of Orthodox Research by Viera Scheibner, Ph.D., 1997, New Atlantean Press, 505-983-1856. See also books by Neil Z. Miller, including Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective?, 2002. His website: http://www.thinktwice.com.)

Vaccines are injected directly into the body's muscle or fatty tissues, bypassing the natural immune response. This deprives the body of the ability to naturally develop life-long immunity in all its multifaceted complexity to normal childhood diseases like measles, mumps and chicken pox.

Thirty years ago, children received a total of four vaccines. But today, if your child is vaccinated according to the CDC's recommended schedule, by the time your child starts kindergarten he will have received 48 doses of 14 vaccines. While unvaccinated children will never develop every disease for which children are given a vaccine, their bodies are forced by the CDC vaccination schedule to respond to them all. The DPT vaccine forces an immune response to diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis on the same day, an event that would never happen in real life.

While we have all been taught that vaccination ended the world's many deadly epidemics, an honest and careful review of original historical medical sources, publications and statistics from the past two hundred years reveals that infectious diseases declined 90 percent before mass vaccination was ever introduced. Even the CDC reported in 1999 that infectious diseases declined in the past century due to improvements in sanitation, water and hygiene.

The charts above show that polio, smallpox, and diphtheria had pretty much run their course long before vaccinations began. Typhoid fever died out with no widespread vaccination program.

Dr. Glen Dittman said in 1986: "It is pathetic and ludicrous to say we vanquished smallpox with vaccines, when only 10 percent of the population was ever vaccinated."

Vaccines are not solely to blame for the autism epidemic, however, vaccines are sometimes the "straw that breaks the camel's back" meaning they are just too many insults to the young immune system. We are discovering that some children cannot detox the vaccines. The Hannah Poling case is a sterling example. The 9-year-old turned autistic after receiving several vaccines on the same day. The Court of Federal Claims conceded her "pre-existing mitochondrial disorder ... was 'aggravated' by her shots."

V. Conclusions

The recommendations for annual cholesterol and mammogram screenings, annual flu shots and a full schedule of vaccinations reflects the emphasis of American medicine on treating the symptoms of disease rather than the disease itself.

This approach is bankrupting our ability to serve the population with good, affordable health care. The children are why we must change our focus:

• Cancer is now the leading cause of death in children, aged 1-14.

• The U.S. government reports that 1 out of every 6 children has a developmental disability.

• The CDC reports that 1 in 150 children have autism. About 1 in 10 children in public schools has ADHD.

• America now uses 90% of the world's Ritalin - more than five times the rest of the world combined. Emergency room visits by children ages 10-14 involving Ritalin intoxication have now reached the same level as those for cocaine.

• The CDC reports asthma is the leading chronic illness of children in the United States. Asthma has more than doubled since 1980 affecting 1 in 4; asthma is the third-ranking cause of hospitalization among those younger than 15 years of age.

• The rate of premature births increased nearly 31 percent between 1981 and 2003; the U.S. has the second worst infant mortality among 33 industrialized nations (2006).

• Children and adolescents now being treated for bipolar has increased 40-fold since 1994.

• According to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (July 2007), "new epidemics in chronic health conditions among children and youth will translate into major demands on public health and welfare in the coming decades". The study found "from 15 to 18 percent of children and adolescents have some sort of chronic health condition, nearly half of whom could be considered disabled."

The administration cannot be expected to make all the changes; we the people have some responsibility in the matter and we would be pleased to work with you. Where the government can be of significant help is in the matter of competitive interests squashing change.

For example: from the government itself (http://nccam.nih.gov/health/children/index.htm) we read, "Few high-quality studies have examined how CAM therapies may affect young people, and results from studies in adults do not necessarily apply to children. Children are not small adults. Their immune and central nervous systems are not fully developed, which can make them respond to treatments differently from adults. Herbs and other dietary supplements may interact with medicines or other supplements, or they may cause problems during surgery, such as bleeding-related complications. In addition, "natural" does not necessarily mean "safe." CAM therapies can have side effects, and these may be different in children than in adults." And the moon is full of blue cheese.

The powers that be have no problem dispensing Ritalin (on the street it is called "speed") like candy to children, but how dare any medical professional use a non-drug company solution. This is just pure competitive forces at work, using the muscle of the government to clear away those who might infringe on their sales.

Compassion and economics dictate it is time for a change.

Mary Budinger
Medical Journalist
Phoenix, AZ

The emphasis must be on prevention, prevention, prevention. We must aim to find the cause and eliminate it. Heart attacks, strokes, and cancer can be greatly prevented if we educate. Children need to learn about environmentally related illness.

Choice, choice, choice. Insurance companies should not tell us which doctor or type of medicine or treatment was can have. They are not physicians.

If herbal and homeopathic or inexpensive remedies are available and proven to be effective for many years in elsewhere in the world, then try these before the overpriced traditional drugs are tried.

Do not allow children to be given "off label" drugs for activity and behavior problems. Make the industry do studies to show the safety first.

Of 28 countries, we are 27th in neonatal deaths. Yet our health care system has neonatal units and specialists. So why then do we rank so low?

We have epidemics of illness - cancer, diabetes, thyroid disease, ADHD, autism, LD. We cannot move forward on health care reform without asking the medical community: Why?

Babies are born with 287 toxins in their blood at birth!!! We need to educate your women so they can clean out their bodies. We live in a world full of pesticides, chemicals in air, food, water, homes, schools, and workplaces. Stop toxic spraying of cities for insects. We have a right not to be poisoned. In the Phoenix area, the county routinely sprays pesticides for West Nile Virus. They use a chemical that contains piperonyl butoxide which studies show has caused holes in brains of unborn mice. It can also flare breast cancer cells in tissue culture. What does it to the offspring of pregnant women and those with cancer? We should know before the government saturates our landscape with it. There is no one monitoring illness to document the harmful effects of the sprays. The treatment should NEVER be worse than the disease.

We need to clean up the EPA, FDA etc. Put those in power who do NOT have vested interests in the chemical, drug or food industries. People should not be put in power if their past or present connections involve working for these industries.

Do NOT make vaccines compulsory. Let parents decide for themselves. The autism epidemic has given us clear warning that vaccines are not always safe. We could make it illegal to give multiple vaccines at one time.

Gardasil for HPV protects only 4 of 120 or so viral causes. No one knows how long it lasts and this illness usually does not occur until a woman is over 40. Some girls have died from the shots. What has happened to any concern on the government's part for human safety?

Many people who have very high, normal, or low cholesterol develop arteriosclerosis. A test for homocysteine blood level is far more predictive of concern than a cholesterol level. A Calcium Coronary Scale test is more helpful. It is an ultrafast health scan and does not invade or hurt the body. It will warn that you are apt to have a stroke or heart attack. Compare the cost of that to injecting dyes with possible dangers, anesthetics, and high costs of hospitals, It will warn that you are apt to have a stroke or heart attack. Nattokinase and bulo- or lumbrokinase can dissolve clots and are much safer than Coumadin which can thin blood but cause calcium to leave the bones and contribute to osteoporosis.

Eliminating trans fats and using cod liver oil and Vitamin E is more effective (32%) and safer than statin drugs (22%) and lots less expensive. Magnesium can save up to 60% of those who enter the ER for a heart attack or stroke. Most doctors do not realize that the red blood cell magnesium is a valid test but the serum magnesium is not.

We must eliminate all genetically engineered and irradiated foods. Insist all products with these are clearly labeled.

Give people fast reimbursement of health insurance without a hassle.

Allow stem cell therapy in this country.

Please give the public the opportunity to buy drugs at same price as veterans. People should not have to go to Canada or Mexico for drugs. People have resorted to buying the drugs they need using farm animal meds. This is ridiculous. Please pass HR 676.org so everyone has health care.

Signed: Doris J Rapp, MD(H) - Board certified in pediatrics, allergy and environmental medicine. Practiced for 43 years in Buffalo, New York. Best selling author of "Is This Your Child?" and "Our Toxic World."

1. Briefly, from your own experience, what do you perceive is the biggest problem in the health system?

Lack of integrative medical practices, ignorance of cost savings for covering naturopathic and homeopathic medical care and preventive practices, lack of education for allopathic doctors regarding nutrition, prevention and non-drug related remedies, FDA restrictions on non-patentable remedies and treatments.

2. How do you choose a doctor or hospital? What are your sources of information? How should public policy promote quality health care providers?

I choose an allopathic doctor and hospital first based on participating providers for my insurance coverage, then I seek referrals from my naturopathic doctor or trusted friends/family members who see them, I also interview the doctor regarding his/her philosophy of treatment. I see an allopathic doctor mainly for diagnosis since that is the area my insurance covers the costs for, and I then take all test results to my naturopathic or homeopathic doctor for treatment.

I choose naturopathic and homeopathic doctors and practitioners based on their experience (or specialty) with the issue I am addressing, recommendations from friends/family members and their philosophy of treatment.

3. Have you or your family members ever experienced difficulty paying medical bills? What do you think policy makers can do to address this problem?

No, because we prioritize health care costs in our spending plan, it does keep us from being able to afford other things though, such as I am driving a 1987 Mazda because I cannot afford car payments due to my husband's medical bills (he has ulcerative colitis and homeopathic treatment works best for him, but insurance does not pay for any of the remedies or supplements so we pay out of pocket for them).

To address it I feel policy makers can include non-drug remedies in insurance coverage.

4. In addition to employer-based coverage, would you like the option to purchase a private plan through an insurance-exchange or a public plan like Medicare?

Yes, so that I am not shackled to a specific employer in order to pay for health care costs, also so if I am out of work I would still have coverage.

5. Do you know how much you or your employer pays for health insurance? What should an employer's role be in a reformed health care system?

My employer currently pays 100% of my premium and I am not sure what it is, I believe it is over $100 per month. I believe employers need to gather more information about the savings they would realize by having their insurance plan cover naturopathic and homeopathic care.

6. Below are examples of the types of preventive services Americans should receive. Have you gotten the prevention you should have? If not, how can public policy help?

I have gotten mammograms because I am in the Air National Guard and the military will not accept thermography, but I only get mammograms once every four years as required by the guard, I have gotten thermograms in between. I do get my cholesterol checked every year at my annual check-up. I do not receive a flu shot as I believe they contain ingredients that are bad for my health; instead I prevent the flu through high doses of vitamin c and elderberry syrup.

7. How can public policy promote healthier lifestyles?

Support prevention, reduce reliance on and brain-washing toward relying on rescue medicine and pharmaceuticals, support prevention education that includes nutriceuticals, provide tax credits or other incentives for healthy lifestyle results, educate health care professionals in the true importance and positive results of proper nutrition and integrate stress management methods into health care, providing proof from all the studies that shows the success rate of these methods.

Teresa Sanders

From Kalama Hochreiter MSW
Integrative Consulting/Universal White Time Healing

December 28, 2008

To Whom It May Concern:

1. Briefly, from your own experience, what do you perceive is the biggest problem in the health system?

Poor attention to good nutrition, healthy living (no tobacco/alcohol, etc), Vitamin D sunlight, natural cures, drinking enough water, getting enough good quality sleep. If this was advocated, fewer people would become sick and this multi billion dollar industry would greatly reduce.

2. How do you choose a doctor or hospital? What are your sources of information? How should public policy promote quality health care providers?

I have not had insurance since my daughter was born in 1988. I use alternative providers and do whatever I can to achieve wellness on my own. I research the internet and ask for information when health care is needed. Current methods of assessing quality care are solely dependent on the responses to improvement and miss many other care issues.

3. Have you or your family members ever experienced difficulty paying medical bills? What do you think policy makers can do to address this problem?

My daughter was born with a heart defect and cancer in 1988. This necessitated that I quit work so she could qualify for SSI payments and this did indeed pay for her medical expenses. My employer had their insurance cancelled and this negatively impacted all the other employees. I have been without insurance since that time and am still in financial difficulties.

4. In addition to employer-based coverage, would you like the option to purchase a private plan through an insurance-exchange or a public plan like Medicare?

I would like a plan that was the equivalent of Tri-care for life or that which our elected representatives are given available to all of us.

5. Do you know how much you or your employer pays for health insurance? What should an employer's role be in a reformed health care system?

My costs would be about $230 /month for minimal coverage... I would prefer to use an ND or other alternative provider.

6. Below are examples of the types of preventive services Americans should receive. Have you gotten the prevention you should have? If not, how can public policy help?

Prevention needs to include good diet from a healthy food supply i.e. soil. It also needs to look at the source of the diseases vs. just the symptoms. And start to provide care at the LEAST invasive method (education) and LEAST costly vs. the most invasive (surgery)

7. How can public policy promote healthier lifestyles?

Provide good information about diet, stop supporting pharmaceutical companies efforts, pay for and promote alternative therapies.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

My concerns are many, having worked as an MSW in the field of health for the last 20 years.

I began my journey into health care, when my infant daughter was born with a major heart defect and cancer, necessitating that I relinquish all my assets and causing us to become part of the SSI system, in order to have health coverage for her. While I am grateful for her recovery, I would have preferred another way rather than total financial loss. Unfortunately I am still recovering financially 20 years later.

In home care, I have seen many seniors declare bankruptcy because they can not afford their health care treatments, or the medicines the doctors want them to take. Some have taken out second mortgages to pay their bills and risk foreclosure... others never had a home to begin with.

I also see sons and daughters, who take time out of a work career, lose their own pay, retirement benefits and often the very house they are living in, due to the cost of care giving and medical treatments.

I see seniors who live on $700 a month social security with $400 for rent deciding between food, heat, and medicines... especially once they arrive at the "donut hole" for medicines.

I see seniors who can not understand the medication arrangements, all the choices or where to look for this information.

Home care, although a medical model using nurses as case manager, often is the result of poor psycho social supports in the community due to isolation or lack of knowledge and occasionally choice. Having a social work model which could allow a social worker to intervene without the need for medical management by a nurse or therapy staff might be more helpful than the current way this need is only sometimes met.

In our community of Tucson, most seniors forego the nursing home in favor of staying at home with family or moving to an adult care home, which houses a maximum of 10 residents. Nursing homes have a poor reputation as it is unrealistic to expect one low paid aide to attend to 20 or 40 individuals as is often the case.

Once health care started to become managed by those interested in making a profit, it became even more driven to watch the dollars vs. attend to and improve patient care. This is exemplified by the forms needing to be filled out, decisions made for staffing, etc.

As an example, as an MSW, I still make what I earned in 1994 when I first moved to Tucson. Most home care staff does not get cost of living wages and most of us have no benefits. The high cost of health care, does not end up in the hands of those providing the care.

Although many alternative and integrative healing methods are known, and are scientifically researched and even proven to cure certain diseases, little is done to make this accessible to those on Medicare or private insurance. For instance if alpha lipoic acid can help to cure kidney failure, why are we not using this, versus the high cost of dialysis? Dialysis is big business and those who profit from its increase would not want its demise.

When there are cures of cancer, why is it such a big business to continue to fund raise and use chemo? A patient recently diagnosed with a glioma recently refused to look into any other treatment method because he trusts his doctors. However there are highly successful treatments that would actually cure him vs. the palliative and mostly destructive approach of traditional medicine.

Energy medicine is another area that can be very effective at treating not only the disease symptoms but also the cause. There are various forms for energy medicine, the one I am most recommend is Universal White Time Healing, as the energy lasts in the body for 24-28 days and continues to grow for the user as long as it returns.

Sometimes intractable pain can be alleviated at its origin and reason for growth, by energy healing, or mind body spirit work.

1. Briefly, from your own experience, what do you perceive is the biggest problem in the health system?

The problem with the U.S. health care system is that it is driven by profit. As long as someone benefits financially from another's illness, the problems with our health care system will persist.

2. How do you choose a doctor or hospital? What are your sources of information? How should public policy promote quality health care providers?

I choose a doctor based on word of mouth referral from a trusted friend or acquaintance. My sources of information include Internet support group lists related to autism and environmental toxicity. I also check the Arizona Board of Medical Examiners (BOMEX) database for information on the practitioner's credentials and record.

Public policy can promote quality of health care providers in several ways.

First, they should be required to report data related to the success of their practice. For example, surgeons should track and report information such as number of surgeries recommended per patients seen; recovery times; complication types and rates. Hospitals should report similar data.

Second, a national system for tracking and reporting "bad" doctors must be implemented. I personally am aware of one doctor litigated against in California who fled to Arizona and set up practice here. Despite complaints to Bomex and lawsuits against him he is still in business. His bad record and bad standing is not even reported on the Bomex site.

Third, public policy can go a long way to promote quality health care providers by unfettering them from the strangling grip of insurance companies and pharmaceutical marketing. Being told on one hand by the insurance companies what they can and cannot do for a patient, how much they can charge, etc., while being lured on the other hand by pharmaceutical companies to write prescriptions and promote drugs for easy money and perks – how can even an intelligent person of good integrity keep their level of quality in such an environment?

3. Have you or your family members ever experienced difficulty paying medical bills? What do you think policy makers can do to address this problem?

Yes, we have taken out a succession of home equity loans and are about $70,000 in medical debt due to our daughter's autism and intractable epilepsy (seizure disorder). We have private paid for therapy that was not funded by Medicaid. We have lost several disputes with both my employer-sponsored insurance and my daughter's Medicaid insurance; for example, over prescription copays, therapy equipment, and supposedly nonstandard lab tests and treatments. We have paid tens of thousands of dollars in nutritional supplements that are simply excluded from insurance policies – but which make the difference in a child who functions and one who lies on the bed having seizures.

What policy makers can do:
Long-term: Dramatically reform the system to remove the profit-driven actions.

Short-term: Change the way in which Medicaid disbursements for the developmentally disabled are made. Get rid of the time-consuming, complicated contracts with the state for therapies (in Arizona, administered through Dept of Developmental Disabilities), get rid of the Medicaid health care plan (in AZ, administered through AHCCCS). Instead, give each individual that qualifies a lump sum benefit, which the family can spend as they see fit on medical services.

4. In addition to employer-based coverage, would you like the option to purchase a private plan through an insurance-exchange or a public plan like Medicare?

No. I would like to get rid of insurance plans.

5. Do you know how much you or your employer pays for health insurance? What should an employer's role be in a reformed health care system?

Yes. I pay about $3,500 annually for a family of four. My employer pays about $6,000.

6. Below are examples of the types of preventive services Americans should receive. Have you gotten the prevention you should have? If not, how can public policy help?

The examples of preventive health care services are dreadful. They show the deep corruption in the system. Data on the efficacy of mammograms to detect and reduce the incidence of breast cancer in women shows them beneficial only for woman aged 50 and older. Radiation from mammograms actually promotes the very cancer being screened for. Most flu shots are laden with mercury, which is a known neurotoxin. Cholesterol screenings are yet another drug-company agenda to promote the use of statins in healthy individuals "just in case" they might develop higher cholesterol.

Preventive services would fall more in line with true prevention: pesticide and hormone/antibiotic-free produce and meats; bans on toxic pesticide spraying in the name of public health (for example, the widespread mosquito spraying to prevent West Nile virus, but which provokes seizures in my daughter); bans on toxic cleansers, fabric softeners, air fresheners and the like, sold in every discount store and pharmacy across the country but which inexorably add to our body burden of chemical toxicity, undermining health, promoting cancer and degenerative diseases of every kind.

How about banning cigarette smoking? How about researching the safety of cell phone towers, which are popping up next to elementary schools, in church parking lots, in shopping centers.

7. How can public policy promote healthier lifestyles?

See no. 6. In addition, stop the aggressive, harmful vaccination schedule inflicted on our children.

1. Briefly, from your own experience, what do you perceive is the biggest problem in the health system?

Lack of NATURAL remedies including a system that allows all Americans (the insured, the un-insured, the rich, the poor) to purchase, with assistance and/or insurance, the necessary whole food nutritional and holistic remedies and treatment programs for true, real healing of all disease.

2. How do you choose a doctor or hospital? What are your sources of information? How should public policy promote quality health care providers?

Am currently unemployed on ACCCHS and attend my local community health care clinic. Personally, I do my own extensive, thorough research and find alternative, whole food nutritional and holistic remedies. My idea of promoting prevention is to strongly implement all natural modalities FIRST before any pharmacy treatments.

3. Have you or your family members ever experienced difficulty paying medical bills? What do you think policy makers can do to address this problem?

I cannot afford the NATURAL whole food remedies my health requires as it is a 100% out of pocket cost. A system where all modalities are insured and/or provided for that includes: massage; all whole-food nutrition; homeopathy; aromatherapy and oils; yoga; meditation; health clubs or exercise rooms; naturopathic doctors; metaphysicians; etc.

4. In addition to employer-based coverage, would you like the option to purchase a private plan through an insurance-exchange or a public plans like Medicare?

What I want for all Americans is an insurance program that works for all people with natural healing, not the existing one where profit, greed, error and poisons are administered.

5. Do you know how much you or your employer pays for health insurance? What should an employer's role be in a reformed health care system?

N/A. Previous ones paid 50 - 80 - 100%. My favorite: 100%. An employer should always provide a portion toward a system that helps people with their health. No American anywhere should lose their home because of health care costs. Health care should be dismissed against penalty, as it is a disgrace that anyone be charged so much to begin with.

6. Below are examples of the types of preventive services Americans should receive. Have you gotten the prevention you should have? If not, how can public policy help?

(a) Mammo screening with thermo, or better (a non-toxic and non-evasive method) at 40 for all women.

(b) NO FLU SHOTS with Mercury or any other toxin etc for anyone! Instead, supply whole-food nutrition and natural solutions for the young, the old, the sick and the non sick. Build a better America by investing in the health and well-being of its people with real solutions!

(c) Cholesterol screens (along with thyroid, blood, liver, kidneys) should be performed yearly as the body changes yearly from what we directly eat and are exposed to.

Yes, I have experience the prevention screening, but only after struggling with an undiagnosed ailment of hypothyroidism and the autoimmune disease, Hashimoto's. I have found natural remedies that I am eager to begin, but require the money to buy it. It too, is pricey. 7. How can public policy promotes healthier lifestyles?

EDUCATE and help the poor and everyone get the nutritional, natural, holistic remedies they all need - i.e. Dr. Richard Schultze; Tri-Vita; Dr. Kleinsmith; Sibu; etc. All of these would properly treat all my specific diseases, if not, completely eliminate the symptoms with daily use.

Thank you to all for allowing me to speak what is important to me. I am honored.

1. Briefly, from your own experience, what do you perceive is the biggest problem in the health system?

Insurance companies answer to stockholders and thus must structure their business to make a profit. This model does not work well when applied to the human body. It encourages the making of money from those who are sick, and has no incentive to create a healthy population. In the disease management model, the pharmaceutical industry has far too much influence. They have turned doctors into drug pushers. America now uses 90% of the world's Ritalin - more than five times the rest of the world combined. Emergency room visits by children ages 10-14 involving Ritalin intoxication have now reached the same level as those for cocaine.

And something must be done about the FDA. The agency is not much more than a rubber stamp for moneyed interests; it is supposed to be a watchdog of the public.

2. How do you choose a doctor or hospital? What are your sources of information? How should public policy promote quality health care providers?

I choose a doctor based on my knowledge of their approach to medicine. If they offer me a 10 minute visit and a prescription, I do not choose them. Hospital visits have arisen from crisis situations; we did not pick them, the referring doctor did. I think hospitals should be places that are visited very infrequently in life. Their food is horrible, surveys show 40% of the staff do not wash their hands and thus germs abound. They are not places that promote health; they handle crisis medicine.

You've asked a big question about promoting quality health care providers. For example, I think a good doctor is one who is aware that the data about flu shots says they don't work well, and that they come with mercury which is unhealthy. But I saw that the notice for these health care meetings indicates Obama and Daschle are in favor of flu shots. So until politicians are no longer influenced by the campaign donations from the drug companies, I don't know how you can be objective in assessing what is a good doctor. Medical boards in Texas are famous for taking licenses away from doctors who refuse to follow the party line, doctors who have studied new answers for chronic diseases and have applied them. The average chronic disease patient sees 6 doctors before getting an accurate diagnosis. The first 5 doctors have added to the overwhelming cost of health care and been dead wrong, yet they are not labeled quacks. We do not have a system that encourages good medicine or smart doctors. And to innovate is to put your license in dire jeopardy.

3. Have you or your family members ever experienced difficulty paying medical bills? What do you think policy makers can do to address this problem?

We pay most of our bills out of pocket because we don't want insurance companies dictating our health care. However, the experience we recently had in the hospital was horrendous. The fight with the insurance company to pay the huge bill is still ongoing. I see nothing wrong with people paying for an annual checkup, annual visits to the dentist and the eye doctor. It may be hard to reverse course when people have become so used to "someone else" paying their medical bills, but I don't want insurance for every day medical expenses. I want to look the doctor in the eye and pay him for services well rendered.

We plan for big expenses in life like college educations and homes. But there is no way to plan for the traffic accident that will land you in the hospital with a bill for $280,000. That is were insurance should play a role.

4. In addition to employer-based coverage, would you like the option to purchase a private plan through an insurance-exchange or a public plan like Medicare?

Whatever is done, I do not want insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies dictating my care. I want a wide array of choices or treatments.

5. Do you know how much you or your employer pays for health insurance? What should an employer's role be in a reformed health care system?

I think employers should pay only for catastrophic insurance.

6. Below are examples of the types of preventive services Americans should receive. Have you gotten the prevention you should have? If not, how can public policy help?

Forgive me, but you don't get it. Mammograms are not particularly effective, and they come with radiation which we know is carcinogenic. We prefer thermography – it's safer and better. It can detect suspicions of cancer 10 years earlier than mammography. Even the Susan G. Komen Foundation released a report last year that said breast cancer is an environmental disease. So when will you change your question to one that sounds something like, "Have you decreased your exposure to radiation and pesticides this year?" That is prevention, not mammography.

Flu shots are not particularly effective and come with mercury, a known neurotoxin. Cholesterol screenings are used to sell statins. Even the common news reports have said that stifling the body's ability to produce cholesterol is not the primarily benefit of statins; the anti-inflammatory aspect is their primary benefit. Where is the inflammation coming from? That is what a good doctor will ask. The lazy doctor who goes with the flow will prescribe statins, and then prescribe something else if you develop muscle weakness or cognitive problems. The good doctor will talk to you about an anti-inflammatory diet, look for infections, and give you fish oils to soften the red blood cells that are nicking the arterial walls. A good doctor has read the research that says INTERHEART and other studies have shown that cholesterol is not a serious risk factor for heart disease. The largest health study ever conducted on the risks of heart disease took place in China. Like so many similar studies, the Chinese study found no connection between heart disease and the consumption of animal fats. Dr. Om Ganda, director of the lipid clinic at the Joslin Diabetes Center, said that by the time patients begin taking statins, a cascade of damage may have been underway for decades. So part of the reason that the drugs aren't more successful, he said, "could be that we're trying to quench the fire after it's been burning for so long." Right. So when will you, and the medical people you have been listening to, get smart about the inflammation that so often manifests as heart disease. Stop spending health care dollars on cholesterol screenings. A government focused on creating health will not merely follow the party line of industry and drive business in the direction of the profiteers.

7. How can public policy promote healthier lifestyles?

Bring doctors like Martha Grout to the table. She has had 20 years in the allopathic world in emergency medicine, and when she saw that world didn't have enough answers, she began a new round of study. She has been a homeopathic physician for 10 years. Public policy cannot be shaped in a vacuum; medical professionals who approach health from something other than the disease management model need to be at the table. So too do educated patients like Mary Budinger who coordinated this community discussion. Their voices need to be heard.

If you want to promote healthier lifestyles, you are going to need to deal with diet, environment, and exercise. Get rid of the high fructose corn syrup and partially hydrogenated oils. Get rid of the aspartame. Get rid of the things that are interfering with human hormones like soy and BPA in plastics. Want to lessen heart attacks? Look at the research on chlorine, homogenized milk, mercury fillings. We didn't have much cancer and heart disease in 1900. Why Americans are riddled with chronic disease now is not a big mystery. Since 1900, particularly since WWII, we are awash in chemicals and nonsense diet advice. The government promoted margarine and then wondered where all the heart attacks were coming from. The corn oil industry gave lots of money to the American Heart Association, so they promoted it. But that didn't make it healthy. It just made for jobs at an organization that serves as a third party endorsement for those in industry. The aspartame manufacturers gave lots of money to the American Diabetes Association and in turn they promote aspartame. It doesn't make it healthy. The Susan G. Komen Foundation took on the M&M candy company as a million dollar sponsor – even though we know sugar feeds cancer. Money talks. Sick people make money for others. Who profits from healthy people?

The first challenge is cutting through all the marketing – and 3rd party endorsements - that give rise to perceptions that flu shots and mammograms and cholesterol screenings are good for you. The next challenge is figuring out how create a shift in economics, a new paradigm, so the system is incentivized to create a healthy population.

Establish a true non partisan committee to study why the inflation in health care costs always is about 5 times the inflation of the rest of the economy. Find the reasons why and suggest solutions to rid us of the problems.

This is a free market economy and despite our economic problems, we should keep it that way. No government run healthcare system. If you think the Canadian and British systems are better than ours, you're nuts.

When I was a young man you paid for a doctor visit out of your pocket. You carried health insurance only for major medical problems and it was affordable. I paid for the births of both of my sons because in those days giving birth was considered a life choice, not an illness. Doctors didn't have to carry multi million dollar insurance policies for fear of a trial lawyer suing them over vague issues about whether the doctor caused a birth defect or health problem. Seems like I just touched on a few of the problems myself.

Let me mention that I've lived most of my life paycheck to paycheck, so this is not a wealthy person saying this. The attitude in this country that everyone seems to think they are entitled to something without making any effort to earn it themselves is a major problem. We don't have a right to free health care, but we should have the opportunity to purchase healthcare at a reasonable price. That is the job our government faces.

John Controne
Chandler, AZ

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the Health Care discussion. Below are my thoughts on the issues:

• SKYROCKETING HEALTH CARE COSTS:

Skyrocketing health care costs would abate if competition were allowed and market forces prevailed. The history of medicine goes back thousands of years and healing occurred prior to the introduction of pharmaceuticals. We do ourselves a disservice by failing to consider alternative medicine as a legitimate means of healing, and by failing to include reimbursement for alternative therapies under our health care system.

• PREVENTIVE MEDICINE:

We need to change the way we look at illness. We have to understand the human body, how it works, and what contributes to its breakdown. We need to understand the role that stress, poor diet and lack of exercise play in the development of disease, and how lifestyle choices impact our body and take its toll. Once we understand what contributes to ill health we can begin to take responsibility for our own well being.

• THE UNINSURED:

I think the uninsured who cannot afford insurance should be insured under Medicaid.

I think sliding scale premiums are an excellent idea and should be considered for those who have to purchase their own health insurance.

To: Mary Budinger and Dr. Martha Grout for the Health Care Discussion

Thank you so much for inviting our comments.

Like many of us who have made the shift to alternative and complementary medicine, I was raised with total immersion in the Western healthcare system. My mother was an RN, my brother became an MD, and my father offered to pay for medical school (and only medical school) for me. There was no profession more honored and no other way of perceiving healthcare and healing.

When my two-year-old son suffered life-threatening asthma, I gave him Albuterol through a Nebulizer every four hours around the clock, without effect. So our pediatrician suggested, "We'll have to put him on steroids, and if that doesn't work, we'll have to figure out what he's allergic to!"

That's when I realized how backwards her whole MD-trained perspective was. One hour's research suggested taking him off dairy, and there he was, two weeks later, cured. He's never had asthma since. He's never cost our insurance carrier another dime.

To reform the healthcare system, we would educate all health care practitioners in a holistic body-mind-spirit, underlying-cause-seeking approach. We would reward insurance carriers who aim for true wholeness, not just symptom suppression. We'd retract the Department of Agriculture's lies about the necessity of their major products and encourage production and consumption of vegetarian, organic, non-GMO, allergen-free produce. We'd toughen the drug-approval process with the FDA and require that safer alternatives be explained to practitioners and patients. We'd study healthy people to see what they're doing right, and shift our whole paradigm from managing illness care to promoting healthcare.

Thanks for listening!

Gwyn

Dear Sir/Madam:

I have lived in the U.S. for nearly fifteen years, having returned to the U.S. in 2006 after a ten-year stay in Europe. Initially I returned to Arizona, and then moved to Ohio in 2007, where I now reside.

I am all-too-familiar with socialized medicine, having been born and raised in England, and having been both the witness and recipient of the alleged "service" offered by the U.K. National Health Service, as well as the Health Service of the Netherlands. I have been extremely fortunate that I have never needed to call on either's so-called "service" in connection with treatment for serious or chronic illness. My direct personal experience of U.K. hospital treatment was the delivery of my first child in 1969, which was definitely an experience I vowed never to repeat again. It was dreadful, featuring, among other examples of bureaucratic abuse, the twenty-four hour misplacement of my newborn in a distant ward. However, I worked in the U.K. National Health Service for several years, witnessing numerous examples of patient mistreatment resulting from bureaucratic interference in medical decisions and a Civil Service attitude toward the duty of care. And I watched my mother die of neglect, in agony and degradation, in a Dickensian open ward of sixty beds with one toilet provided by this "service."

These days, the U.K. hospitals have the highest rates of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection in Western Europe, with rates of Clostridium dificile infection catching up closely behind. This is an utter disgrace, especially when the hygiene standards of hospitals in poorer countries such as Greece and Turkey are far superior to those of their substantially wealthier U.K. counterpart. Unlike the problems with these hospital infections in the U.S. and Japan, the numerous outbreaks of MRSA and C. dificile in the U.K. are primarily the result of filthy hospital conditions resulting from misplaced bureaucratic priorities - not the widespread over-use of antibiotics. Physicians who have performed pro bono work in hospitals and clinics in Africa have informed me that, despite lack of equipment and pharmaceuticals, at least sanitary conditions are superior to those in the U.K.

It is a known fact that the U.K. continues to lose many of our best-trained medical minds, primarily to the U.S. but also to Sweden and Australia, because they are not recognized, appreciated, given adequate clinical and technological support or financial rewards in the U.K. As a classic example, the Chief of Oncology in Arizona's Mayo Clinic hails from Edinburgh, but this is just one example of many.

In an attempt to impose rationing under the guise of recommended best practice, the National Health Service has installed NICE (the National Institute of Clinical Excellence), which I believe has sparked Senator Daschle's interest in establishing a similar authority in the U.S. - i.e., a Federal Health Board which would address issues such as guidelines for what treatments and procedures will be offered, based on a centrally-determined standard of cost effectiveness. The best description of NICE is that it provides a casino for health care roulette: they throw the dice and the patient must hope that they land on his or her number, since NICE decisions, with no reference to the recommendations of the patient's physician, will determine what drug, treatment or operation the patient might receive.

An example of the standard of care under NICE is the availability of Taxol to British breast cancer patients. To reduced volumes of this expensive pharmaceutical prescribed, prescriptions were rationed by location - what became known as the "Post Code Lottery" in an outraged British press. When it comes to chronic illnesses and afflictions, U.K. survival rates are painfully low. A quick glance at cancer survival rates published by the World Health Organization shows that the U.K. ranks close to the bottom among allegedly Developed nations, and even below many in the Developing world.

Rationing goes beyond just the availability of high cost pharmaceutical treatments. Years of neglect and under-investment have resulted in shortages of everything: doctors, nursing staff, diagnostic equipment and even operating theaters. As a consequence, major but non-critical operations such as joint replacements may require a wait of several years, and having waited for such a long period it is not at all unusual for a patient to be informed that there is no doctor or operating theater available on the day when long-delayed operation was supposed to have been performed. All operations of this kind, which have become pretty standard procedures in most of the world, have waiting lists of many years in the U.K. and the Netherlands. My personal physician in the Netherlands was not even permitted to refer me to a specialist, because he had used up his quota for such referrals that was set by central medical authorities.

These are just a few examples, but having worked in a renowned cancer research hospital near London, I witnessed to many shocking examples of central bureaucracy interfering with patient care. It was deeply humbling and acutely embarrassing to find that, as a citizen of a supposedly wealthy and generous nation, nurses and patients reported better standards of care provided in impoverished nations such as Sri Lanka or Algeria. I frequently wondered whether I was not myself working in the Developing world.

Having returned to the U.S. in 2006, I was deeply really shocked to see how rapidly the medical system here had declined. Trying to obtain an appointment for routine prophylaxis with an M.D. or dentist in Scottsdale, AZ, was virtually impossible. Being told that I must wait six weeks simply to obtain initial consultation with a physician is simply unacceptable in any circumstances, but in a privately-funded system is itself, active abuse. What I think what stood out most upon my return to the U.S. is the extent to which bureaucratic control of the doctor/patient relationship had increased, through the penetration of MediCare, MedicAid and private insurers into each and every aspect of the medical experience.

It is unquestionable that the medical system in the U.S. is in dire need of an overhaul, and we all know that the future of medicine in the U.S. is a very difficult issue that will take a long time to resolve. Given the large and widely dispersed population of the U.S., how could it be otherwise? If the incoming Congress and Administration rush through a massive restructuring of healthcare in 2009, I would be very concerned, for I think precipitate action would be a recipe for disaster, not least because haste will rely on uncritical adoption of "services" offered in other countries. There is near-infinite scope for unintended consequences, perverse incentives and self-interested manipulation of any legislation that is pursued. I am not naïve enough to believe that any of the parties involved, from pharmaceutical manufacturers to my Congressman, from physicians and hospital administrators to private insurers and the trial bar are pure in motive or have the interests of patients as their first or even a secondary priority.

The public always want a quick fix, but there is none for the healthcare issue. Nor is the public entirely blameless in connection with the deterioration of the U.S. healthcare system. Litigiousness has done enormous damage to the system, to the benefit of none but the trial bar. A refusal to take responsibility for their own health, insistence on a quick, painless and low-cost "fix" for every medical eventuality and an unwillingness to accept that modern medicine is an expensive proposition will continue to plague the healthcare debate. All the health-related educational expenditure in the world will not wean the public off unhealthy lifestyles: any socialization of risk alleviates personal responsibility rather than reinforcing it.

Further, medical treatment "as of right" is an invitation to abuse by those who do not pay taxes to support it, as influxes of patients from the Developing world into socialized systems in Europe and into the charity system in the U.S. have amply demonstrated. While the price mechanism is by no means the ideal way of regulating demand for healthcare, it cannot be ignored, and a structure that seeks to do so will result either in bankruptcy or an even less attractive, bureaucratically-imposed system or rationing. This is quite visible in Canada and Europe. Americans should think long and hard, before they risk imposing one on themselves.

Sincerely,

Carol-Anne L. Abbink
Complementary Therapist
Hudson, OH 44236

I am a patient of Dr. Grout's. Over the years, I have been to many doctors, both allopathic and alternative medicine doctors. I can honestly say that all have tried to help with various problems, but the allopathic ones are not aware of alternative methods of healing in many cases. It would be my hope that medical schools would offer courses in alternative medicine, and resource data bases to doctors to use to really extend more natural, safe healing to patients.

There is a place for pharmaceutical preparations, but there are also many side effects to be concerned about. Natural healing may have some limitations as well, but most herbs, and other supplements for healing have been around a long time, and studied well as a consequence, for safety when used properly.

It would be my hope that policies in health would reflect the need for cooperation, not confrontation between different medical disciplines for the sake of patients. Certainly, profit is important in making products of healing available, but it should not be the main factor in the introduction of medicines of all types. The dedicated physician, such as Dr. Grout, studies what is best for each patient's welfare, and the companies that sell the medications need to be supportive of alternatives, not just desirous of taking over companies to make money.

Finally, mass health care is a fine goal, but needs choices available to physicians as well as patients to improve health in general. Otherwise, we have cut and dried solutions to various problems that may or may not be helpful, and the bureaucracy of this defies individual needs. Insurance companies and government agencies need to be more flexible for the sake of the patient. Preventative care should be the norm in all medical disciplines, with the safest tests, and methods.

In closing, I would like to tell the story of a real patient under national health in England some years ago. She had fallen and hurt her knee, and called for an appointment, figuring it would need stitches. She doctored her knee at home for months, and finally on the one year anniversary of her call to request an appointment with a doctor, she was called to come to the hospital, and bring her "sponge" bag, meaning overnight bag. She arrived, not remembering the knee which had healed on its own, and was told she was there for that same knee. This is what can happen in a national health situation. Canadians come here to the USA because their health care is long in being made available for many problems. Freedom of choice in medicine and compassionate efficiency need to be the by-words.

Nancy Geale

Along with such celebrities as Whoopi Goldberg, I am very concerned about the high influx of high fructose corn syrup in the majority of food items from sweet to savory that list corn syrup in the top five ingredients. Why can we not regulate corporations and make them accountable for adding unsafe food additives to their product? Should it really be only the responsibility of the consumer to protect themselves from unhealthy items?

There needs to be a department that is independent of the FDA and also is not funded or supported by the companies themselves. There is so much important and reliable data out there that never gets to the general public.

Dr. Oz from Oprah's XM radio station has many professional healthcare physicians as guests on his show with pertinent information that the general public never sees on the news networks or newspapers.

We need to support these individuals who are diligently researching for the betterment of our healthcare.

Thank you for your consideration and time in this important health issue.

Jeanne Branick

I am so happy to read that read you are holding a meeting today for the transition team. Unfortunately I will not be able to attend, but, I do have something I would very much like to have submitted.

I am a mother of a special needs child - well - she is 21. Medical care for special needs is actually pretty good in this state. What concerns me is dental.

The program that covers dental is through the Dept of Developmental Disabilities. When a special child turns 21, they basically take dental away. They will NOT cover preventive appointments for teeth cleaning, or to fill a cavity before it becomes a problem. They will however cover getting a tooth pulled. So basically the state of Arizona is saying to the disabled population: I don't care about your health, I don't care if you get infections.

What is so insane about this is that special needs people don't brush their teeth as well as they need to. They don't floss, use rinses, etc. All of the things that 'normal' people know they should be doing to take care of their teeth, many are unable to do. And to top it off, many people with special needs are unable to communicate. They may have a horrible toothache, and no one would ever know.

Luckily I have dental insurance and do take her to the dentist twice a year. I will keep her on my dental policy until the day I die. But then what? Is the Dept of Dev Disabilities in the state of AZ really so uncaring that their goal is to let her teeth rot out in pain? And what about the thousands of adults with special needs that don't have family caring for them?

It's just another example of a ridiculous health care policy.

Please forward this to the Obama/Biden transition team for me, and for a very vulnerable population of the state of Arizona...a population that is unable to care for themselves.

Thank you so much!!!!

Jill

Here are my thoughts on this subject:

• Nationalized health care is basically a form of socialism, and I don't want to see us turn into a socialist country. However, I did watch a PBS special which analyzed the pros and cons of nationalized health care in several different countries. It appeared that Switzerland had the best-run system, if you have to choose the lesser of the "evils".

• DOES ANYONE CARE ABOUT OUR NATIONAL BUDGET DEFICIT????? It's already astronomical - $30,000 per taxpayer? – and any additional government entitlement program is only going to make it worse. Are we prepared for and willing to accept the permanent, higher taxes for everyone which must go along with this??? Talk has been made of turning war spending into health care spending. We must realize that war spending was not meant to be a permanent part of the budget. It was and is a TEMPORARY expenditure.

• Health care costs to be controlled:

• Malpractice/liability insurance for doctors is very high. As much as the lawyers don't like it, laws must be enacted to limit physician liability and lawsuit amounts, thus reducing the cost of malpractice insurance.

• Costs of doctors' offices dealing with multiple insurance companies for multiple patients creates a bureaucratic nightmare and is very time-consuming.

Some physicians in Tucson have implemented a "cash-only" system which is cheaper for them and their patients.

Thank you for considering my ideas.
Catherine Kossler

I believe all Americans should have health insurance, but we need some reform too. We have more people on disability then we should. We need to get stricter qualifications for this program.

I work in the health care field, and I am appalled at the number of young people (under the age of 45) who are on disability because they have some bogus back injury. If you live in a small community as I do, you see these same people out riding quads, hiking mountains, playing baseball, or other activities that should cause severe pain if they truly had the qualifying disability. Most of these people exist off of narcotic and refuse to try alternative pain management because they are now addicts. Our state and federal programs, in their lack of regulating this, have promoted this behavior.

I am all for EVERY American having health care but we need to revamp the current system. How about doing away with private state aid insurance and getting one program for all that qualify for the Medicaid system. It could be a PPO coverage that allows freedom of choice. If all Medicaid individuals were on one program, the premium would be minimal (less then 45/month) and that could be taken right out of their disability/welfare check. This would make these individuals more responsible and give them the same emotional boast as "pride in ownership" does. The government would save millions.

The person that gets up everyday and goes to work has to carry the financial burden for their health insurance so why shouldn't the unemployed, disabled, or the welfare recipient? I know children who have ADHD, ADD, OCD, and similar diagnosis that are on disability. What do we do when they're 18? What are we teaching them, that they can't rise above this and become a product of society? They will live off the system for life! If Obama really wants to help the health care system and give all people insurance, then he needs to fix the current system first and make if fair to ALL Americans, not just the underprivileged or the ones that have learned to manipulate the system. In this life you get what you put into it, in America you can have anything if you want to work to get it, well that philosophy has gone be the wayside, and we need to get it back.

1. Health care should be universally available to everyone, at any age regardless of any pre-existing condition.

2. Access to healthcare should no longer be dependent upon someone's employment status. No one should be at the mercy of a job to receive health care.

3. I realize that these are strained economic times, but that should be NO EXCUSE for cutting back or postponing health care benefits. We have been told all my life (I am now 62) that universal health care was too expensive. I never believed nor accepted that argument. If anything, I have been proven right. If there are trillions available for corporate bailouts now, apparently funding for health care could always have been found. Let us not lose this opportunity to finally get this right for all Americans.

4. To discourage abuse of this new system, perhaps a graduated system of co-pays, or other safeguards, could be established. Those families or individuals earning less that $25,000 annually, for example, would be give a full tax credit on those co-pays, while people earning above certain amounts would see a gradually lesser tax credit.

5. Absolutely no one should be forced into bankruptcy due to health care problems. There should be a minimum, floor amount which any family should need to expend, beyond which full and free coverage would be granted.

6. For anyone who is determined to be disabled, and unable to work, there should be no waiting period whatsoever before those individuals are given full access to Social Security and Medicare. There should be no waiting period, as is currently the case. Once anyone qualifies as having a disability that prevents full-time employment, benefits should be immediately available.

7. It is my personal belief that insurance companies should not be in the business of providing health care. As businesses their primary responsibility is to generate profit for shareholders, not to provide the best health care to individuals. Hence, the current mess we now have. If insurance companies are going to be included in the new system, regulations should developed, and strictly enforced, that will guarantee that health care decisions will be made solely by the patients and their doctors.

8. Finally, any person who acts as a caregiver for a family member, spouse, or domestic partner or legal dependent should receive direct compensation from the new health care system. I speak from direct experience. My sister gave up her well-paying job as a supervisor to take a very early retirement in order to care for my father who had Alzheimer's disease. She also cared for my mother who was unable to care for herself. This continued for 14 years until both of my parents died within ten months of one another. My sister gave up her own home and career to do this and received nothing for it. Sadly now she has been diagnosed with early-Alzheimer's disease herself.

So please, from the bottom of my heart, and the hearts of so very many "middle class" Americans, I respectfully ask you to consider my suggestions, and those you will receive from others like me. Personally I am not asking for a handout. I believe that access to "affordable" health care should be considered a right to which all Americans are entitled. We voted for hope. I believe President Obama can and will finally make universal health care available to us. "YES WE CAN"

Thank you for the opportunity to share my concerns.

Michael Catanzaro, Phoenix AZ

Dear Transition Team Representative,

My name is David Stanton and I read in the local paper that you were seeking "grass-roots...health care ideas" to develop a new health care policy. I am writing to provide my input as a citizen of our great land. I apologize for being unable to attend your forum on the 28th in Tempe due to my work schedule.

I have had many health problems in my 53 years of life, but have managed to remain a productive citizen throughout. I was on kidney dialysis in 1986, received a kidney transplant in 1987, discovered that I had acquired Hepatitis C (from a blood transfusion during my transplant) in 1995, and developed gout and osteoporosis as a result of numerous anti-rejection drug side-effects. I have also worked my entire life and never gone on disability nor even applied for disability driving privileges. I am very proud of this fact and consider myself a rugged individualist in the great Western American tradition.

This is not to say, however, that I have not had difficulties. I have suffered a great deal of physical pain through the years, but have learned how to tolerate it. I have also struggled to pay for my medical care and, especially, my transplant anti-rejection drugs. Currently one of my drugs (Neoral 25mg X 5/day) costs $64,000 per year to keep me alive. I am responsible for a significant share of this cost and am able to pay for it with insurance and my health savings account, but it is very burdensome on my $55,000 per year wage. Please forgive me if it sounds as if I'm whining, I live every day with the knowledge that others are in much worse shape than I am and it helps keep my grumbling in perspective.

Yet with this knowledge comes sadness, for the Bible says, "He who increases knowledge, increases sorrow." My concern is for those who suffer now and for those who will suffer long after I am gone. I have seen folks suffer who should be on disability yet cannot afford the 24 month wait in order to obtain Medicare benefits. It occurs to me that if one is disabled and can receive public assistance benefits they should also be able to obtain publicly assisted medical care. Yet I am realistic enough to know that there is a cost that must be paid by society to provide this benefit. If, as Mr. Obama has stated, he is truly not influenced by the traditional politics of lobbying and kickbacks, he will seek identical cuts in other programs that do not directly address human (and humane) needs. He should start by demanding an end to agricultural subsidies and price supports and allow the open market to dictate farm policy. Furthermore, the defense budget, which is directly responsible for many disabilities on its own, should be slashed. I believe Mr. Obama's 16-month timetable for Iraq troop withdrawal will help in achieving this end.

In conclusion, I believe that if there is one single thing that must be done, it is to eliminate the 24-month gap in Medicare coverage. This will be a great help to those who are the least able to speak and fend for themselves. Thank you for accepting my input and taking the time to read it.

Sincerely,

David H. Stanton of Mesa, Arizona

Hi Mary and Martha,

Thank you so much for organizing the event today. Very inspiring. Here's a brief comment to add, thank you.

Looking at the opportunity/need to create a paradigm shift in "healthcare," I suggest a shift to view this very large industry through the lens of focusing on healing. Evolving from what we currently know as a "healthcare system" to embracing healing as the goal for all aspects of the new system that evolves.

This probably quite naturally breaks barriers between what is generally considered allopathic and CAM. Collaboration is rewarded – whether that's working with dentists or massage therapists, etc.; and the goal is to "graduate" people on their healing path.

With a focus/goal is healing, the very nature of insurance and managed care changes. Imagine what could happen if the goal of an evolved insurance system is to support healing (not limit choices or find reasons not to pay).

FDA, chemical and agriculture concerns will have a new standard of measurement: do their actions and products support healing (a change in actions is also likely to support healing the environment).

Hospitals would measure healing, rather than satisfaction (in any other industry satisfaction is not something consumers embrace as their desired experience).

Since we currently live in a world in which money is exchanged for "value," the financial model of the entire system would evolve to "reward" healing. (Supporting attitudes, actions, products and services that, as one gentleman voiced today, support people to ease their suffering).

Individuals become empowered with information, education and choice – to determine their healing path (mental, physical, emotional, spiritual).

A healing focus also naturally provides support for concerns mentioned today like vets, HIV positive individuals, autism, etc.

Hopefully this would create a more open system - opening to wisdom, products and services from a range of sources and resources (including international and concepts outside of the established infrastructure) because the financial reward system (where money flows) is based on how people feel; not based on what pill they're taking, how much time was spent with a practitioner, the practitioners area of expertise and/or credentials, etc.

Deb Andelt

I am a nationally certified classical homeopath and practice in Phoenix, Az.

I'd like to talk about insurance.

Why is it that we are paying hundreds of dollars in insurance each month in the first place? I think we should have insurance for catastrophic events and pay a copay of $25.00 for that. We are so conditioned to think that everything needs to be covered by insurance. Why do we need the insurance companies to be the middle man between us and our health care?

I propose that we revamp the entire insurance industry. The hundreds of dollars that we pay to insurance companies each year because of FEAR is incredible - this money can be put to good use to pay for alternative therapies of our choice.

I personally haven't had health insurance for going on 10 years now. I pay for my alternative care and the couple of actual prescriptions that I need unfortunately (but that is another story) without insurance. This is still a savings of hundreds of dollars a year.

We are giving someone else several hundred dollars a month, pay a copay on top of that and let them tell us what to do! This is simply insane.

Also, I want to add to the vaccination issue. Why is it that we tell pregnant women what to do and not do for the safety of the baby and as soon as it is born inject it with poison? I personally have treated many children with many issues from vaccines, such as autism, asthma, behavioral problems and the like.

Thanks!

Debbie Noah, CCH, RSHom(NA)
www.familyhomeopathyinc.com

My Name is Tyler Andrew TerMeer and I am a Prevention Manager with the Southwest Center for HIV/AIDS located here in Phoenix, Arizona. The concern that I bring before the Obama Administration is in compliment to ideals that an Obama Administration has already begun to address, that of HIV / AIDS as a Domestic Issue.

We know that we are no longer living in crisis mode. HIV/AIDS as we knew it in the early 1980's is a thing of the past and our clients are able to live manageable lives with HIV/AIDS, which now is being considered a long-term Chronic Illness. However, the difference between HIV and other Chronic Illness is the fear, stigma and discrimination that come hand in hand with diagnosis. As a silenced society, we have become complacent about an epidemic that is ravishing our communities without pause or discretion on whom it will impact next. Frighteningly enough, in the two hours that we met this weekend over one THOUSAND Americans became infected with this disease. As a Healthcare Community, HIV has become a disease in which we know longer fear a death sentence; rather we struggle to maintain the best quality of life for our clients with limited resources that continue to dry up as simultaneously the epidemic fuels on.

The reality of the HIV/AIDS epidemic that has not been addressed by an administration to date; is reality that the healthcare systems we put into place to address HIV/AIDS have now become outdated and obsolete within the current state of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. These systems were created in a time where we were managing the lives of clients that we did not expect to see alive within a years' time, let alone 25 years later. Where medical advancements have revolutionized the way we can manage the healthcare of those living within HIV/AIDS in our country, little to no support is being given to the management of the devastating short and long-term side effects being caused by exposure to high doses of HIV/AIDS medications on today's market.

At the Southwest Center for HIV/AIDS we believe in Wellness as a quality of life issue for our clients. We believe wellness- nutrition, behavioral health, and alternative medicine improves locus of control and quality of life by treating side effects of HIV medications. When people feel well, they have improved self esteem and are more apt to not engage in risky behaviors.

As the Obama administration moves forward in HealthCare planning for the United States I strongly urge:

1. A National HIV/AIDS Strategy, including how to address the changing face of this epidemic as a long-term chronic illness, be drafted and implemented within the first one hundred days in Office.

2. Alternative Medicine and other Wellness services being included as a reimbursable service for healthcare providers working to provide the best quality of life for our clients.

3. As a push for more routine HIV testing becomes common practice within healthcare and community organizations it MUST parallel a focus on Prevention, Education, Behavioral Health, and Wellness Services.

Thank you for your time and please do not hesitate to contact me here at the Southwest Center with additional questions or concerns.

Tyler Andrew TerMeer

I want the Obama Government to pass a law banning all dumping in the toilet of redundant or left over pharmaceutical medicines of diseased seniors in nursing homes. I know it is IMPOSSIBLE to filter out the medications from the drinking water. I do not want to ingest anything that is detrimental/threatening/unneeded. I want to protect my health. I am in excellent health due to taking responsibility for it, and I choose to keep it that way. Besides, the massive amounts of drugs getting into the water supply are harming the environment big time!

I read in our local paper that suggestions are requested for our future healthcare plans.

I have many ideas and because I lived in the United Kingdom for 35 years I feel I was exposed to a National Socialized Health plan which worked wonderfully for everybody I knew.

When considering these plans I am sure that the process is extremely complicated with participating providers being very strongly represented, i.e. Insurance companies, government, medical facilities and Doctors, etc.

My suggestion is that the FIRST consideration MUST BE SIMPLICITY.

1. All approved services must be provided on an approved fixed fee schedule which could be determined and based upon the current coding system. Obviously fees charged by Hospitals, group practices and single practitioners would vary for the same service. The varying fee could be indicated by the first 2 digits of the coding system. Medicare is currently based upon fixed allowable fees for coded services.

2. All services currently accepted as standard practice but pending approval could be paid a base fee amount pending approval by a supervising independent Board.

3. There MUST be NO deductibles or outside fees.

4. Initially patients can opt for the same plan providers, i.e. Employers, Insurance companies, government, etc. BUT the providers MUST supply the services for the same approved fixed fee and the carriers can only receive the fixed fee. THERE CAN BE NO ADD ONS.

5. Providers can only make an approved amount of money each year. There would have to be a maximum of patient services that practitioners can provide.

There are so many details to be worked out that I commend the President Elect's initiative in seeking public opinion and I appreciate being a very small part of that

My emphasis is to remove the corruption from the medical services business and provide all simple citizens/residents with a plan that works without the pressure of high fees, with limited insurance coverage and with high deductibles.

I would be very happy to assist in any way that I can.

Thank you,

Derek Hughes
Sun Lakes, AZ 85248

I am a retired RN, Nursing Administrator.

My experience at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, now the New York/Cornell Medical Center and the former Bergen Pines County Hospital in New Jersey, has given 49 years experience in providing care to all level of our population. The share system provided excellent care. There were abuses in payments to physicians by a few and the medical community and government were unwilling to discipline the bad apples. Instead, billing was given to the insurance companies who have no interest in health care - only their bottom line in making money. Doctors are paid not to provide comprehensive care. Hospital stays decreased readmission cost more. Some of your finest doctors retired rather than be dictated by my lay people as to how to treat.

I am very committed to excellent effect and efficient care at a cost effective price. I would love to work with like-minded people to develop a system to provide care for all citizens.

Recommendations for considerations:

1. Insurance comp.. Get them out of the health care system
2. Develop a wellness model/not a sickness model
3. Develop a reimbursement system with in which Medicare, Medicaid system that has cost control
4. Do away with HMO's Provide PPO's so a patient can select their Doctor

I do not see the Canadian system as being a system as good as what we have. With proper management and controls, we can provide our citizens with the best health care in the world.

There is nothing for nothing. We must be willing to pay a fair share of the cost. Pharmacy companies need to address their profit lines. Why can they sell their drugs to other countries cheaper than to our citizens?

We must address the greed before we have a situation like Wall Street, the banks Fanny May & Freddie Mac.

Violet Mastroberte, MPA,BSN

1) Medicare penalties for those who did not sign up for prescription coverage when first available to them are a travesty against the poorest folks in the nation. That penalty should be eliminated. I believe it was formulated by the government to insure the insurance companies enough sign ups - As though they need the money. Why should we pay insurance coverage that will not benefit us just in order to avoid future penalties if we come to a place in the future that we would benefit from the plan?

2) Compounded drugs should be covered by Medicare Prescription Drug Plans. At this time they are not covered at all. Many of us are sensitive to ingredients including colors, preservatives, corn, etc.

Judith Stringer
Disabled on SSD

Dear President Obama,

Thank you for listening to the people.

I am a 71 year old female. I have seen medical care go from caring about the patient to all about profit for doctors, insurance companies and drug companies. I am on Medicare and Tri Care for Life.

First, we don't have enough doctors and nurses. We need to set up a quota program that would allow each year qualified young people to go medical school FREE. It would not matter what income bracket they were in, because you could be in the upper middle class and still not be able to afford to go to school for many years.

I am sure the number of years for the school could be shortened. When they graduate from medical school, they would be required to go where needed and work with doctors who have requested that they work in their practices and the doctors requesting them would mentor them and maybe, if looking at retirement in the future, would sell them their practice. The new doctor would work for a paid wage from us, say for 6 years then after that they could go into private practice and be on their own, with their obligation to us completed. Don't say we can't afford this....so much money is wasted thru graft. And, where has all that money gone?

Medicare needs to change! If you do not treat the whole patient (hearing, teeth and eyes too) you do not get good results. A lot of us, by the time we pay our bills, just live from pay-day to pay-day.

So many older citizens I see have their teeth missing, if your teeth are missing your jaw gets misaligned causing TMJ and on and on. I have four permanent bridges and TMJ (which even when I had insurance would not pay a dime on; I paid out over $10,000 for a years TMJ treatment). Each time a bridge needs to be replaced (about every 8 years), it costs me up to $5000. The last time I had to have 2 jaw surgeries from complications. I have Delta Dental that I pay $35 a month for that allows $1500 a year for everything. Not a very good deal.

I do not have a primary care doctor, the ones I did have retired or went into CASH only practices. I do see a Nurse Practitioner if necessary. I do not take any medications, mainly because my body will not tolerate them. I need hearing aides, but can't afford them........I am just the average senior!

Wishing you the best Mr. President!

Blye Zaysoff
Sun Lakes, AZ

I'm most interested in Healthcare Reform in Arizona for the Obama-Biden Transition Team.

However, there is no way I can get to Tempe, Arizona for the meeting as I am blind, do not drive and live in Southeast Arizona 1 mile from Naco, Arizona, 2 miles from Naco, Sonora, México and several miles from the southeastern shopping district of Bisbee, Arizona. I live on an acre of land in the country, Cochise County; and, of course I do not drive. There are no buses, trains, planes, cabs in Bisbee; therefore, no transportation.

I am on Social Security only with Medicare Parts A and B; but, had to stop all medication as with Medicare Part D, my annual prescription costs quadrupled. Do not have a supplemental Medigap or HMO as the cheapest for low income is $458/month which is just below half of my SSA Benefit. I have just under 25 more years to pay on my mortgage; and, so would not have enough money to pay my mortgage, utilities, let alone food for me, my 3 dogs and my cat. The only medicine I use is Pilocarpine 1% eye drops in my right eye to keep the pupil closed so as to prevent headaches, nausea, etc., from a fully dilated pupil – Adie's Tonic Pupil.

When I broke my radius head at the left thumb [Toros Fracture] did not go to my physician [employee of the Hospital] as it would have cost me at least $1,200 [probably more] as my deductible for the physician I would have to pay for 2008 [Doctor's bill is about $180-$200] who would send me to hospital for tests and x-rays [deductible is $1,040 for 2008]; which would not allow me to pay mortgage, utilities, food, etc..

Now, I have an infected right leg from severe allergies to Pigweed, Tumbleweed [the two are variations/related – and I seem to grow a bumper crop of both throughout my acre of land] and chiggers which became rampant during and after our monsoon season – affecting me and my dogs. Am trying to treat it myself, but not with a lot of success as it still lingers and recently has got worse: probably, because I've been scratching too much from the fiery itching resulting in my tearing off parts of my hide. Now, am trying not to scratch the fiery itching which is a real test of my willpower.

Am so looking for Obama-Biden's Universal Healthcare; and, most certainly will buy it if it does not bankrupt me, allowing me still to buy food, pay utilities and mortgage; plus, whatever repairs I still have to do to snug up my house so I can enjoy more heat in the Winter than the 52°F I now have it set at so as to have enough money for the mortgage; and, to be able to pay my utilities bills in full each month.

I'm not quite sure how I am to tell my story; don't know if it will help; do want to keep living as long as possible in as good a health I can muster [am 70 years old and skinny].

Would love it if you could give me some advice.

Joan Alice Maria Gibson, Esq.

Regarding medical insurance input for the Obama-Biden Transition Team, I'd like to provide a brief history of our situation: We are seniors, thus we have MEDICARE, and we carry a SECONDARY. Our insurance costs for 2007 were $5,779 for both: $3087 for the SECONDARY and $2692 for the PRIMARY MEDICARE.

NOW, the first point I'd like to make is: How did it happen that Medicare became the primary, costing less, but paying more, for medical claims? There must have been some powerful lobbying from the insurance comes during the birth of Medicare!!!!

Another problem lies therein: If Medicare doesn't pay up, then secondary hides behind that shield and doesn't pay either. I see this as the "tail wagging the dog" for far too long. Of course, we the patient, get "stuck" for the difference, on top of the huge costs for insurance premiums.

President Elect Obama, I know you have far too much on your plate already, but please have your team look into this gross injustice. Perhaps a clue as to why Medicare is in the gutter right now lies right before our eyes: Big insurance companies are doing their share to rape Medicare right out of business, and we let them do it! Can you do a study of big insurance industry profits, vs Medicare losses?

On another subject, many of us have long term disability insurance, trying to take care of ourselves right to the end. Yet, we do not receive full deduction under the present internal revenue rules. Looking at this situation from another angle, why not change that to give us full deduction. Of course, the insurance companies would reap a big profit now as they receive new subscriptions, but think of the tremendous saving at the end of the line! I believe this to be a very good idea, but those insurance companies would have to be backed by something like FDIC, and monitored accordingly, to make sure they would be there in any event.

Many thanks, Mr. Obama, for caring for we, the American public, and God be with you on this journey! YOU are the most exciting thing to happen to our county since FDR, which we remember well!

Milton D. and Shirley M. Cronk

I live in Apache Junction, AZ and was unable to leave my wife alone to come to the meeting.

I note the first main problem with Medicare is the pharmaceutical companies are in control of prices and that our Senate/President allowed them to set the prices. There needs to be at the very least, a same payment schedule as Medicaid, and other Governments get for the same medications. It seems like our Government thinks Americans should pay out the nose for the same medicines that you can get for a fraction of the cost across the border.

My wife is very sick a matter of a very few months because you extended the patents for most of the medicines as a matter of fact, just so they can keep robbing the American people to feed their already deep pockets. I already have to not order some of our medicines to keep food on the table, and pay the overpriced mobile home rates in Arizona that just jumped another 11% this month. I pay enough to buy two houses now, just for rent, and lease taxes, so buying medications versus a roof over our heads is kind of a no brainier.

You allow G.E. And other Medical Equipment Manufacturers Charge Huge Prices for their Products, and never set a cap on anything. There a many simple things you can do, But the question is do you have the will?

Sincerely
Rickey Morris

We belong to a HMO, Secure Horizons and discovered there were two networks involved, Phoenix Metro and East Valley. Most of our doctors in the plan were listed in the East Valley. However, our closest hospital, Chandler, is in Phoenix Metro network. We have had to pay out of pocket for doctors we thought belonged to our network. The Phoenix metro area is divided by Central Avenue with Avenues on the West and Streets on the East. We thought Chandler, Tempe and Mesa belonged to the East. It makes no sense for people who pay rather high HMO fees for insurance to have this divided into networks in this way. You either have doctors and hospitals in the plan or not. Can this be addressed and corrected?

Thank you,

Carole Doak
Chandler, AZ

Stop the practice of connecting health care benefits to a family member's employment.

It is expensive, distracting and time-consuming for employers broker of health care. Having health care benefits connected to a job is distracting to the employee and expensive for the company (i.e. health benefit fairs, communicating changing rules/coverage, open enrollment periods).

People lose their jobs through no control of their own. The company shuts down or downsizes. People get divorced. They die. It makes a bad time worse to lose health benefits because a job, marriage, or a life is lost.

Please restructure health care more like auto-insurance. I would like to comparison shop, select and buy coverage without having to go through people at work to do this.

Thank you.
Dianne Winslow

Just a few weeks ago, Time Magazine published data that shows the State of Utah spends less per capita on health care than any other state in the country. And yet, that same article published data showing that Utah has one of the longest life expectancies in the U.S. In fact, a separate study cited by Forbes Magazine placed Utah among the top 5 healthiest states in the country as measured by several criteria.

But that's not all. The studies cited by Forbes also indicate that 32% of Utah residents are uninsured. That's about twice the national average.

Doesn't this defy conventional wisdom? Well, consider this: Utah has one of the highest concentrations of natural supplement manufacturers, and highest gross sales of natural supplements per capita in the country.

Is this just coincidence or is there a connection? Sure, there's more to this story than just these statistics. But isn't it worth a closer look? We sure think so.

Please write to the directors of the new White House Office on Health Care Reform. Tell them that natural health principles and products must be considered in any steps to reform health care in our country.

Did you see this in today's paper?

Under Bush, OSHA Mired in Inaction

Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 29, 2008

In early 2001, an epidemiologist at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration sought to publish a special bulletin warning dental technicians that they could be exposed to dangerous beryllium alloys while grinding fillings. Health studies showed that even a single day's exposure at the agency's permitted level could lead to incurable lung disease.

After the bulletin was drafted, political appointees at the agency gave a copy to a lobbying firm hired by the country's principal beryllium manufacturer, according to internal OSHA documents. The epidemiologist, Peter Infante, incorporated what he considered reasonable changes requested by the company and won approval from key directorates, but he bristled when the private firm complained again.

"In my 24 years at the Agency, I have never experienced such indecision and delay," Infante wrote in an e-mail to the agency's director of standards in March 2002. Eventually, top OSHA officials decided, over what Infante described in an e-mail to his boss as opposition from "the entire OSHA staff working on beryllium issues," to publish the bulletin with a footnote challenging a key recommendation the firm opposed.

Current and former career officials at OSHA say that such sagas were a recurrent feature during the Bush administration, as political appointees ordered the withdrawal of dozens of workplace health regulations, slow-rolled others, and altered the reach of its warnings and rules in response to industry pressure.

The result is a legacy of unregulation common to several health-protection agencies under Bush: From 2001 to the end of 2007, OSHA officials issued 86 percent fewer rules or regulations termed economically significant by the Office of Management and Budget than their counterparts did during a similar period in President Bill Clinton's tenure, according to White House lists.

White House officials have dismissed such tallies, emphasizing in recent regulatory overviews that their "objective is quality, not quantity," and that heavy restrictions on corporations harm economic performance. During Bush's presidency, they said in a September report, average annual regulatory costs were kept 24 percent lower than during the previous two decades. OSHA says it has issued many rules of lesser consequence that nonetheless clarified industry responsibilities.

But this record has been controversial among occupational health experts and career OSHA staff.

"The legacy of the Bush administration has been one of dismal inaction," said Robert Harrison, a professor at the University of California at San Francisco and chairman of the occupational health section of the American Public Health Association. It has been "like turning a ketchup bottle upside down, banging the bottom of the container, and nothing comes out. You shake and shake and nothing comes out," Harrison said.

More than two dozen current and former senior career officials further said in interviews that the agency's strategic choices were frequently made without input from its experienced hands. Political appointees "shut us out," a longtime senior career official said.

Among the regulations proposed by OSHA's staff but scuttled by political appointees was one meant to protect health workers from tuberculosis. Although OSHA concluded in 1997 that the regulation could avert as many as 32,700 infections and 190 deaths annually and save $115 million, it was blocked by opposition from large hospitals.

In the summer, the agency decided against moving further toward the regulation of crystalline silica, the tiny fibrous material in cement and stone dust that causes lung disease or cancer. OSHA promised a scientific peer review of the health risks by early 2005 and then by early 2007, but it never acted. Regulating silica exposures would have prevented an estimated 41 silicosis deaths and 20 to 40 lung cancers annually, according to OSHA.

In the spring, political appointees quietly scrapped work on another long-pending regulation of hazardous exposure to ionizing radiation in mailrooms, food warehouses, and hospitals and airports. It cited "resource constraints and other priorities" -- the same reason officials gave for withdrawing more than a dozen regulatory proposals in 2001. Former OSHA director Edwin G. Foulke Jr. and other Bush appointees dispute the criticisms and say the agency carefully directed its scarce resources at the most dangerous workplaces, notably levying heavy fines after major workplace disasters. Foulke also expressed pride that a drop in reported workplace injuries that began in 1974 continued unabated under Bush and said that "we've done, I think, a really good job of moving things along" in rulemakings that proved to be more complex and time-consuming than he had anticipated.

Labor advocates, academic scholars and some OSHA officials have said that the decline in reported injuries is partly the result of a 14 percent drop in U.S. production and manufacturing jobs since 2001 and a 2002 change in the government's record-keeping rules.

'It Was Window Dressing'

The agency's first director under Bush, John L. Henshaw, startled career officials by telling them in an early meeting that employers were OSHA's real customers, not the nation's workers. "Everybody was pretty amazed," one of those present recalled. "Our purpose is to ensure employee safety and health. . . . He just looked at things differently." Within two years, Henshaw, an industrial hygienist who had worked for Monsanto and another chemical firm, withdrew 26 draft regulations on OSHA's public calendar, including rules meant to limit workplace exposure to air contaminants, highly hazardous chemicals, and shipyard and scaffolding hazards.

In many cases, the agency cited "resource constraints" as the reason. But Charles Gordon, a Labor Department lawyer who worked on OSHA regulations in the solicitor's office from 1975 until January, said that "all the work had been done" on many of the rules, including laborious, peer-reviewed risk assessments and economic analyses.

Henshaw, acting in concert with legislation passed by the Republican majority in Congress, quickly withdrew a proposed regulation -- drawn up during the Clinton administration -- meant to curtail ergonomic problems, which OSHA studies have said cause 60 percent of workplace injuries. He promised, instead, to issue nonmandatory guidelines and to cite violations under a general OSHA statute promoting safety.

But Richard Soltan, who retired from OSHA in 2006 after seven years as the Philadelphia regional administrator and 11 years as a deputy administrator, called Henshaw's promise "a sham." "I don't think we prosecuted two cases," Soltan said. "It was window dressing."

"I took the agency where I could take it," Henshaw said in an interview. "I had a fairly good control on the enforcement side, and we tried to do everything we could to enhance the enforcement," partly by partnering with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Justice Department to pressure or punish willful, chronic violators. But Henshaw said that "there wasn't a whole lot of political will for more rules and burdens on industry," either in the Bush administration or among congressional Republicans. Instead, there was "some interest in improving existing rules on the books," he said. "We focused on improving what we had."

Under Bush, the agency was reluctant even to issue health warnings that fall short of regulations, if doing so might make it easier for workers to collect damages for diseases. In the draft beryllium bulletin, for example, the key dispute concerned OSHA's endorsement of a blood test that detected sensitization to beryllium, a precursor to disease -- and to lawsuits.

In the end, OSHA added a footnote casting doubt on the test's validity, a decision that Lee S. Newman, a beryllium expert at the University of Colorado, called "profoundly disappointing" and part of a larger effort by Brush Wellman, the beryllium manufacturer invited to comment, "to try to mitigate" the test's use.

Patrick Carpenter, a spokesman for Brush Wellman, said that the draft "contained factual errors" and expressed satisfaction at the outcome. Infante, the epidemiologist, said the episode was "the last straw" that provoked him to resign in 2002.

Battle Over Asbestos Bulletin

That year, Ira Wainless, a senior industrial hygienist at OSHA, finished drafting a warning to auto mechanics that brake linings contained dangerous asbestos fibers. Health experts and lawmakers had called for such a bulletin, but attorneys for major car and brake manufacturers worried that it would be cited in lawsuits by mechanics seeking damages for asbestos-related disease.

Although Wainless's draft was approved by all of OSHA's directorates by mid-2003, Richard Fairfax, director of enforcement programs, was mindful of industry concerns. "Our recommendation is not to go forward," he said in a note to the head of the agency's science and technology office. "With the various asbestos litigation in progress and the compensation issues, the issuance of this may complicate matters."

A senior OSHA health enforcement official told Wainless's boss in an internal note that year that "we are under the understanding . . . it was NOT supposed to be going out." Wainless persisted, however, and over the next two years sent four drafts to Henshaw's office to meet what another OSHA official described in an internal e-mail as "requests for minor changes" by the agency's deputy director.

Before the bulletin's eventual publication in July 2006, which occurred after heavy pressure by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), OSHA omitted a statement that brake-lining imports commonly contained asbestos. It also modified its warning that linings were "a substantial source of exposure," referring instead to "potential exposure." Days after publication and seven months after Henshaw's retirement from OSHA, he sent its science director an e-mail demanding that the warning be withdrawn and redone to express a "more balanced" view. Henshaw did not tell the career official that he had since been employed as a $350-an-hour courtroom witness on behalf of an asbestos-products firm and had testified for companies in two other asbestos lawsuits filed by auto mechanics.

In a subsequent deposition, Henshaw said he had contacted the agency to complain "as a private citizen." He also said a lawyer representing asbestos and auto firms -- who subsequently hired him as a consultant -- had contacted him about the OSHA bulletin's language.

Wainless's boss, David Ippolito, responded to Henshaw's complaint by proposing to suspend Wainless for 10 days without pay because the bulletin had not referenced an industry-financed study, which concluded that auto mechanics were typically exposed to asbestos levels below OSHA's workplace limits. Wainless had told his supervisors that the study had been disputed by other scientists.

Plans to revise the bulletin and act against Wainless were dropped after an account of the suspension proposal appeared in the Baltimore Sun. But the Labor Department maintains that the health bulletin "was not needed and could have confused the affected public," spokesman David James said recently.

Dissatisfaction With Leadership

In 2006, Henshaw was replaced by Edwin G. Foulke Jr., a South Carolina lawyer and former Bush fundraiser who spent years defending companies cited by OSHA for safety and health violations.

Foulke quickly acquired a reputation inside the Labor Department as a man who literally fell asleep on the job: Eyewitnesses said they saw him suddenly doze off at staff meetings, during teleconferences, in one-on-one briefings, at retreats involving senior deputies, on the dais at a conference in Europe, at an award ceremony for a corporation and during an interview with a candidate for deputy regional administrator.

His top aides said they rustled papers, wore attention-getting garb, pounded the table for emphasis or gently kicked his leg, all to keep him awake. But, if these tactics failed, sometimes they just continued talking as if he were awake. "We'll be sitting there and things will fall out of his hands; people will go on talking like nothing ever happened," said a career official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to a reporter.

In an interview, Foulke denied falling asleep at work, although he said he was often tired and sometimes listened with his eyes closed. His goal, he said, was to create the best agency he could, partly by putting in place "performance metrics" not previously used at OSHA.

Foulke said his senior staff appeared "pretty enthusiastic," but he acknowledged that there were grounds for tension with others. Leadership, he said, is "taking people down a path they don't want to go, until you get them to a place where they realize this is where they need to be."

A $112-an-Hour Consultant

The agency's budget and its field staff declined during the Bush administration, even as its responsibilities -- and the total number of workers -- grew.

The gap caused some inspectors to complain that they lacked adequate gear to monitor workplace chemicals and other hazards. Efficiency became a key agency buzzword and, to help improve it, Foulke arranged for OSHA to hire Randy Kimlin, an acquaintance from South Carolina, as a $112-an-hour consultant beginning in 2006.

The work was lucrative for Kimlin, a former employee of Union Carbide -- a firm that frequently clashed with OSHA -- and a former president of a Greenville-based chemical firm. For his part-time advice over a 22-month period beginning in May 2006, OSHA paid Kimlin $513,403, a salary higher than that received by Vice President Cheney, any member of Congress and Foulke himself during that period.

Kimlin was paid an additional $97,730 in reimbursements for nearly weekly flights back to South Carolina and for a hotel room on Capitol Hill, all granted under a subcontract with Washington-based TATC Consulting that was awarded without competition.

Kimlin did not return calls to his office and home. But Brian Peters, who oversaw the contract for TATC, said Kimlin's role was to help arrange staff meetings and shift OSHA from a culture of inspections to less confrontational "compliance assistance." Others at OSHA said Kimlin played a large role in day-to-day operations and personnel decisions.

The arrangement attracted criticism inside and outside the agency because Kimlin lacked experience in regulating or meeting planning. Half a dozen officials also privately questioned two retreats that he organized at a cost of at least a half-million dollars and that resulted in a 22-word change to the agency's mission. Instead of fulfilling a longstanding pledge to "assure the safety and health of America's workers," the new mission would be to "promote" safety and health, with employers "responsible" for providing safe workplaces.

Asked why the agency did not hire Kimlin as a full-time federal employee, at a lower cost, Foulke said he left that issue to others. He was, he said, just an OSHA lawyer, not a personnel specialist. Foulke also said that "in the private sector" it is common to have staff retreats to discuss mission statements.

"This is critical," Foulke said, "to the company." He paused briefly before clarifying, "to the country." Foulke resigned Nov. 9 and the next day began work at an Atlanta law firm that represents companies accused of workplace safety violations.

I couldn't say better than this:

The State of Children's Health: End of the Year Report Card

Posted December 10, 2007 by Deirdre Imus

If academic grades could gauge how well a country values and protects its children, the United States would not only receive an "F", it would be one of the lowest grades in the class. America may be a superpower, but when it comes to protecting our children's health we certainly are not keeping up with other developed nations. Not even close.

We are the richest country in the world, with access to the best in medical care.

We have government agencies and research institutions that receive trillions of dollars in federal funding (tax payer dollars) to investigate the causes and possible cures of disease. Our children are among the most vaccinated in history. One would expect America's children to be the healthiest among developed countries or at least in the top 10. In reality, the U.S. ranks near the bottom.

It is no coincidence that we continue to see a steady stream of disappointing news reports illustrating the state of children's health, a trend continuing to move in the wrong direction. None of these reports, however, express any credible explanations or sense of urgency in addressing the problems. In spite of all the trillions of dollars invested in disease specific research over the last 30 years; cancer remains the leading cause of death by disease in children, asthma has more than doubled since 1980 affecting 1 in 4 and is the leading chronic disease among American children, leukemia and brain cancer have increased 23 percent and 28 percent respectively since the 1970's, autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has increased from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 150 in less than 20 years, making ASD the fastest growing developmental disorder, 4.4 Million children have ADHD, with 2.5 million receiving prescribed medications for the disorder, 1 in 6 children has a developmental and/or behavioral disorder (ADD, speech and learning delay), 1 in 6 children are now considered overweight. Obesity has more than tripled from 5% in the 1970's to 18% today, the rate of premature births increased nearly 31 percent between 1981 and 2003, the U.S. has the second worst infant mortality among 33 industrialized nations, tied with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia (2006).

Twenty years ago, bipolar disorder was almost unheard of in children. Yet in a recent report, children and adolescents now being treated for bipolar has increased 40-fold since 1994. Bipolar is now more common than clinical depression in children.

It is widely accepted that chronic diseases and developmental disorders in children have exploded over the past thirty years. These staggering statistics foretell a public health catastrophe that is quickly and quietly robbing this county of our next generation. In its wake looms a fiscal disaster that will have a profound impact on the family unit and our nation's economic stability for decades.

According to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (July 2007), "new epidemics in chronic health conditions among children and youth will translate into major demands on public health and welfare in the coming decades". The study found "from 15 to 18 percent of children and adolescents have some sort of chronic health condition, nearly half of whom could be considered disabled."

So why are our children so sick? And is there any plan to seriously confront these diseases plaguing our children today?

We have candidates talking about protecting our national security, protecting the borders, protecting the unborn, protecting the environment, protecting animals, protecting corporations, but no one is seriously talking about protecting our country's most precious resource. Universal health care and insurance coverage for children, in of itself will not ensure better health or slow the rising statistics of childhood chronic diseases and disorders.

While substantial federal dollars have been invested in looking into genetic causes of all diseases, there is general agreement among children's health experts and the World Health Organization (WHO) that the vast majority of chronic diseases are caused by environmental exposures. Exposures that can be prevented.

In the past 50 years, within the same period our children's health has deteriorated so badly, over 15,000 new synthetic chemicals have been developed and introduced into our environment, most of them untested for toxicity.

Tobacco smoke, flame-retardants, and other chemicals known to be respiratory irritants and endocrine disruptors, combined with neurotoxins like lead, PCB's, pesticides, mercury and aluminum, are particularly dangerous to a child's well-being. Exposure to all these chemicals and heavy metals, a toxic cocktail so to speak, can have a cumulative and synergistic effect. During critical periods of development, each toxin is capable of producing a somewhat minor effect. However each assault, from a variety of toxic exposures, occurring over a period of time, can result in significant damage to a child's brain and immune system. It can take years for the deleterious affects of environmental toxins to push a child's immune system past his "toxic tipping point".

If there is any good news to report, it is children's health experts are discovering how environmental exposures are contributing to the epidemic of chronic diseases and developmental disorders in children. These experts recognize that America's children cannot wait for a slow moving, often complacent bureaucracy that fails to appreciate the dire consequences of their own failed policies and programs.

A paper published in August, The Faroes Statement: Human Health Effects of Developmental Exposure to Chemicals in Our Environment (Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology 2007) experts in the field of pediatrics, environmental health, developmental biology, toxicology, environmental chemistry, toxicology, epidemiology issued a serious and somewhat unprecedented warning. "Given the ubiquitous exposure to many environmental chemicals, there needs to be renewed efforts to prevent harm. Healthier solutions should be researched and proposed in future work. Prevention should not await definitive evidence of causality when delays in decision-making would lead to the propagation of toxic exposure and their long-term harmful consequences. Current procedures, therefore, need to be revised to address the need to protect the most vulnerable life stages through greater use of precautionary approaches to exposure reduction."

It took over 50 years for our government to seriously confront the damage caused by cigarette smoking, even though the evidence was obvious. The same can be said with asbestos, lead paint and arsenic treated wood. Many lives could have been saved if the politics of protecting corporate interests didn't continually undermine and interfere with protecting our own self-interest. This nation can no longer afford this kind of politics.

There are many competing priorities facing our country, all of them important. Nonetheless, our children should be a top priority too.

We have already lost one generation of children to debilitating chronic diseases and developmental disorders. The next generation cannot wait another decade for scientific certainty to prove the deleterious effects of unsafe chemicals we already know are hazardous to our health before we start fighting for policies and laws that will protect children. The best way to fix the health care crisis in this country is to stop causing it in first place.

If our government cannot make children's health a priority, it is up to us to demand that they do.

As a country, we can do better...we must do better. If we don't, the healthy child may be the next on the endangered species list.

By George F. Will
Sunday, October 26, 2008; B07

On Election Day, Arizonans can give the nation the gift of a good example. They can enact a measure that could shape the health-care debate that will arrest or accelerate the nation's slide into statism. Proposition 101, the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, would put the following language into Arizona's Constitution:

"Because all people should have the right to make decisions about their health care, no law shall be passed that restricts a person's freedom of choice of private health care systems or private plans of any type. No law shall interfere with a person's or entity's right to pay directly for lawful medical services, nor shall any law impose a penalty or fine, of any type, for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any particular health care system or plan."

What do those people who oppose Proposition 101 favor? Some support legislation sponsored by the Democratic leader in the state House of Representatives. It would establish a severe single-payer system, proscribing private health insurance in the state and requiring almost everyone not on Medicare to enroll in a state health-care program. Under that program, a state commission would stipulate the menu of services and medications and could even decide which hospitals could add which technologies.

Opponents of Proposition 101 are against what it would guarantee, including the right of individuals to pay directly for medical services without needing the permission of a third party. Proposition 101 would emancipate service providers from requirements that they either charge fees set by the state or charge nothing. Proposition 101 would prevent employer or individual mandates of the sort imposed in Massachusetts. That is, it would prevent "pay or play" systems, under which employers must either pay for employees' health insurance or pay into a state pool that finances insurance for them.

In the name of cost control, but actually in the service of self-serving crony semi-capitalism, some opponents of Proposition 101 want to restrict access to alternative services. These opponents include some government bureaucrats who run Arizona's Medicaid system, and some hospitals, established health insurers and physicians groups that understand that it is easier to lobby for government contracts than it is to persuade individuals to purchase this or that product.

Proposition 101's premise is: "The market is the best mechanism ever invented for efficiently allocating resources to maximize production" and "there is a connection between the freedom of the marketplace and freedom more generally." So the New York Times was told in August by Barack Obama, who, no stickler for consistency, said in 2003, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan." As an earlier occupant of the Senate seat Obama occupies -- Everett Dirksen -- said: "I live by my principles, and one of my principles is flexibility."

georgewill@washpost.com

Submitted by Robert S:

The Failure of Modern Healthcare –
Just One of the Thousands of Such Stories

We found ourselves stuck on how to explain why millions of people, both here in America and around the world, are abandoning modern allopathic medicine in favor of natural healing arts of all kinds.

The simplest way to explain it is to say that the allopathic medical monopoly has failed us. Despite all the advertised "miracles" of modern medicine, we are nation of chronically ill people and each year, 784,000 of us die prematurely using allopathic services. Had the allopathic system provided us with radiant health; services delivered in a humane, courteous and personally-responsive manner; products that actually worked and were not potentially lethal; and all this treatment was priced reasonably, none of us would be here today, literally fighting for our lives by joining the crusade for "health freedom".

We are devoting the rest of this column to a very personal eyewitness account of how the system is failing to serve us. At the end of this account, we would like you to send us your story to your story@carolyndean.com so we can tabulate the true experiences of people caught in this sick system. Our goal is to amass as many real events as we can, so we can summarize them, just as Elissa did back in 1990 as reported in our "Lies Your Dentist Is Forced To Tell You" article published last month.

With the kind permission of neurosurgeon and author, Russell Blaylock, MD, here is his story.

How Modern Medicine Killed My Brother

Earlier this month, I traveled to Monroe, La., to bury my dear older brother, Charles. Charles was not only a wonderful brother, but he was a man with a heart of gold who always put the needs of others and his family before his own. Charles, unfortunately, began smoking when he was in law school, something I warned him about repeatedly.

Approximately four months ago, I noticed that he was getting worse. He brushed it off and continued his hectic schedule. When I again visited him a month later, he was still having the hoarseness. I advised him to see someone about it. He took my advice and saw a local physician group. The doctor was actually too busy to see him and had his nurse see him. Before he went to the doctor, I told him it was critical that he have the doctor examine his vocal cords. The nurse looked in his throat, but wasn't trained to examine his vocal cords. Two more weeks passed during which his doctors assured him that it was nothing more than bronchitis. They treated him with steroids and antibiotics, but no one examined his vocal cords.

Misdiagnosis After Misdiagnosis

I pleaded with him to see an Ear, Nose and Throat doctor, but he trusted his doctor. For the next two and a half months, he was treated with steroids and antibiotics. Finally, he developed pneumonia and was admitted to the hospital, what was supposed to be one of the best hospitals in the area. At the time, I was on vacation in North Carolina. He told me the doctors told him he had a bruit in his carotid artery, a sign of atherosclerosis, and that they wanted to do an arteriogram. I advised him against it, suspecting he, in fact, had a cancer and attempting an arteriogram on someone with such poor pulmonary function would be disastrous. The arteriogram was cancelled. Still, no one had examined his vocal cords. When I arrived, I called a friend of mine I had gone to medical school with, and asked him to see Charles. Prior to this, I asked the doctor in charge of his respiratory care to add vitamins and magnesium to his IV. While he promised he would, he didn't. Every attempt to get Charles' laboratory studies was met with obstruction based on the Patient Privacy Act. He soon signed the necessary forms and finally I was able to see this closely guarded data. When I asked his doctor why the magnesium had not been added to his IV, word was sent back to me through the nurse that she had never heard of using magnesium. I sent copies of selected articles showing the immense value of magnesium on pulmonary and cardiovascular function. Still there was no response from the doctor. Not once did this doctor call me, or answer my pages.

Finally, The Diagnosis is Made

My ENT friend did a very good workup and discovered Charles had a large cancer in his left lower lung that was impinging on the nerve to his vocal cord, causing one cord to be completely paralyzed. At that point, a pulmonary physician did a bronchial biopsy and diagnosed a poorly differentiated lung cancer, with no evidence of spread. Once the diagnosis was made, an oncologist was naturally called, who wanted to start a complete course of chemotherapy drugs.

I advised my brother against it, knowing the cancer would not respond and the toxic drugs would dramatically increase his breathing difficulties, hastening his death. He took my advice. Then, a radiation oncologist suggested radiating the tumor to shrink it. I wasn't supportive of this treatment, but my brother wanted something done.

Soon afterward, he started five and a half weeks of radiation treatment. At that point, I started him on a nutrition program and he began to feel better, his breathing improved and he was able to go back to work. However, the oncologist told Charles he was losing too much weight and he needed to eat more bread, pasta and even sweets to gain weight. Charles, at the time of his diagnosis, was grossly overweight and needed to lose the weight. I told him that losing the weight would make it easier for him to breath. I had given him a copy of my book on the nutritional treatment of cancer and told him it was critical he follow the advice exactly. Unfortunately, Charles decided he didn't like the taste of the blenderized vegetables and would do what the oncologist suggested. He began to eat ice cream, cookies and other items that cancer patients should never eat. Once he finished the radiation treatments, he developed fever, severe shortness of breath and had to be admitted to the hospital.

The "Evidence Based" Physicians Take Over

Sadly, he chose a hospital that was even more rigid in its control of the patient than his previous hospital. It was a local hospital affiliated with the Louisiana State University Medical Center. Charles was admitted to the intensive care unit, where he had to be intubated and placed on a respirator.

Again, I was out of town, in fact, giving a talk at the Westin Price Conference in Washington, D.C., on nutrition. As before, I could not pry any information about my brother concerning his laboratory test, chest x-rays or the reason he was deteriorating so rapidly. His doctor refused to call me, despite numerous attempts by my sister and me to have her call.

In all my 26 years of neurosurgical practice, I have never seen a situation where a doctor treating a gravely ill patient would not discuss the case with a family member who is a physician. It was as if my brother belonged to the hospital and his physician and the family was to be kept in the dark.

Finally, I was able to speak to one of the consulting doctors, who told me my brother had a very low hemoglobin count. I asked him if he was giving him blood. After a long pause, he answered, "No." I responded, " Well, with him unable to breath, don't you think it would be a good idea to increase his oxygen-carrying capacity by giving him blood?" He mumbled in agreement. I told him that I wanted my sister and her son to give the blood and that they were in the process of doing that as we spoke. He agreed. Yet, before my sister could have the blood transferred to Charles, the doctors had already given him blood from unknown donors.

I rushed to my brother's side and found him awake, on a respirator and very frightened. He was receiving no magnesium in his IV and was getting a tube feeding-formula that contains significant doses of glutamate, something known to cause pulmonary deterioration. Again, his doctor never heard of that.

An Incredible Admission

At that point, Charles was lapsing into a coma. Still his doctor had not contacted me or communicated with me in any way. Disgusted, I told the nurse to have her come to the room and I didn't want any excuses. I asked to speak to her in private. She insisted a nurse remain with her. I told her of my absolute amazement that a treating physician would not speak to the family, especially when one of the family members was a doctor. She denied she had ever gotten a message, which was a bold-faced lie. I then told her that I wanted my brother to have certain supplements that had been shown in careful medical studies to improve lung function. She had never heard of them, but agreed to give them if her superior, the Chief of Medicine, agreed. Therefore, I gave her a stack of medical abstracts and told her to let me know if there was a problem. Within five minutes, she returned and stated that he would not agree to it and responded that the Chief of Medicine told her that he would not agree to change the treatment based on abstracts. I told her I wanted to talk with him that minute. He arrived, looking very arrogant and self-important. I decided that I would try to calmly discuss with him my brother's case and why he needed the supplements. Again, I asked for a private meeting. He wanted Charles' doctor to be present. I explained to him what I was asking for was backed up by peered-reviewed studies and that none of the supplements had ever shown any harmful side effects in any dose. In a very arrogant tone, totally unsympathetic to my concern for my brother, he stated that he only read and trusted four journals:

> Lancet
> New England Journal of Medicine
> Annals of Internal Medicine
> Journal of the American Medical Association

Shocked that anyone would admit to being so intellectually limited, I told him there were thousands of peer-reviewed medical journals, most of which were reputable. He responded that he didn't have time to read or look up additional material. What an admission! I reminded him I practiced neurosurgery for 26 years and was a hell of a lot busier than he had ever been. I also told him I had managed to write three books and 30 articles for peer-reviewed journals in addition to three chapters for medical textbooks. He had no comment. I told him I found it inconceivable that a physician holding the position of Chief of Staff in a teaching hospital would:

> Admit they read only four journals
> Didn't have time to research material that would improve a patient's care
> Would be so obstinate and filled with so much self-importance they would allow a patient to die rather than try something that had strong clinical evidence of benefit without any complications

The doctor still refused to change his mind. I pointed out to him, for 20 years there was a mountain of evidence that magnesium offered tremendous protection to the heart and brain, but because of people like him, it was only recently that magnesium has been added to the "protocol" for heart patients. I, then, reminded both of them that tens of thousands of patients died during that 20-year period because of their unwillingness to use a harmless mineral like magnesium. Then I said, " Is my brother to die because of your narrow mindedness and arrogance"? I pointedly asked him if he could see the logic, the reasoning behind what I was asking. He responded that he did up until to the point about all the people that must die because of waiting for the elite of medicine to make up their mind. I turned to the female physician and asked her the same question. She said she agreed with the logic but trusted her chief. Blind Leading the Blind.

I asked the Chief of Medicine if he would want the same treatment for his brother. He thought a minute and then said, "Yes." He again, appealed to the fact that he didn't have time to research all these things. I reminded him that his job was to do whatever was necessary to provide his patients with the best medical care, based on the latest medical evidence available no matter how much time he had to sacrifice. He could not fall back on time constraints or the fact that he trusted only four journals. The Chief of Medicine left, a lot less openly arrogant and self-assured. He was not able to give a single argument to support his intellectually bankrupt concept of medicine. It reminded me of the title of a book I had recently purchased: Intellectual Morons. He certainly fit the description. Before he left, I reminded him it was doctors like him who were the problem in modern medicine -- arrogant, condescending to patients and certain the medical care protocols established by the elitist academians were holy writ. Further, it was because of such an attitude that patients by the millions were leaving the medical care system, and seeking answers from so-called alternative medicine. Patients were fed up with having drugs and treatments shoved down their throats that only led to more misery and rarely helped their disease.

The Danger of Regimentation

The practice of medicine has changed drastically in the world, especially in this country. When I first entered the world of medicine, doctors were able to practice independently, always maintaining a close relationship between themselves, the patient and the patient's family. Creative, caring doctors could alter their care to match new developments in medicine and nutrition to the greatest benefit of their patients. Third parties such as insurance companies, government and medical elite were held at bay. Yet, the new thinking is that the practicing physician, and especially the patient, is unable to make these decisions. Instead, they are to follow a system of regimented medicine that assigns treatment protocols the physician is to blindly follow.

Elite boards appointed by medical associations, such as the American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Practice and others, design these treatment protocols and hand them down to the "ignorant automatons" making up the vast majority of treating physicians. They are to follow these regimented treatments without question and to the letter. The new breed of doctor, like my brother's doctors, fits this new pattern well. They are convinced this "cookbook" medicine is superior and their elite journals and medical associations know best. Like members of the society Aldous Huxley described in A Brave New World, they are mere cogs in the wheel of the state's machinery. They do not question the authorities or the wisdom of their decrees. They do what they are told. They are unable to think for themselves. In fact, I asked Charles' doctor, "Can you not think for yourself?" She looked at me sheepishly and said, "I just trust the Chief of Medicine." I also reminded the arrogant Chief of Medicine these elite decision-making bodies have been racked with scandals that involved financial connections to pharmaceutical companies and other medical product manufacturers. In addition, similar scandals occurred among the editorial staff of one of his favorite journals, the New England Journal of Medicine.

This collectivist regimentation of medicine will only get worse. Families are now excluded from medical care decisions, doctors do not talk to families, the entire hospital experience is shrouded in secrecy and patients have no say in their care. While more innovative doctors can alter the protocols or even reject them, soon they will not have that option. To deviate from the collectivist plan is to invite the wrath of the legal system.

Fear of Financial Ruin

Litigation pushes many physicians into following elitist protocols out of fear of financial ruin. In fact, these protocols have become the "standard of care" used by the legal system. Unfortunately, doctors, like those who killed my brother, are being turned out of medical schools all over the country like robots. They repeat the mantra of collectivism as if they thought of it themselves. To this new breed of doctors, individualism and independent thought is to be discouraged and reviled.

Dependence on elite leaders will be automatic. As an example, I recently spoke to a large group concerning the harmful effects of glutamate, explaining it is now known that glutamate, as added to foods, significantly accelerates the growth and spread of cancers. I asked the crowd when was the last time an oncologist told his or her patient to avoid MSG or foods high in glutamate. The answer, I said, was never. After the talk, a crowd gathered to ask more questions. Suddenly, I was interrupted by a young woman who identified herself as a radiation oncologist. She angrily stated, "I really took offense to your comment about oncologists not telling their patients about glutamate." I turned to her and asked, "Well, do you tell your patients to avoid glutamate?" She looked puzzled and said, "No one told us to." I asked her who this person or persons were whose job it was to provide her with this information. I, then, reminded her that I obtained this information from her oncology journals. Did she not read her own journals? Yet, this is the attitude of the modern doctor. An elitist group is in charge of disseminating all the information physicians are to know. If they do not tell them, then, in their way of thinking, the information was of no value. Of course, 10 or 20 years from now, it may be the new standard and on all the protocols.

How many cancer patients will have died during the long wait for the elitists to conclude the information was important? A million? Five million? Do they even care? In my conversation with the two physicians responsible for my brother's "care," they obviously didn't care. It is too late for my brother. But, maybe, just maybe, if enough people decide they do not care to leave their fate and that of their loved ones in the hands of these arrogant regimented physicians, something will change.

Russell L. Blaylock, M.D. Neurosurgeon
(Dr. Blaylock is author of Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, Health & Nutrition Secrets to Save Your Life, and Cancer Strategies, www.russellblaylockmd.com)

WE NEED YOUR HELP:

Dr. Blaylock's story is far from unique. We believe the system, itself, is the problem and if you have had an unsatisfactory experience with modern medicine we would like you to share it with us. Many people have problems with drugs and treatments that don't work; have undergone numerous "diagnostic" procedures that reveal nothing; have been told multiple (often mistaken) diagnoses; have been brushed aside by unresponsive doctors or other health professionals; have been unable to work with the system itself due to bureaucratic complexities; or have experienced intimidation, evasion, or out-and-out lies. Whatever the case, please tell us your story. We want to be able to tabulate, in the words of real people, what actually happens and create a body of evidence from the current body count. You do not have to give us your name.

Dr. Carolyn Dean is a medical doctor, naturopathic doctor, herbalist, acupuncturist, nutritionist, as well as a powerful health activist fighting for health freedom as president of Friends of Freedom International. Dr. Dean is the author of over a dozen health books, the latest of which is "Death By Modern Medicine".

Elissa Meininger, is Vice President of Friends of Freedom International and co-founder of the Health Freedom Action Network, a grassroots citizens' political action group. She is also a health freedom political analyst and can be heard on the natural health radio show SuperHealth, broadcast weekly on station WKY (SuperTalk AM 930) in Oklahoma City.

At a time when questions of economic imbalance are on our minds, we must then address this issue with two prior fundamental steps before we can even begin to believe we have addressed the economic issue at all. Without taking these steps the consequences are equivocally the same as what would result if a toddler suddenly put on a cap and thought that they were a baseball player before the toddler had even learned to potty train. To be efficient, we must think maturely, otherwise we are dwelling at the same difficult level of unconsciousness that has caused the problem in the first place and will thereby the problem will be perpetuated by not having the initiative to take the two steps that follow below.

The first step is complete objectivity. No healing has ever occurred, towards balance and progressive movement, without initiating complete objectivity. This means we need to be honest with what is not working. That then brings us to the next step: the initiative to attach ourselves to a larger view. Freedom never came from isolated thinking, which is the result of overly subjective attachment to emotions and beliefs of fear or limitation. We must think big, and believe in the amazing possibilities that are just around the corner. For freedom we need to begin to learn how to attach to those ideas that are broader and not be attached to the limitations, isolated thinking or subjectivity. This is prerequisite to any healing, on any level. Objectivity and comprehensive view bring order to any endeavor, personal or universal.

Next, we are dealing in our economy with an issue of balance in the resources that are available to us. This means that we need to be more efficient with what we have, and also open to the amazing ideas that have been provided by so many amazing sources of intelligent individuals who could have revolutionized this whole planet a long time ago and much quicker had we been only a smidget more open and objective. Rather, the case has sadly been that due to fear of many things, we have created the unnecessary conflicts which we would have preferred in the first place to not experience. Sharing creates abundance, greed causes lack. With progressive change we are working primarily with the difficult element of inertia.

Our medical system is a great example of inefficient use of resources. When a populace is not being educated properly on how to have health and well-being, it is only natural that we have a populace who places all the responsibility on the medical system. This is where we begin to go wrong and begin to experience the repercussions of this laziness. Well-beingness is a straight and narrow path that calls for the accountability and initiative to take those steps that are discernibly needed.

Empty calories are fed to the millions of amazingly alive creatures within our physical organism, called cells. Instead of being saturated with nutrients, they are drenched with toxic elements that are like a corrosive substance being applied to an engine. As a result we have chaos. From neglect we have chaos in the physical body. "America lives off of Dunkin Donuts" is not a motto to be proud of. This is sad! We don't understand the far-reaching effects of these empty calories. As the body becomes full of toxins and lacking what it needs to be healthy, there is pain, inflammation and the undeniable onset of disease.

Pills are administered. Surgeries are given. Radiation is prescribed. Then more pills are needed. It is a vicious cycle, without getting to the root, which is the need for education. Otherwise, out of this laziness, millions of starving individuals are dying in American soil as well as in other countries that could be fed with the trillions of wasted finances on an improperly organized medical industry. We need to simplify, not have more technical procedures and colorful pills.

Respectfully,
Zack Scott

I don't know how "real" this method of input is--I have doubts that anything will be done at all. Health insurance in America is broken. If it can be obtained at all, it is too expensive for most people that have to pay for it themselves, especially as you get older. We are of average health with no chronic problems and had to fight to be accepted. We had to accept exclusions in our policies for any mention of anything we had dealt with in our past 51 years. So we are not covered for some items--ever. And yet with a $5000 deductible for each of my family, we are having to pay over $520.00 per month for coverage for the three of us. Month after month after month. $6240 a year. And it will go up again each and every year. That's quite a chunk out of our income--money that could be spent helping to get our economy going again and saving jobs instead of lining the pockets of the insurance companies.

We would like to see some kind of Universal Health Care just like every other modern nation has even though it might not be perfect--what is? Even if it raises taxes. It would have to raise mine by over $6000 a year before I would notice. I know others that are paying more for their own coverage.

As an alternative to government Universal Health Care, insurance companies should be required to take everyone without the long, drawn-out, and frustrating underwriting process. No exclusions, no pre-existing conditions and no denials of coverage later on when you need to use the insurance because you forgot to mention some little bit of history during the underwriting. Just coverage at a capped price for everyone. Medical providers should also be regulated and capped for every procedure available.

Health insurance is broken. And it needs to be fixed. Yesterday.

Kerry Gibbons

I wish to put in a plug for energy medicine, the use of frequencies to heal the body. Every organ, gland and everything else in the body including diseased areas have their own frequencies which can be influenced by healing frequencies. Every toxin in the body can be neutrilized by a specific frequency.

The energies of all vitamins, minerals, etc. can be added to pure water and consumed easily by anyone. I am a 78 year old woman who has been healed of many ailments over the past eight or more years using only these healing frequencies.

I use kinesiology (muscle testing) to test frequencies of food, chemicals, medicines, etc. and know that genetically modified foods have NO frequencies so have no food value. We all know that pesticides on foods get ingested into bodies as many people don't clean them sufficiently. There has been a lot of evidence that vacinations can cause serious damage to little bodies and flu vacines just add more harmful chemicals to bodies.

I would go for alternative medicine any time.

Nirava Louise

I have several issues regarding healthcare. I will try to keep it short:

1. After retiring early from Intel (for health reasons), I found that it was extremely expensive to carry health insurance myself. I was lucky enough to have a sheltered employee health plan but it will only let me pay premiums on Cigna insurance. The only other choice is Cobra which is even more costly.

2. I retired from Intel due to health problems. I have been trying to get qualified for SSDI for over 2 years. I have been turned down several times but I cannot work full time any longer. If I had not had my Cigna insurance coverage from Intel, I would be completely destitute. As it is, we have lost our home due to medical bills.

3. A person pays into their insurance or into Social Security disability insurance and in the end, we don't know if it will pay out. It is like putting money in a slot machine!

Thanks,

Karen Kile

Preventative Medicine Teach-ins
Natural Self-help Methods can be used to improve health

Educational Philosophy

Each of us has the power for self-regeneration and self-healing since the cells and atoms within our bodies constantly renew themselves. Knowing this principle, we should truly be more responsible for our well-being in a medical system that does not always work for all. Instead of always looking for a sickness-based health system to take charge of our health when we are desperate, we need to possess the knowledge to manage our own well-being on an everyday basis. Possessing this confidence of self-healing power, we should not give up so much of our power and responsibility for our health to a profit-based health system.

Considering that the third reason of death in the United States is from doctor, drug and hospital-related causes, it seems to me that we all have good reason to take more responsibility in own health decisions and treatment.

Allopathic medicine, drug companies and profit-based health insurance should not be the only business model in the country. Those of us who have severe reactions to allopathic pharmaceuticals require alternative treatments that work. Qualified Naturopathic Physicians, Homeopaths, Traditional Chinese Medicine physicians, Chiropractors and other legitimate health professionals should be excluded from the health system. Today, most are not permitted even in our hospitals to help patients even when natural treatments can be of health-changing benefit!

Our healthcare should be all-inclusive so that people, with all kinds of conditions, can benefit beyond our present range of perception.

Why We need Preventative Medicine Teach-ins

Preventive teach-ins are needed so that we can find and treat problems before they turn into major illnesses, and also take care of chronic conditions. We should be encouraged to take care of ourselves in between office visits.

Teach-ins throughout every state in the United States should include the following types, safe and natural, public programs, making us our own health experts and promoting self-awareness.

Years ago I was told by an Orthopedic M.D. that I might never walk again. I was put into braces and given drugs that caused me to be gravely ill. I was on life support in the hospital four times from taking prescription drugs.

The good news is: Now, at the age of 73, I attend Jazzercise and do dance exercises with young people. Unbelievable! And it is thanks to my investment in rehabilitation and my commitment to reverse my physical dysfunction.

I do believe our governmental health system would save loads of money by educating the people in preventative medicine techniques and by being more inclusive of various alternative professional methodology.

Any future changes to Electronic Health Data Management which does not approximate true DATA MANAGEMENT is doomed to produce nothing but cost and expense.

The primary issue, in my opinion, with health data management systems, is the approach to the organization and structure of the health data being managed. In medicine, unlike any other industry, the management of the data does not follow the rules for good data management. As a result we have disjointed and fragmented, difficult to transfer patient data.

In well designed data management systems there is only a single copy of a record for a particular "thing." It does not matter whether that "thing" is a widget, a person, or a car.

In health care, where a patient will see multiple providers, each provider holds, maintains, and manages a portion of the patient's health data. Records, which exist in electronic form with one physician, are transferred to another physician as PAPER RECORDS. As a result there unless the patient is only seeing a single doctor, there is no provider who can produce a comprehensive and complete electronic medical record for a patient.

To fix this there must be a single standard medical record for a patient. Suffice it to say that this medical record should not reside with any provider or entity but in an electronic file over which the patient has the ability to grant access.

The record can exist either on a portable drive/device or online.

Digital signatures should be used to ensure authenticity, and non-repudiation of each entry to the record.

EHR systems can interface with this Health Record by reading from and writing to it. EHR vendors will be free to write their software to PRESENT the patient data in as fancy a way as they want to. They will be able to write to the record in the pre-defined way.

They structure of the record cannot be left to private industry, as we see with Google and MS today. Each will try to leverage their own BUSINESS interests in the creation of the record. This will again lead to a fractured system.

From a health care perspective, the provider will be able to see the entire patient record, WITHOUT the need to transfer records from one doctor to the next.

"The window is not the view, the window allows the view" ~ Prather

The interface is not the data, it only allows us to see the data. Tinted glasses do not change the substance of view, they only reduce the glare.

That being said, everyone knows TODAY, from a database perspective, what comprises a patient record. For example: First Name, Middle Name, Last Name, Date of birth, Sex, SSN, compose the identification of the patient.

However, if you look across multiple EHRs at how the data columns are represented (column name and length) you will see The "First Name" column as FName, FirstName, F_Name, First_Name, NameFirst or any other designation. The length of this column(number of characters) will also be wildly different.

The problem then is how do you transfer your FirstName column to another system that identifies the same column as First_Name, so that the transfer is seamless?

If however, there were a single medical record, the physician's EHR would only have to UPDATE that system in a manner that insures the integrity of the data.

The internal revenue service manages your single tax account. Yet QuickBooks, PeachTree and any other accounting system allows you to file your business and personal taxes electronically. The cost of those PROGRAMS has not increased, because the standardization means a reduction in the code that handles it.

There seems to be this apprehension about "the government" managing data...yet look around you, government manages your data every day, electricity, water, driver's licenses, property taxes, vehicle registration. Who do you think builds those systems for the government? PRIVATE INDUSTRY. But the government owns and manages it. So the retort that "private entities" can do it better is a canard. When private entities do it their goal is to perpetuate the financial interests of their companies.

What I am proposing does not require the record to be KEPT by any state. If the format is universal, an individual can carry his/her medical record around on a smart card, USB device, or host it with MS-Health or Google Health.

When I go to see the cardiologist, I present my card the cardiologist and his/her system can read the card and write to the card. The cardiologist can also make a snapshot copy of the record. When I return to my PCP and she puts the card in her system. The data entered by the Cardiologist is there.

Let me throw in another scenario. My wife, the doctor rounds at 4 hospitals in a 20 mile radius. 3 of the 4 hospitals are owned by different entities: Iasis, Banner and Catholic Hospitals. Now even though she can get online and see patient information from all the hospitals, imagine what happens when PatientA is discharged from a Banner hospital on Friday and shows up in the ER of the Iasis Hospital a week later. She now has to use TWO DIFFERENT SYSTEMS, in addition to her own, to see the patient's history over the past 3 weeks.

If there is a universal health record format, and the data is written to a single place, be it the Microsoft Health, Google Health or a USB Drive, she will be able to access all the information in one place with one system.

There are at least 20 different phone carriers in the country, yet you can buy ANY KIND of phone you want, with any carrier: iPhone, Windows Phone, VOIP, Vonage. whatever. Yet all of these phones are able to complete a call to one another irrespective of which network you are on.

Why?

Because there is a standardized protocol for making and receiving a phone call and whether you believe it or not, the government is involved in that process. Believe it or not EVERY PHONE on the market today, has to go through FCC testing, and no it does not stifle innovation because there are newer better phones being marketed every week.

George K Fahnbulleh
Solutions Architect
Lake Piso Technologies
www.lakepiso.com

RN Patient Advocates, LLC

Karen Mercereau, RN

701 Chancellar Drive
Lutz, FL 33548
www.patientadvocates.com
813-909-0480
813-293-0146
Karen@patientadvocates.com

General Company Description

Having developed the RN Patient Advocate process over six years, RNPA LLC is now positioned to conduct educational programs to certify independent RN Patient Advocates. These new Patient Advocates, experienced clinical RN's all, will become part of the National Support Network. This RN Patient Advocate National Support Network, a virtual community, will facilitate:

A. clinical support
B. continuing education programs
C. data retrieval and collection
D. patient outcome studies
E. maintenance of the internal quality assurance program
F. continued RN Patient Advocate process development.

There will be a wide range of services available to the RN Patient Advocates including marketing support as well as a business administration umbrella service which encompasses accounting, legal, and insurance services.

Mission Statement:

To empower people in their healthcare through advocacy, education and guidance through the healthcare system.

Vision Statement:

To improve healthcare in the US through the coordinated efforts of a National Network of RN Patient Advocate working cooperatively with all members of the health care team to ensure the best health care outcomes possible utilizing the full range of treatment modalities.

Business Philosophy:

A. Patient is at the center of the healthcare model
B. Healthcare is based on wellness not disease suppression
C. Health literacy teaching is based on information from medical institutions and authorities with no commercial bias
D. A focus of the development of Patient Advocate services in the United States should always be our ends, historically the best Patient Advocates through training and practice.
E. The emerging field of Patient Advocacy services requires standardization and internal Quality Assurance mechanisms to ensure the best in patient advocacy care

Executive Summary:

Health care is in crisis:
• 225,000 people die every year from medical errors; US ranks 12th of 13 countries in 16 health indicators, 20-30% of patients receive contraindicated care (JAMA) – Dr. Barbara Starfield, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health (1)

• US ranks last overall in health care quality amongst Germany, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and the US; ranks last also in Patient Safety, Patient Centeredness, Efficiency and Equity – Karen Davis, PhD. Et al; the Commonwealth Report, 2006 (2) • The World Health Organization places US health care at #37 in the world of Health Care, 2000 (3) • The Rand Institute study of Quality of Health Care, 2004, published research demonstrating that, overall, adults received only about half of the recommended levels of care for their illness (4) • The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations has recommended that all patients have an advocate: Speak Up Program, 2002 (5) • The Patient Safety in American Hospitals Study 2004 – 2006 found that in the hospitalized Medicare group alone there were almost 80,000 preventable deaths a year – the cost $8.8 billion (6)

The Nursing Shortage is at record low levels – RN average age 46.8 years (HRSA, 2004) (7). Nurses with decades of experience in all clinical settings are leaving workplaces that require arduous and physically demanding 12 hour shifts, mandated overtime and an increasingly stressful workload. • A national study cited the fact that older nurses will become increasingly scarce in the clinical area after 2010 – Peter I . Buerhaus, RN, PhD, FAAN (8) • 18.3% of RNs as of 2000 were not employed in nursing (9) • Half of currently employed RNs consider leaving patient care for reasons other than retirement (1998-2000) (10) • The expertise of these experienced clinical RNs - one of health care's greatest assets - is going to waste

Why not utilize an existing resource to solve an existing, systemic problem?

RN Patient Advocates, LLC has created the original program which does just that; it utilizes an existing resource, experienced clinical RN's, to solve one of the major problems in our health care system – the spiraling numbers of death and disability due to medical errors and poor treatment outcomes.

Health Literacy, statistically at a low level in our nation, leads to poor health care choices:
• Most people obtain much of their health information from marketing campaigns, increasingly from the pharmaceutical industry
• Health consumers lack the expertise to judge the quality of the information obtained from health care sites on the Internet

Integrative Medicine is emerging as a new medical paradigm for degenerative and chronic illness:
• Integrative medicine (The skillful integration of traditional Western medicine and complementary/alternative medicine) is rising in prominence based on solid research at leading institutions such as Johns Hopkins, Yale, Harvard and Vanderbilt and many international centers of clinical excellence; the National Institute of Health has its own National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Lacking knowledge about Integrative Medicine, people are left with few choices – those generally based on drugs and surgery - which are excellent tools, particularly in acute care situations, but do not represent the whole medicine chest
• The majority of consumers are unaware of the wealth of Integrative Medicine treatment options that are now available

Our Mission is to empower people through Advocacy, Education and Guidance through the health care system. To accomplish this, we have created an Advocacy process by which experienced clinical RN's, certified through our 6-day immersion course, can accomplish that mission.

The RN Advocacy Process© includes many facets such as direct advocacy with physicians and institutions, health literacy teaching, research into the full range of diagnostic and treatment options for the illness, guidance through the health care system, formulation of the optimal health care team, and utilization of a Medical Time Line which is synopsized from all the past medical records. The Time Line allows full communication between all members of the Health Care Team and helps to promote appropriate treatment while preventing medical errors. Preventative Medicine education is provided throughout the process. Also, people are taught how to advocate for themselves and their loved ones.

These certified RN Patient Advocates become members of the National RN Patient Advocate Support Network. This allows for clinical sharing and support, process standardization and maintenance of a Quality Assurance program, continuing education based on the RNPA's perceived needs as well as on national research, and the continued development of the RNPA process. This Network will also serve as the center for data collection and retrieval to be utilized in independently designed and administered outcome studies. The hard data from these outcome studies will demonstrate the clinical and fiscal viability of this RNPA process enabling the justification of health care insurance coverage for this service.

To ensure the business success of each independent RN Patient Advocate, we have designed a Business Administration Network that will provide the legal and accounting services necessary to run a successful private practice. This will leave the RN Patient Advocates who choose to utilize this service free to focus on their patients full-time.

The target markets are highly skilled experienced clinical nurses ready to take a leadership role in this creative new approach. People facing health care issues are the other target market. Initially, these will be people with the ability to private pay. Following the results of the outcome studies, those with health insurance will then be able to afford this service. Additionally in our second year, we will start a foundation whose mandate is to collect funds to pay for advocacy services for those who can not afford it.

The RN Patient Advocacy Program© is poised to begin training experienced clinical RNs and to initiate the National RNPA Support Network. This RNPA process has proven very successful with individual patients and their families, leading to greatly improved health care outcomes. Who better to guide individuals through their health care crises than experienced, independent clinical RNs trained in the RNPA process? Our goal is nothing less than being a prime mover in improving health care in the US. © 2008

Patient Testimonial

Your intercession with the physicians, nurses and paramedical personnel was done in a persistent, yet impressively diplomatic and professional manner. Your efforts resulted in a much more coordinated and rational treatment program and improved communication between all of the caregivers. My conviction is that you quite literally saved this patient's life. This new service that you are offering as a patient's Advocate is quite obviously greatly needed in today's medical milieu.

J.G.McGregor, MD, FACP, FAC
Tucson, Arizona

During a prolonged hospitalization and rehabilitation I experienced first hand the mental relief and comfort of having an RN Patient Advocate looking after my interests. She was tactful but assertive in dealing with the myriad of physicians and consultants. She helped to avoid serious medical errors. My family was totally dependent upon her knowledge of the medical environment and relied upon her explanations of the care I was receiving. To ensure safe, optimum care and for the peace of mind for you and your family, I would wholeheartedly recommend the services of an RN Patient Advocate.

D. Allen Tucson, AZ

An RN Patient Advocate referred a patient to me for evaluation and treatment of a very difficult medical condition with symptoms in multiple organ systems. Because of the complexity of the case, extensive testing was done and the patient was advised to make huge changes in her nutritional habits. Explanations became jumbled together in her head. The RN Patient Advocate understood the explanations the first time and was able to explain things to the patient and family until they were comfortable with their understanding. Ms. Mercereau does indeed serve as a true patient advocate and she has been a distinct pleasure to work with. Our mutual patient's care has been significantly enhanced by Ms. Mercereau's involvement. I recommend her services highly.

Martha Grout, MD, MD(H)Arizona Center for Advanced Medicine and Clinical Research
Phoenix, AZ

Following a ruptured brain aneurysm and subsequent treatment, our family was told that our Mom would never recover. She was to go to a nursing home for the rest of her life: tube fed, incontinent, barely responsive, drawn up into a fetal position and with bedsores. A friend told us about RN Patient Advocates and we contacted one immediately. Her knowledge, expertise and professionalism surpassed all that was told to us; she had my trust that she was going to help Mom come back to us. She made things happen and worked closely with a team of highly skilled Integrative Medicine physicians. Through her careful research, we learned all that could be done. Two years later, Mom is alert, attending her club meetings in the community, caring for herself with normal eating habits and is no longer incontinent. Told she would never walk, the therapy team that our Advocate put in place in coordination with Mom's physicians has accomplished it anyway: Mom is now walking! Our Advocate continues to show superb direction and leadership in staying ahead of Mom's progress and care. Without her, things would have been very different. Because of her care, Mom is "back", living in an assisted living apartment and shopping for a new condo for more independence. I like to call our Advocate our "God-send". She helped to bring Mom back to us and for that we are eternally grateful.

M. Beattie Sedona, AZ/Long Island, NY

I requested that an RN Patient Advocate assist in my care/oversight of my Aunt while I was out of town. As an RN with 28 years experience, I have a certain standard I expect from caregivers; these were sorely lacking in her current setting. My RN Patient Advocate had experience with legal nursing/healthcare issues and was a Godsend during this stressful time. With her help, my Aunt received appropriate care, was monitored on a daily basis and was relocated to another home. RN Patient Advocates fill an important niche that has been lost in our impersonal, high-tech/low touch health care system.

K. Brown, RN, PhD Tucson, AZ

RN Patient Advocates helped me through every phase of a recent surgery, made the entire process less frightening and less uncomfortable, and got me back to work in half of the expected time. My RN Patient Advocate educated me about my disease, my treatment options and helped to choose a surgeon and hospital. Her simple teaching on how I could help myself recover after the surgery and her monitoring and minimizing medications all helped me to full recovery much faster and easier than I could have imagined. I can't thank her enough.

J. Flanagan/The Flanagan CPA Group
Tucson, AZ

Finding an RN Patient Advocate has been a life-saver for us during a complicated and serious illness of our daughter. She is skilled in research and was able to make sense of 10 years of medical records – creating a Medical Time Line that can now inform all the doctors. Her skill in discovering the wide range of treatment options and explaining them to us enabled us to make informed choices for both physicians and treatment. You can count on her for accurate information. She guides you – doesn't tell you what to do. She works directly with our physicians, ensures we get all test results and understand what they mean, and helps us to develop questions to ask. In 4 months, a dire situation has become greatly improved as our daughter continues to show progress. We have further to go and will proceed with our RN Patient Advocate by our side. She has given us the most precious gift of Hope. If you have a simple or complex situation that you can not seem to get resolved than I highly recommend engaging the services of an RN Patient Advocate. We need more people like her for people to go to and say "Help"; we need a medical person to help us cut through all the red tape in the medical community.

Mr. and Mrs. Schlichting Wisconsin/Yuma, AZ

Medstick Corporation was formed 2007 by experienced health care and other allied industry professionals to provide a safe, secure, private, portable and affordable PMR/EMR (Patient Medical Record/Electronic Medical Record) for any emergency as well as assisting patient and provider in any medical need virtually anywhere in the world.

Medstick Corporation provides solutions improving the quality of health care, reduce and eliminate unnecessary costs, provide data for physicians and patients, increase patient safety, enhances productivity, and assists in the evolution of health care internationally.

Company staff is headed by our CEO who has substantial successful experience in healthcare information systems in the design, programming, implementation and marketing since the late 1960's internationally and is joined by our CTO (Chief Technical Officer) with similar experiences, our VP Technology with experience and education in Biometrics, our COO with many years experience in corporate operations and financial services, and our VP Special Marketing with 25+ years experience as a fireman and paramedic. Plus, we have two practicing physicians as advisors, one who has his own private practice and the other who is a surgeon servicing a large population.

The Need

There are over 6 million auto accidents every year in the USA alone (2007) not counting any other countries. In these there are 3 million+ that are injured and 2.5 million who are disabled, plus 114 million other emergency visits to hospitals and medical facilities, 225,000+ deaths due to complications of treatment, and $77 billion in extra costs in the USA alone.

At least 1.5 million Americans are sickened, injured or killed each year by errors in prescribing, dispensing and taking medications, the influential Institute of Medicine concluded in a major report released recently. Mistakes in giving drugs are so prevalent in hospitals that, on average, a patient will be subjected to a medication error each day he or she occupies a hospital bed, the report by a panel of experts said. The report found errors to be not only harmful and widespread, but very costly as well. The extra expense of treating drug-related injuries occurring in hospitals alone was conservatively estimated to be $3.5 billion a year (USA).

There are also over 47 million persons in the USA alone who have no health care coverages. The use of the e-MedStick© provides minimal information so they can at least be properly treated whenever any emergency occurs.

Normally, when a medical emergency strikes, the Police, Paramedics, ER, Fire, and EMS/Ambulance do not have any information available about the person they are about to treat. Not a happy situation for the person being treated and those who treat them, especially if the person being treated is unconscious, cannot speak and they have no one who can speak for them. To make matters worse, there could be a language or communication problem.

A key element is the e-MedStick© preserves the right of all persons to remain in control of their health and health care at all times.

After much research, the company has developed the portable PMR/EMR (the e-MedStick©) providing a new approach, storing all health-related information in one place. Data can include any information you feel affects your health, including data your doctor may not have, such as dietary habits, exercise routines, glucose levels (diabetic) and cardiac requirements for instance, plus power of attorney and other documents. The use of the portable e-MedStick© with its ability to store and keep safe and secure medical data enables you and your health care provider(s) to easily work together in providing the best care possible as well as for all emergencies virtually anywhere in the world.

From the perspective of professional liability, the computerized medical record poses less risk than multiple medical histories in different locations, all with different, or contradictory, information. A physician in an emergency room using the e-MedStick© can access vital data, and check a patient's allergies or prescription medications, even if the patient is unable to describe or recall his or her medical history and medications and even if the physician or medical facility do not have full computerization. The electronic record on the e-MedStick© improves patient care by ensuring correct information, such as proper medication or dosage and other data, is easily retrievable and legible.

The e-MedStick© eliminates duplicate procedures and processes, saving health care dollars, time of you the patient and your providers. Information gathered and available on the e-MedStick© gives you and your provider(s) assistance in preparation for appointments and other health care issues and planning. If you are traveling and an accident occurs, your primary care physician can be immediately contacted through the e-MedStick©.

Safe, Secure and Private: The e-MedStick© has several safety features built-in. These include should the e-MedStick© ever be lost or stolen – all you need is notify MedStick Corporation via email, by phone or go on-line and indicate that it has been lost or stolen and those attempting to use it will be locked out (They are locked out anyway as they do not have your private ID and password) . Also when information is shown from the e-MedStick© it cannot be changed nor can the database as viewed (for latest updates) be changed – only by the holder who has his own private ID and password. Data is also encrypted for security as well as a photo of the e-MedStick holder is included to eliminate possible fraud. We do not collect SSA, driver license or insurance policy numbers to reduce identity theft and other such challenges.

© Copyright 2007 - 2010. All Rights Reserved. Arizona Center for Advanced Medicine.
Serving the Phoenix metro area including Scottsdale, Mesa, Glendale, Chandler, Tempe,
Paradise Valley, Peoria, Cave Creek, Carefree, Fountain Hills, Ahwatukee, Queen Creek