Endangered species: Oregon Republicans

I find it fascinating and curious that the political parties morph under intense pressures to become organizations drifting far from their ideals.

The personality of the Republican Party that I understood and respected is simply not there now. The party lost its way while not executing the Contract with America, forgot the voters, and [worse] misjudged their power.

This situation will be further clarified in the current election cycle.

Policy and power 'seeds of distruction' are spouting in the Democratic Party, so it is an opportunity for the Republicans to shed goofy elements and shift back to the center as defined by a new crop of leaders.

• Reply 
• Post a new comment

wow!!!

• Reply 
• Post a new comment

'American Roadkill'

The leading candidates, backed by pharma and insurance, plan to keep this evil system in perpetuity.

Editorialist Nicholas Kristoff, citing the CIA World Factbook ranking the U.S. 42nd in infant mortality, laments it is a "national disgrace...that the average baby is less likely to survive in the U.S. than in Bejing or Havana" (New York Times; 1/12/05). The U.S. ranks first in amount of health care spending per person yet 37th in health care performance (World Health Organization [France: 8th in spending; 1st in performance]).

Furthermore, as the U.S. is the only industrialized country with no pharmaceutical price cap, Dr. Kenneth Liegner's testimony before the New York State Assembly Committee on Health (11/27/01) described how a 7-year-old Lyme disease patient was kept alive on expensive medication until, due to insurance company policy, "she died within one month of cessation of intravenous antibiotic treatment." Yet tragically, "Right-to-Life" proponents oppose universal health care, practicing socio-economic Darwinism in creating more American roadkill.

Intellectual Noam Chomsky explains not only does the U.S. have the most homelessness but "In fact, we always hear in the media and from politicians how there's so much welfare for the poor in the United States, but the reality is that the United States is completely off the international spectrum in this respect--we give far less than any industrialized country." More specifically: " .... the U.S. tax and transfer system creates a 28.5 percent reduction in the poverty rate, whereas the tax and transfer systems in all other industrialized countries decrease poverty rates by between 60 and 80 percent, the only exceptions being Britain, Australia and Canada, whose tax and transfer programs still reduce poverty rates by approximately 50 percent" ('Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky'; Page 370; [Chapter 10 footnote #28 @ www.understandingpower.com]).

Consider these "non-profit" health care CEO salaries buried in the 'Money' section of USA Today: Catholic Healthcare West CEO--$1 mil. + $896,000 expenses/allowances; Memorial-Sloan Kettering CEO: $2.3 mil. "with 2 surgeons making $1.6 mil. each"; Kaiser Permanente's Foundation Hospital outgoing President--$7.4 mil.; and Universal Health Services CEO--$16.2 million dollars in 2003 ('Non-profit Hospitals Top Salaries May Be Due For a Checkup'; USA Today; 9/30/2004).

Non-profit funds are procured under the guise of altruism but become organizational charity theft when used for extravagant salaries. The reasoning is that such salaries are necessary to attract leading professionals within a competitive system. But isn't that a most terrible commentary on America to say the economy demands we act as pigs with charity money?

The New York Times summarizes: "...the United States and 188 other countries signed the United Nations Millenium Declaration, a manifesto to eradicate extreme poverty, hunger and disease...the percentage of United States income going to poor countries remains near rock bottom: 0.14 percent... The test is the percentage of national income we give the poor, and on that basis this country is the stingiest in the Group of Seven industrialized nations...and the world knows it." (America the Indifferent, 12/23/04)

Just say no to Ron Paul.


Hugo Chavez/Evo Morales 2008!

• Reply 
• Post a new comment

Re; the 7-year old girl allowed to die due to cost: Conn. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal stated there is "definite bias" in IDSA (Infectious Diseases Society of America) guidelines for Lyme disease. Here is an article about the corruption involved...

Lyme disease
Blumenthal wins a review of treatment guidelines
News-Times Staff
Article Last Updated: 05/15/2008 04:03:34 AM EDT


Lyme disease is bad enough, but sometimes patients find the medical bureaucracy surrounding the disease is even worse.

So it was encouraging to see that Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and the Infectious Diseases Society of America have reached an agreement on a new review of the IDSA's guidelines for treating Lyme.

There are competing views within the medical community on how Lyme should be treated. Both sides cite research that supports their position.

The trouble is that the IDSA's guidelines are used by insurance companies to deny treatment directed by physicians who disagree with the IDSA's guidelines -- which view Lyme as a short-term condition.

This means that many patients cannot get coverage for the long-term antibiotic care prescribed by physicians who view Lyme as a chronic disease.

"It's a good way to have people denied insurance," said Maggie Shaw of Newtown's Lyme Disease Task Force. "It also puts the fear factor in doctors."

Blumenthal launched an investigation of the IDSA in 2006 for antitrust violations. That got the organization's attention, although it claims to have agreed to the guideline review to simply save the costs of going to court.

Blumenthal says he expects this review to be "fair, open and free of conflict." Let's hope that is the case.

Patients should not have to battle inflexible medical bureaucracy when confronting this debilitating disease.

• Reply 
• Post a new comment

Here is another, AP; CNN; May 3, 2008:

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Patients who believe they suffer long-term problems from Lyme disease are claiming victory over a national doctors group. The Infectious Diseases Society of America has agreed to review its guidelines, which say there's no evidence long-term antibiotics can cure "chronic Lyme" disease — or even that such a condition exists.

The agreement settles an unprecedented antitrust investigation by Connecticut's attorney general over the matter. The doctors group makes clear that current guidance for treating Lyme disease remains in place.

But that didn't stop claims of success by the attorney general and people who believe they suffer long-term effects of the tick-borne disease.

"It's a great victory for patients," said Pat Smith, president of the Lyme Disease Association, a national nonprofit group based in New Jersey. "It's time that Lyme patients got the respect they deserve."

The agreement, announced Thursday, calls for the doctors group to form a new panel of experts to review standards for treating Lyme disease. The Infectious Diseases Society says it agreed to the deal in part because the panel must be made up of doctors and scientists.

Lyme disease can be hard to diagnose with its vague, flu-like symptoms; the most obvious sign is its trademark round red rash. Usually, it's easily cured with a few weeks of antibiotics. Those not promptly treated can develop arthritis, meningitis and other serious illnesses.

About 20,000 new cases of Lyme disease are reported every year, but experts believe the annual total may be five times higher.

Connecticut leads the nation in reported cases and has been a battleground in the national debate over treatment. Lyme disease is named after the Connecticut town of Lyme, where the illness was first discovered in 1975. And the state is home to a number of people who claim they suffer long-term problems from Lyme disease — problems that many doctors are unable to confirm or treat.

The Infectious Diseases Society says it's never been proven whether these patients still have Lyme disease or something else. The group continues to defend its standards, which say short-term antibiotics are effective for nearly all patients. Long-term antibiotics are unproven and potentially dangerous, because overuse of the drugs can lead to drug-resistant infections, the society says.

"We are confident that our guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease represent the best advice that medicine currently has to offer ... and we look forward to the opportunity to put to rest any questions about them," said Dr. Donald Poretz, the society's president.

The society will consider a variety of scientific evidence and determine whether the 2006 guidelines are justified or need revision.

The guidelines are important because they discourage adequate treatment, advocates of chronic Lyme sufferers say. Perhaps just as significant is that insurance companies refuse to pay for long-term antibiotics to treat chronic Lyme.

"We are delighted with this settlement," said Diane Blanchard of Greenwich, who said she was sick with Lyme disease for 10 years before a long-term antibiotic treatment relieved her symptoms in the late 1990s.

"The IDSA guidelines are now clouded by this decision. My greatest hope is that patients will regain their right to treatment," said Blanchard, now co-president of the advocacy group Time for Lyme.

Philadelphia-based health insurer Cigna Corp. said it is reviewing the agreement to see if any changes in policies are needed. Cigna covers up to 28 days of intravenous antibiotic therapy for Lyme disease and, like many insurers, cites the Infectious Diseases Society's guidelines in its coverage plan.

• Reply 
• Post a new comment

Cigna does not pay for "repeated or prolonged" courses of antibiotics, saying they are "experimental, investigational or unproven."



Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and advocates say the agreement is the first time the medical establishment has bowed to the pressure of a potential court fight and agreed to re-evaluate care standards.



"My main goal all along has been a process that is fair, open and free of conflicts of interest," Blumenthal said.



Blumenthal said his investigation found that some of the 14 experts who approved the 2006 guidelines got consulting fees, research grants and stock ownership from drug companies and other businesses that have a stake in the treatment and diagnosis of Lyme disease.



He would not name the panel members or the companies. He said the backgrounds of the new experts looking at the guidelines will be checked for any potential conflicts.



The issue involves antitrust law, Blumenthal said, because the panel excluded some opinions and evidence that may have supported other treatments in development, including vaccines.



Blumenthal's office did not take a position on the proper treatment of the disease or whether chronic Lyme disease exists.



The Infectious Diseases Society denied any conflict of interest.



"Panel members do not stand to profit from any recommendation in the guidelines," the group said in statement. "In fact, the panel members denied themselves and their colleagues an opportunity to generate a significant amount of revenue when they recommended against expensive, repeated, long-term antibiotic therapy."

• Reply 
• Post a new comment

Off Topic.

• Reply 
• Post a new comment