Chilling Facts on the Contemporary Health Care Costs

July 21, 2009

By Padmini Arhant – Forwarding Facts Presentation by NCHC

As per the thorough, insightful and informative presentation;

FROM: The National Coalition on Health Care – NCHC Cost Fact Sheet 2009 – Thanks

Source: http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

FACTS ON HEALTH CARE COSTS:

In 2008, health care spending in the United States reached $2.4 trillion, and was projected to reach $3.1 trillion in 2012. Health care spending is projected to reach $4.3 trillion by 2016.

Total health care spending represented 17 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

Although nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.

Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.3 TRILLION in 2017, or 20 percent of GDP.

In 2008, employer health insurance premiums increased by 5.0 percent – two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,700. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,700.

Experts agree that our health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste and fraud. These problems significantly increase the cost of medical care and health insurance for employers and workers and affect the security of families.

Employer and Employee Health Insurance Costs –

Premiums for employer-based health insurance rose by 5.0 percent in 2008. In 2007, small employers saw their premiums, on average, increase 5.5 percent. Firms with less than 24 workers, experienced an increase of 6.8 percent.

The annual premium that a health insurer charges an employer for a health plan covering a family of four averaged $12,700 in 2008. Workers contributed nearly $3,400, or 12 percent more than they did in 2007.2 The annual premiums for family coverage significantly eclipsed the gross earnings for a full-time, minimum wage worker ($10,712).

Workers are now paying $1,600 more in premiums annually for family coverage than they did in 1999.

Since 1999, employment-based health insurance premiums have increased 120 percent, compared to cumulative inflation of 44 percent and cumulative wage growth of 29 percent during the same period.

Health insurance expenses are the fastest growing cost component for employers. Unless something changes dramatically, health insurance costs will overtake profits by the end of 2008.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance in the United States have been rising four times faster on average than workers’ earnings since 1999.

The average employee contribution to company-provided health insurance has increased more than 120 percent since 2000. Average out-of-pocket costs for deductibles, co-payments for medications, and co-insurance for physician and hospital visits rose 115 percent during the same period.

The percentage of Americans under age 65 whose family-level, out-of-pocket spending for health care, including health insurance, that exceeds $2,000 a year,rose from 37.3 percent in 1996 to 43.1 percent in 2003 – a 16 percent increase.

The Impact of Rising Health Care Costs

National surveys show that the primary reason people are uninsured is the high cost of health insurance coverage.

Economists have found that rising health care costs correlate to drops in health insurance coverage.

A recent study by Harvard University researchers found that the average out-of-pocket medical debt for those who filed for bankruptcy was $12,000. The study noted that 68 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. In addition, the study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses. Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem.

About 1.5 million families lose their homes to foreclosure every year due to unaffordable medical costs.

Retiring elderly couples will need $250,000 in savings just to pay for the most basic medical coverage. Many experts believe that this figure is conservative and that $300,000 may be a more realistic number.

According to a recent report, the United States has $480 billion in excess spending each year in comparison to Western European nations that have universal health insurance coverage. The costs are mainly associated with excess administrative costs and poorer quality of care.

The United States spends six times more per capita on the administration of the health care system than its peer Western European nations.”

—————————————————————————-

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Health | Comments Off on Chilling Facts on the Contemporary Health Care Costs 

Why Health Care Reform must not fail?

July 21, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

People vs. Special Interests, GOP and Conservative Democrats aka Blue Dogs

The opponents to health care reform – the conglomerate with legislators as spokespersons and the conservative media specifically a network dedicated to the hampering of national progress in every respect deserve scrutiny and appropriate response.

It’s no surprise to witness the ‘grandstanding’ against the President by the opposition retaliating to the brutal defeat in the ’06, ’08 and inevitably the 2010 elections.

Last week, Republican Senator Jim DeMint made it pretty clear why the opponents of health care reform are fighting so hard.

As he told a special interest attack group,

“If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”

Here’s how the President responded:

“Think about that. This isn’t about me. This isn’t about politics. This is about a health care system that is breaking America’s families, breaking America’s businesses and breaking America’s economy. And we can’t afford the politics of delay and defeat when it comes to health care. Not this time, not now. There are too many lives and livelihoods at stake.”

What does the devious modus operandi mean to the national interest?

In a democracy, the constituents might have elected the health care opponents in the Democratic Party and GOP (The Grand Old Party) more appropriately ‘The Grand Obstructionist Party,’ however, their allegiance clearly sworn to special interests famished for atrocious profits at the expense of national interest.

The health care industry surpasses every other sector in this context.

Such betrayal in the light of naked truth in their face prompts the nation to question the patriotism of these legislators vehemently opposed to the welfare of their electorate representing the democracy.

It’s time for America to reign in on the ideology driven idiosyncrasies of the party that appears to be determined to lead the great state like California and the resilient USA to peril. As though it’s not enough that the once thriving state and national economies now on the brink of bankruptcy due to the failed ‘so-called’ fiscal policies by the fiscal conservatives operating exclusively to benefit their own and the benefactors’ agenda.

Where were the crusaders during the Republican controlled executive, legislative and judicial branches inheriting a surplus economy in 2000 went wild on a safari to a territory called ‘Iraq’ that predominantly led to the national status quo?

Perhaps, if the ‘apparently’ concerned lawmakers and persistent critics of the President Obama then displayed similar passion and emotions through kindergarten ‘Show and Tell’ dioramas to rescue the nation from an economic disaster titled ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ by posing the relevant questions currently aimed at the health care reform such as:

1. How much is it going to cost the American taxpayers?

2. Is it self-funded or a dead weight on the taxpayers’ backs, which interestingly rested on the donkey’s back?

3. Is there an exit strategy or earmarked for a golden jubilee?

4. Any consideration for the possible if not imminent loss of lives from the Machiavellian adventure.

5. Lastly, Why should the government indulge in the oil exploration, (the real motive behind U.S. invasion of Iraq) when the private enterprise equipped to flourish through market manipulation of choice, quality and price?

Their ‘die hard’ fiscal sentiments on health care reform would be meaningful and justified.

The irony with the major hooplas on health care reform targeting costs reduction and saving lives rejected by the same ‘pro-life,’ fiscal conservatives otherwise the lobbyists funded loyalists, while each and every one of them are the proud signatories to a reckless mission viz. Iraq that bankrupted the economy besides mass production of corpses.

According to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation data – Combined Iraq and Afghanistan war costs since Fiscal Year 2001 to date – $872.6 billion, of which Iraq’s share alone to national deficit is $661.1 billion and rising, costing more than three-fifths of the proposed trillion-dollar health care overwhelmingly approved and authorized by the fiscal stalwarts.

Meanwhile the U.S. taxpayers and the businesses health care costs in the exclusively private sector run with the insurance industry dominance compared to the industrialized nations’ health care is attention worthy.

Please refer to the sequel on the health care topic literally matter to life and death.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Health | Leave a Comment 

U.S. Relations with India

July 19, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

The Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s visit to the Indian sub-continent is a topic to discuss in different context. It’s obvious that the United States engagement in Afghanistan tied with the success of the Zardari-Gilani government presumably involved in eliminating the mayhem in the northwestern region by the Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces after substantial autonomy from the less credible previous military rule of the President Pervez Musharraf.

Despite the severe domestic economic crisis, the continuation of U.S. financial and military aid to Pakistan is an enormous investment of U.S. trust and resources in the nuclear Pakistan. In return, Pakistan must deliver the long anticipated results terminating not only the major terror organizations like Al-Qaeda and Taliban but also all terror networks in its entirety constituting a menace to its own and international peace and security.

Much to the anxiety of the nuclear neighbor India and the remaining Western nations, United States role in expecting the Pakistani government to co-operate and contribute effectively in the global war against terror is crucial unlike the blind trust and blank checks policy of the Bush administration.

As stated earlier, the United States focus and priority should shift from the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the people of these socially and economically disadvantaged nations.

Although, the long overdue transformation depends on the interface with the respective governments, the United States must not squander the leverage it holds against the bureaucratic powers in both Pakistan and Afghanistan denounced for widespread corruption.

Further, given the disproportionate U.S. economic aid and troops commitment in the global cause, it’s incumbent on the international allies and every other nation affected by global terrorism to share the financial and military burden in alleviating the universal security crisis.

With respect to the emerging economic power and nuclear India’s concern over its nuclear neighbor Pakistan’s refusal and non-compliance of the international extradition treaty involving terrorists and terror networks in the Mumbai attacks last year —

The non-committal and disheartening response by the head of the State Department during the Indian press conference in Mumbai do not bode well with the world’s largest democracy in tune with the U.S. relations and pledges towards its allies particularly the closest ally Israel evidenced in the recent rhetoric such as —

“Strike against Israel will be an attack on the United States with a serious retaliation…”

To reiterate, the key representatives of the present White House and some legislators conspicuously favored to double standards are doing more harm than helping the United States in regaining the lost international solidarity and support much required in all fronts ranging from the economy, the environment, to the international security.

Unfortunately, the changing political landscape and economic developments in Asia and elsewhere ignored by the old school of thoughts indicates their ill preparedness of the reality.

The United States interest to take economic advantage of the expanding Indian middle class segment that is impressively political savvy and the U.S. demand seeking Indian input in the environmental issue possibly characterized as an ‘opportunism,’ considering the United States defense of the Zardari government’s inaction towards India’s security matter.

It would add to significant blunders in the U.S. foreign policy if the United States continues to adhere to the conventional strategy of hard line approach towards hypothetical threats yet selectively oblivious to genuine frustration based on real and proven events between the two nuclear nations in the Indian sub-continent.

Needless to state that the dysfunctional U.S. foreign policy due for drastic reform in the world view and understanding of the plight of the nations dependent on the United States to be a trustworthy partner in the mediation process of international peace and security. Otherwise, the status quo reviving the cold war era facilitating the nuclear and conventional arsenal proliferation is imminent.

Leadership thrives with fairness and equal treatment of all.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under International Politics | Leave a Comment 

Catalog of Past week Events

July 19, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

Honoring the News Media Legend – Walter Cronkite

The demise of America’s veteran newscaster/anchor and honorable Walter Cronkite created more vacuum in the news media as it did in the past year following the premature passing away of notable, honest and outspoken media host Tim Russert.

Indeed, times have changed with the world’s rapid progress in every imaginable field particularly the communications and mass media. Individuals’ performance varies according to their background and persona. Some captivate the listeners and viewers instantaneously with their unique charm and original style of presentation while others adapt to the contemporary environment.

Other characteristics like a sonorous voice as it was in the case of Mr. Cronkite, aids in the effective deliverance of important bulletins and national headlines. Nevertheless, the remarkable legacy entrenched with objectivity, clarity and conviction by the vanguard news media personalities like Walter Cronkite and Tim Russert is a national treasure for the present and the future newsmakers to cherish and follow through.

The national tribute to the contribution by Walter Cronkite is deserving and meaningful.
———————————————————————————-

U.S. Surgeon General Nominee

President Barack Obama’s choice for the important Health Care portfolio and timely nomination of the U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. Regina Benjamin is praiseworthy.

Dr. Benjamin’s impressive background in successfully dealing with life challenges is inspirational and commendable. The selfless dedication to community service by Dr. Benjamin is not only a highlight of this nomination but also speaks volume regarding human beings resolve to overcome tragedies and obstacles in life.

There is no ambivalence that Dr. Regina Benjamin is an excellent appointment for the pivotal administrative task amidst the revolutionary health care reform, a monumental milestone for the nation to achieve the targeted economic goals.
————————————————————————————

Jakarta Bombings – Indonesia

The terror attacks against the U.S. targets – The hotel groups, Marriott and the Ritz Carlton in Jakarta, Indonesia is a reminder for the international community to continue to remain alert and active in the mission to eradicate widespread terrorism around the world.

Terror groups and organizations relatively weakened but not deterred from the on-going plots and violence against the innocent lives. Whenever, terror strikes any domain treading on the path towards progress through peaceful and democratic means, the discomfort by the opponents of peace is forcefully visible.

It’s no coincidence that the terror attack followed the recent Indonesian Presidential election. It signifies the terror groups’ decision to disrupt the working democracy with the re-election of the popular Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono committed in the economic recovery and political stability of the largest Muslim nation in the world.

Indonesia, alas on the path to experiencing real freedom after the prolonged rule spanning over three decades by the authoritarian regime of the former President Suharto, natively known as Soeharto.

While the Suharto government hailed and remembered for the diverse Indonesian society’s economic growth and political stability, the brutal invasion and occupation of the vulnerable East Timor Island with the substantial support from the Western nations especially the United States eroded the hard-earned popularity of the President. Aside from the horrific history in East Timor, the overwhelming corruption charges leveled against the government finally led to the dismantling of the power.

Indonesia is on the right track in reclaiming the peace, progress and prosperity since the devastating natural disasters of 2004 Tsunami and the island’s perpetual exposure to the earth volatility in that part of the region.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Featured, Humanitarian | 1 Comment 

Saving Grace – California Fiscal Crisis

July 14, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

The beautiful Golden State pawned over obstinate leadership and legislature in Sacramento. If the minority representatives and the head of the state confined to their political dictum and ideology, the majority on their part let the myopic view of the state of affairs undermine the social challenges confronting the constituents.

There were too many opportunities aided with pragmatic solutions to resolve the ever-rising budget shortfall (previously at $24.3 billion and now increased to $26.3 billion deficit) without draconian cuts hurting the weak and the most vulnerable in the society.

Sometimes, when there is intellectual deficiency in the leadership to deal with crisis, a wise option for the authority in power is to display humility, heed to genuine concerns and adhere to remedy offered to the problems rather than a Kamikaze approach headed for a disaster. Although, the leadership ignoring sound advice implies personal egocentric satisfaction, the false notions and misguided policies rejecting the population’s misery have led to the status quo.

Sacramento could have averted California fiscal debacle back in November 2008 when the path towards the state budget appeared difficult and beckoning swift reactionary measures to reign in on the economy tumbling downhill.  Instead, the legislature and the leadership stalled action with no respect for the constitutional rule of law mandating the state budget reconciliation by a deadline. The reality being the deadlines have come and gone with no state budget in place.

To reiterate earlier statements, the embarrassing performance by the entire legislative force with the head of the state leading in this respect squandered taxpayers’ valuable resources in political bickering, finger pointing and even assigning the duty to the taxpayers/voters through Special elections on May 19, 2009.

Since Sacramento abdicated their legislative responsibility to approve a functional state budget and a rescue plan for the following year, California is in dire fiscal state with a direct impact on the national economy. The only action from Sacramento seen thus far is the sedative talks to calm anxious residents dependent on social programs and services and the rest of the population eager for the state’s economic recovery.

Contemporary politics seeks comfort in lip service rather than concrete action focused on relief to the victims.  With no end to the on-going tug ‘o war, the ruthless slashing of funds continues with respect to education, health care, environment and the overall economy wounding the present and the future of the society.

In the absence of state budget for the fiscal year, the state treasury forced to issue IOUs declined encashment by the major bailed out banks defaulting on their lending commitment during taxpayer bailout to stimulate the local and national economy. The cumulative effect of the incompetence in Sacramento obvious in the degradation of the once stellar credit rating of the Golden State possibly reduced to junk status in the near future.

As experienced by the national economy, budget financing and legislative funding for reform and economic revival depend on both revenues and savings through spending cuts. The recommendations to raise income taxes from the following sources at the bare minimum slighted when it could have adequately provided for the budget shortfall.

Tobacco and alcohol tax, Vehicle registration fee and most importantly closing loopholes for the Corporations evading state income taxes through tax havens, collecting hefty fines from the environmental polluters i.e. oil, aviation and automobile industry, overhauling of the criminal justice system viz. the state prisons absorbing enormous amount of the budget to name a few.

The administration’s cavalier approach in demolishing the society’s foundation i.e. education, health care, and small businesses…with merciless withdrawal of funds from the budget indicates governance in the barricades, the elitists out of touch with the plight of the populists.

Why California is important for the Naitonal Economic Recovery?

Source: Wikipedia.org – Thanks

Gross domestic product (GDP)

California is responsible for 13% of the United States’ gross domestic product (GDP). The state’s GDP is at about $1.7 trillion (as of 2006).

The GDP increased at an annual rate of 3.1% in the first quarter of 2005.[13]

According to the California Department of Finance, if California were an independent state, it would have had the seventh largest economy in the world.
————————————————————————————————–
California is the epicenter for Science, Technology, and Entertainment besides representing every other sector —
Finance, Manufacturing, Construction, Health, Education, Hospitality, Energy as the pioneer of Green Technology, Environment, Trade, Transportation and Utilities, Information dealing with Motion Picture Broadcasting, Publishing, Internet businesses and Telecommunications to Agriculture and Mining are some of the many core activities creating jobs and contributing to the National GDP.

The impressive growth in California during the Silicon Valley boom stunningly boosted the National GDP with the state experiencing labor capital depletion in many industries. Subsequently the profit earnings in the California technology sector from 2002 to 2007 contributed to the stock market rally with the trend continuing until date. One of the reasons for the current enlarged National Unemployment figures is the double-digit jobless rate in California and the budget crisis exacerbating the national productivity.

With the escalating job losses and the stalemate in Sacramento holding the state budget and the children’s future hostage, the national economy will further deteriorate if the California budget shortfall not met immediately.

The taxpayers’ bailout of the finance sectors and the automobile industry with no accountability or transparency deprived the states like California from receiving generous federal funding to various programs. These bailouts primarily passed to enable liquidity in lending and job protection across the nation. Again, the proof of the pudding reflected in the dismal unemployment figures arising from defaults by the finance sector withholding lending to small and medium businesses as well as the average consumers.

Such violation of trust by the finance sector has attributed to poor consumer spending adversely affecting the retail sector with a ripple effect on the entire economy.

So much for the free market integrity and reliability in turning the economy around through capitalist mechanisms, that is generating job losses rather than job creation.

California on the other hand could emerge out of the existing crisis with federal assistance and approval of $26.3 billion in borrowing at nil interest rate. The amount returned progressively through state bonds over a set period would benefit both the state and the national economy in alleviating the financial meltdown. The Federal Reserve and Treasury could lend the necessary amount to California recovery plan from the residual amounts of the previously approved financial bailouts and TARP funds returned by some Investment banks like Goldman Sachs.

Meanwhile, the citizens of the great Golden State must engage in changing the political system with efficient bipartisan legislature and leadership in Sacramento. When the programs and services restored to benefit the people of the state, the interim relief and long-term stability to the nation’s largest GDP growth state is inevitable.

If the Federal Reserve or the Treasury unable to provide any relief to California then,

Considering the grave fiscal scenario facing the state of California, the SOS from the citizens of this state require urgent action by the Congress, Senate and the White House in the swift approval of the amount – $26.3 billion. Unfortunately, any opposition to the financial aid will have serious political backlash in 2010 and 2012 elections – demonstrated by the electorate during the special elections on May 19, 2009 rejecting both political parties for their insensitivity to the crisis.

As for the head of the state – The actions or the lack thereof until now evidenced in the areas identified below –

Following the electorate dismissal in the Special elections on May 19, 2009, the Governor appointed committee has business representatives with deep pockets favoring their own agenda against the less fortunate citizens to resolve the budget crisis, confirming the authority’s allegiance to the special interests.

The disingenuous remarks on the immigration issue related to the undocumented workers without any progress in issuing drivers license that could have not only generated state revenue but also moved the matter from the back burner is yet another political gimmick.

Recently the Governor’s controversial posturing threatening to fingerprint i.e criminalize the food stamp recipients targeting the disabled, the jobless and the elderly as the means to detect alleged fraud and forgery in an effort to saving costs against above mentioned nominal tax increases is beneath the humanitarian character and deplorable on all accounts.

The opposition minority has no time left to procrastinate by wasting taxpayer dollars to defend the ‘so-called’ fiscal-responsibility when the exercise proven counterproductive.

Similarly, the ruling majority must review and revise the union based workers’ and state employees’ disproportionate employment benefits costing taxpayers excessively, more relevantly in the public safety employment, and other government jobs.

A dilemma for the California voters is, if the right pledged to the appeasement of the Corporations investing thousands of dollars in political campaigns and legislative matter, the left compensated with the Unions and Corporations’ influence on the legislative issues.

Therefore, it is in the best interest of the nation to reform private contributions in political campaigns and promote public financing to implement checks and balances apart from maintaining costs at all levels of the electoral process. Also, the open primaries in the state elections will facilitate moderate representation from the right.

Given the unacceptable partisanship creating gridlocks and a colossal failure to balance the budget, it is appropriate for the State of California to end the term of the administration and those responsible in leading the state from prosperity to an economic ruin.

Effective immediately, the countdown begins for Sacramento to follow the guidelines by sparing the education, health care, energy, environment and all the essential programs and services benefiting the people and enacting the relevant tax increases with the elimination of redundant spending in other areas.

It’s incumbent on Sacramento to finalize on the meaningful state budget in order to settle the debts to different creditors and restore the pre-recession California image and credit ratings.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Economy | Leave a Comment 

Health Care Reform

July 11, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

The U.S. Senate is reviewing the components of the much-required health care reform bill. Obviously, the free market profiteers represented by the Insurance industry, hospitals, healthcare providers, Pharmaceutical companies and the entire enterprise strongly lobbying against the public option involving federal health care. Simultaneously, a tentative agreement by the hospitals and health care providers to reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs by $155 billion over a decade has been subject to immense speculation.

The opposition minority along with the cynics and the skeptics are vigorously contesting the legislation on the pretext – ‘tax’ and ‘fiscal responsibility’, an all time favorite issue.

Since the national health care estimated to cost over trillion dollars, the debate premised on choice, costs, and quality in accordance with President Obama’s primary objective of this crucial legislation.

Therefore, it’s important to address the concerns and criticisms from the respective quarters in all three perspectives.

Choice or Option:

Evidently, the free market’s resistance via lobbyists against the federal health care confirms the unwillingness to compromise on disproportionate profits at national expense and dominance in the national health care desperately due for major overhaul, even though the opposition minority claims satisfaction with the existing system regardless of the exorbitant costs enforcing the ‘average’ millions to remain uninsured and underinsured.

Unequivocally the present health care is fabulous for the privileged few particularly the lawmakers, the corporate executives and the fortunate healthy population with health insurance in reserve for emergencies. Unfortunately, the same system is neither empathetic nor conducive for those with pre-existing illnesses or children in families with congenital medical conditions and millions simply unable to afford the ‘supposedly’ competitive state of the art health care as declared by the opposition.

The reasons offered by the opposition defending the special interests investing millions of dollars in legislative votes to oppose federal health care, do not correlate with the status quo.

Despite the misnomer that current system is inexpensive without federal health care option, the exclusively private sectors run industry unable to offer any affordable insurance for a sizable population urgently in need of health care.

The real explanation being the system superbly efficient at a premium price, cost effective although draining the national economy predominantly profit driven with an utter disregard for the ethics or economics ultimately hurting the core national base, the vulnerable majority.

It’s clear from the defiance to the public option comprising federal health care viewed as a threat to phenomenal profits by the free market saturating the system with higher costs, limited choice and substandard care through the selection and elimination process leading the other competitors to adapt to similar strategy for survival and success.

Such practices and policies have allowed the free market to override harsh realities experienced by the ailing and dying population deeply affected by the ominous system prioritizing profits over public health.

It’s no surprise that the lobbyists are enabling the selective legislators and the media with the ammunition to curb the federal health care option favoring the entire population wellness against the broken system.

Another form of public option with the co-operatives by non-profit private groups or state run system considered an alternative to the federal health care. Again, it’s not a viable course of action to compete effectively with the health care conglomerate specifically given the dismal fiscal crisis like in the state of California. Nevertheless, the irony in the firm stance against government program is intriguing with the acceptance of states’ operation while rejecting the federal management.

The federal health system foes are fostering ideas and strategies doomed to fail in an effort to prevail in the free market monopoly with some legislators seemingly complicit in the agenda not barring the conflict of interest revealed in the latest disturbing news reports against them.

In the ‘choice’ aspect, the legislators must execute the power granted by their constituents to stand for the people against special interests by enacting the federal health care in public option as an integral part of the health care legislation.

Costs or Funding:

Yet another contentious issue creating huge barriers between the people and the profit seekers supported by the partisans is the trillion dollar costs to fund the program. The self-funding proposal aimed at saving costs from the non-functional system replaced with efficient and innovative techniques along with costs reduction by health care industry should facilitate insurance for the uninsured through federal option.

Conventional wisdom and experience dictates that it’s not possible to derive the trillion dollars funding from savings alone without generating payments from accessible sources – as it is the case in the state or national deficit reduction. Hence, President Obama’s proposal to cap deductions on employee health benefits claimed by corporations is a reasonable approach to health care financing.

Further, costs distribution via nominal tax surcharge applied on avenues earning extraordinary income i.e. over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples, along with employer contribution through a fee or tax based on percentage of worker’s salary to aid health benefits should adequately solve the equation.

It’s necessary to underscore the surtax and employer contribution fee favoring the small business owners with huge savings in providing the necessary health benefits via federal health care to their labor force, a vital capital resource to survive in the competitive cash strapped economy. Something, the free market could have offered in the non-governmental environment instead stayed focused on exploiting the system with mega profits.

Of course, there is going to be outcry with political humor like – nation socialized with ‘Robin Hood’ motto, President Obama please spare us with your “Change” theme as we might all end up asking one another to spare a ‘change’ in the revolutionary health care reform.

Humor apart, the seriousness lies in the lack of robust competition to keep the costs down and provide quality care. Another opposition’s grievance against federal participation deserves attention i.e. legislators perpetually scornful towards anything to do with their own organization viz. government sponsored projects, programs and services, reaction strangely implying self-deprecation of the political power representing the people.

Interestingly though, such entities are surely elected by their constituents i.e. people in a democracy but they swear allegiance to the Corporations funneling money into their campaigns and beyond.

It’s technically a democracy electing officials to protect the interests of the free market triumphant in widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots aside from dragging the nation to insolvency as witnessed in the finance sector and automobile industry.

In the tax issue, the opposition argument targeted at equalization of tax code. What it means is while the corporations claim deductions from health care benefits to their employees, similar tax relief not extended to private individuals presumably forced to purchase health insurance under the impending plan.

Although, the presentation posed as advocating for the people, essentially it helps the Corporations selling insurance in the strictly private run industry by transferring the liability on to the government through tax credit and revolving back to the tax payer funded health insurance only benefiting the profit seeking corporations rather than the taxpayer themselves.

Clearly, there are many opportunities to provide for the long overdue national health care costs and tragically, the legislative matter politicized by the opponents in compliance with the special interests order.

Care/Quality and Quantity:

The major objection from the opposition is the apparent government rationing of the health care and subsequent effects on the quality citing examples such as the Canadian and the British National Health Care system allegedly dysfunctional because of the government engagement with emphasis on the prolonged waiting period having a direct toll on the patients diagnosed for certain medical conditions. In other words, the deterioration in quality linked to the neglect of preventive medicine proven cost effective than treatment care.

The opposition argument might be legitimate; however, it does not transcend reality.

In this context, the Insurance industry dominated free market authored the “pre-existing” illness code apart from emerging as the champion in discounting and dismissal of genuine medical conditions leading to numerous lawsuits and out-of-court settlements. Notably all of them attributed to negligence and excessive insurance company intervention as evidenced in the grueling and agonizing experiences shared by thousands of victims and health care providers through various outlets.

On several occasions, the pro-health care reformers confronted by the anti-reform movement demanding the name of an international system successfully meeting the national requirements in terms of choice, cost and care. In fact, among the many industrialized nations the Scandinavian country Sweden provides excellent national health care from preventive medicine to cure and the achievement made all possible primarily as the world’s highest taxpayers.

Other hypothesis includes the Medicare and Medicaid payments to hospitals escalating beyond the actual costs over the decade calculated on the number or quantity and not the quality. The private groups reflecting the opposition’s sentiments against the federal health care suggested ‘Pay for quality’ in the bill resembling the Obama plan pledged to promote prevention, treatment and cure.

Amidst agreements and fallouts, a common flaw detected in both groups i.e. the federal system consisting federal agencies for approval on minor to major patient care as a stopgap measure to curtail expenses from medical practices shielding itself against malpractice lawsuits and investment recovery on medical equipments through patient insurance. Any form of over-indulgence will drive the costs in this matter.

It’s best for both federal and private health care to remove bureaucracy and intrusion between patients and health care professionals with unnecessary pre-authorizations causing delay in diagnosis and cost increase. Electronic guidelines on standard medical procedures for common illnesses are an ideal cost reduction method.

Finally, as there are many other issues to address in the immediate future, the analysis with solutions in the health care topic concludes strongly recommending federal run health care as a public option competing on even keel with the private sector to accomplish the general mission – universal health coverage guaranteed to heal the frail economy and the suffering citizens.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Health | Leave a Comment 

U.S. Foreign Policy in the 20th and 21st Century

July 6, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

The United States foreign policy in the twentieth and twenty first century viewed by allies and adversaries differently depending upon the U.S. engagement viz. modus operandi in the conflicts of the affected regions.

Throughout the twentieth century, the United States direct and indirect dominant role brought peace and chaos to the world order, ominously the Cuban crisis and the infamous Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos war combined with constant interventions in the Korean Peninsula, the Americas, the Middle East, Africa as well as South and South East Asia.

With the exception of sparing the world from Nazi and fascist rule in Europe and elsewhere – a significant contribution to the birth of democracies in Japan and Western Europe,

Ironically, the subsequent U.S. foreign policy mostly enabled the rise of brutal regimes and totalitarianism particularly in the under developed, poor and impoverished parts of the world.

The colonial British dethroned by the Imperial U.S. foreign policy primarily responsible for the status quo in the Middle East, while other European and Mediterranean colonialists – France, Netherlands, Spain, Greece and Portugal leaving their trademark in Africa, Asia and the Americas.

World witnessed the emergence of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Theocracy in Iran following the overthrow of U.S. backed monarchy Shah of Iran including the predecessors and the successors in the entire Middle East aided by the contrived U.S. foreign policy driven by selective internal and external political interests focused on personal agenda.

Much to the operators’ surprise, their misguided policies led to the formation of terror organization such as Al Qaeda and the coronation of its leader Osama Bin Laden, a former Mujahedeen trained by CIA and the U.S. professional armed forces during the confrontation with the Afghanistan invaders, the former Soviet Union.

Given the track record of military aggression and perpetual violence by the profiteers representing the military industrial complex successfully causing carnage and destruction around the world up until now,

The cold war era might have curbed huge conventional and nuclear clashes between the two Superpowers in the 60’s and the 70’s but certainly facilitated the lucrative arms race specifically the nuclear arsenal between the rich and poor nations.

Late twentieth century comprising the Soviet Union disintegration along with nuclear fragmentation in that politically unstable vast region left the field open for U.S. foreign policy dominance in the world.

The United States foreign policy architects wasted no time in the invasions and occupations on the national security pretext and supporting their ‘ally’ Israel in the highly volatile Middle East or promoting ill-conceived democracies in the Western hemisphere through military coups.

The United States reputation until the 2008 Presidential election, as the leader of the free world and the Superpower tarnished because of the failed U.S. foreign policies for most part of the twentieth century and well into the twenty first century. Again, U.S blunders complemented with Iraqi invasion contributed to the neglect of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan to eliminate the strengthening Al Qaeda and Taliban forces from the northwestern Pakistani turf.

Further in the Middle East, as a defense surrogate the United States’ sworn allegiance to Israel against potential threats and attacks from Iran, Syria, Lebanon through Hezbollah, and Palestinian Gaza through Hamas is another factor for skepticism towards the ‘Western partner, USA’ among the Arab nations controlling the ‘oil’, the world’s most required natural resource.

Although, the strange predicament of U.S. surrogacy towards Israel and platonic relationship with the Arab world defended by declaring energy independence to undermine Arab stance in this matter, the reality of it is at least a decade away if not longer considering the Washington stalemate in the energy bill pending Senate approval.

The existing Israeli illegal invasion and occupation of Palestinian territories through settlements expansion must end to resolve the relic Israeli-Palestinian issue.

Meanwhile, in the Iranian political crisis and nuclear program, the recent rhetoric from the key White House representatives is not helpful as it creates unnecessary obstacles on the path towards democracy and stability in the Middle East such as Iraq and inevitably Iran.

Aside from pursuing the independent Palestinian state free of Israeli control in any form or shape and ensuring Israel’s safety and security as a sovereign state, it is paramount for Iran to free itself from the repressive theocratic regime for long lasting peace in the Middle East.

Fortunately, the current developments by the Iranian dissent galvanizing pro-reformist movements and the moderate clerics’ defiance to validate the rigged June 12 election results are optimistic and encouraging in terms of the possible democratic Iran evolving amidst reprehensible pro-democracy crackdown and human rights violation.

Any assertion by the United States proclaiming Israel’s sovereignty as a precursor for military strikes against Iranian hypothetical nuclear proliferation could be immensely detrimental to the United States, Israel, Iraq, and the remaining international security.

Why United States must refrain from controversial political posturing in an effort to defend Israel against alleged Iranian nuclear threat?

And

Why Israel should abandon any military option against Iran?

1. Firstly, Iran embroiled in the political crisis following the courageous decision by the pro-democratic Iranian population to seek twenty first century governance that guarantees fundamental human rights and economic relief with jobs, distribution of oil revenues through investment in common national growth and development.

2. Iranian theocracy fractured from the political turmoil delineating the moderate clerics from the hardliners with respect to unlawful killings, arrests and clamp down in the wake of forming the theocratic rule with their nominee Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an unpopular choice even among the
Ayatollahs representing the theocracy.

3. During the political transitioning in Iran any such statements by the United States – “Israel has a sovereign right to strike Iran’s apparent nuclear site and that the United States will not interfere in Israeli mission with the reaffirmation from the State Department that strike against Israel will be an attack against the United States” sever than serve the purpose.
———————————————————————————–

ABC’S SUNDAY TALK ON JUNE 5, 2009: “This Week” Host George Stephanopoulos

Three times, I asked Biden if the Obama Administration would stand in the way of an Israeli military strike. Three times, he repeated that Israel was free to do what it needed to do. “If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice.”

A subsequent interview with the Secretary of State – Hillary Clinton.

“CLINTON: I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is it U.S. policy now?

CLINTON: I think it is U.S. policy to the extent that we have alliances and understandings with a number of nations. They may not be formal, as it is with NATO, but I don’t think there is any doubt in anyone’s mind that, were Israel to suffer a nuclear attack by Iran, there would be retaliation.

STEPHANOPOULOS: By the United States?

CLINTON: Well, I think there would be retaliation. And I think part of what is clear is, we want to avoid a — a Middle East arms race which leads to nuclear weapons being in the possession of other countries in the Middle East, and we want to make clear that there are consequences and costs.”
————————————————————————————–
Analysis – By Padmini Arhant

President Obama’s candidacy pledged towards relentless diplomacy and peaceful negotiations in all foreign policy matters including the Middle East, assuring a dramatic shift from the Bush administration’s formula involving military action to resolve any political crisis.

The commitment reversal in the Iranian matter would deeply hurt the administration’s credibility in the Middle East as well as among the nations, the President is attempting to outreach for better international relations i.e. Russia and its allies.

United States and Israeli positions could also be misconstrued as provocative and derail the ‘behind the scenes’ progress developing in Iran. Besides fomenting fear and concern among the Iranian population already mortified from the latest violence, it could escalate tension in the neighboring Iraq adjusting to the gradual U.S. troops withdrawal from its cities with the hope of seeing complete timeline withdrawal by 2011.

United States will be officially presenting itself complicit in the catastrophic event with similar overtures not barring double standards in anything related to Israel.

Above all, the economic impact is even greater with respect to crude oil stocks superficially skyrocketing based on the speculative ramifications of Israeli strike against Iran (an OPEC member and one of the leading oil producers) on United States watch.

Moreover, Israel’s unilateral action against Iran would isolate Israel and exacerbate Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s status as a hardliner even though the Prime Minister now appearing to reconcile terms with the two states solutions vital for the Israeli-Palestinian future and,

Notwithstanding the proposed Israeli military action jeopardizing the Arab states’ recognition of Israel as a sovereign state and a viable peace partner in the Middle East.

As for the rest of the world, the terror attacks will substantially increase by default, embolden the weakened Al Qaeda in Iraq and Pakistan with vigorous recruitments through mere propaganda that U.S, and ally Israel preparing yet another military action against an Islamic nation Iran after the prolonged occupation in Iraq.

In light of the projected precarious scenarios, United States being the world leader has a moral responsibility to prioritize diplomacy and non-violence over military attacks either directly or by proxy.

It’s time for the United States to make a conscientious departure from the disastrous old ways proven counterproductive and write a new chapter in history by remaining a trustworthy partner and a reliable negotiator for all nations in the establishment of global peace.

Opportunities are rare and power guided by wisdom produce positive outcome.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

http://youtu.be/wHduddO7ZaU http://youtu.be/IWtj7kr35Ck http://youtu.be/p9QO-http://youtu.be/p9QO-xvkyRY http://youtu.be/bm92_NDdTw4 http://youtu.be/dLT8UjF7ZYY http://youtu.be/EpM49PRu5h4 http://youtu.be/dNoskHbTaOk http://youtu.be/xcfEIsX7t6A http://youtu.be/3fgpJJUGElQ

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under International Politics, Politics, United States | Leave a Comment 

July 4, Independence Day

July 5, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

July 4th is a memorable day for all Americans to cherish the freedom of choice in every respect as citizens of this great nation.

The American society not only celebrates freedom like most free nations across the world but also strives to liberate those deserving equality no matter where they belong.

The President’s inspiring call to serve humanity on this day resonates with the patriots’ decision to pledge their valuable resources that enabled the Independence Day commemorated with joy through spectacular fireworks decorating the night.

The courageous troops in harm’s way protecting the freedom rejoiced by many on this day of Independence remain in most citizens’ thoughts and prayers all year around.

American freedom is the envy of the world, however regretfully the citizens’ privacy as well as civil liberties compromised in the past and present time with the wiretapping and monitoring private citizens’ communication by NSA warrantless surveillance in the wake of national security – a scapegoat in the divisive matter.

Freedom is a precious gift not possessed by all. There are millions on earth desperately seeking choices in life and often deprived of fundamental rights. While, in the land of the free and the home of the brave – freedom sometimes taken for granted with respect to the second amendment or the fourth amendment exhibiting excessive firepower figuratively and otherwise.

In view of the status quo related to citizens’ safety and privacy, freedom exercised with care and humanitarian concern is an ideal guide to those aspiring to be free.

The happiness from the Fourth of July legacy will continue to flow beyond expectations and shared by those dependent upon the leader of the free world for life honored with independent will.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant
P.S. Please stand by for views and analysis on important issues concerning the State of California and the nation in general.

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Politics, United States | Leave a Comment 

« Previous Page