PAs for Health Freedom

Source: Boston Globe, May 21 2008

Should the government have a monopoly on medical licensing?  In a recent ruling, the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine has disciplined a Cape Cod Physician for failing to renew her medical license while she continued to provide medical consultation (without prescribing medications) to other people.  While this doctor did sign a contract with the government saying she would not “practice medicine” (which is another topic of dissent for another day), at what point does “practicing medicine” cross the line to become “illegal”?  Why does the government insist on dictating what is good for us?  While I may not agree that alternative therapy is the most beneficial treatment for a condition, is it up to my government to tell others not to promote such remedies?  

Is this the government protecting me from “dangerous” people who “may” harm me, or is this the government protecting it’s monopoly by smacking the wrists of anyone, particularly anyone with an accredited medical degree, who dares give out medical advice?

Following is a list of the top salaries among Pharma CEOs. The data was gathered by Fierce Pharma. It is enough to make you furious — or is it? I also list some celebrities’ salaries. Are you furious about these salaries, or do you admire these people?

I was at a dinner party recently where my host declared that, “in America, no one should be allowed to make over $1 M per year?” Now I know those kind of ceilings exist in some socialist countries, but I think the America most of the readers of this blog want is not one with ceilings on salaries.

Nonetheless, money can mean power. And if we have a government which is big, bulky and has too much power, it is easier to corrupt with money. So we should fear a big government which can be bought by large salaries, not the salaries.
Read the rest…

Direct from AAPA’s homepage:

All PAs and PA students are encouraged to seek ways to enhance the delivery of quality medical care in their local communities. One way is by becoming involved in national efforts like the Divided We Fail campaign.

So, who the heck is “Divided We Fail” (DWF)? They are an affiliate of AARP and have a clear agenda to establish socialized medicine. Click here to see one of their many commercials where they use children to lull your mind. Since when does the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) fight for the well-being of children anyway? Their logo and their site jargon use deceptively vague terms while they try to cull your support of socialized medicine. To quote DWF’s site,

Our leadership believes that Americans should have access to affordable, quality health care and peace of mind about long-term financial security.

I will let you read between the lines. Or better yet, visit their site.

Do you really think the AAPA should be pushing this group on our members? If not, join our group, as our numbers increase, so will our influence in the AAPA. Our goal is to keep the AAPA politically neutral.

Sources:
1) AAPA News May 30, 2008
2) Federal Election Commission
3)

This should attract our readers’ antennae. The article talks about the AAPA’s Political Action Committee (PAC). PACs are legal ways to bribe politicians to listen to you. So, who is the AAPA bribing? I thought I’d look. I went to the FEC (Federal Election Commission) website and found out EXACTLY who the AAPA PAC paid. Click here for my compiled summary of the AAPA PAC contributions by congress. I list the contributions by congress person and their party. Note : 22 Democrats and 8 Republicans received funds donated by PAs. On the FEC site you can also find out which PAs donated. The Center for Responsive Politics (at www.opensecrets.org links to the AAPA PAC info also)

So, is the AAPA PAC supporting congress people who you support? Check out the FEC or OpenSecrets.org which makes these contributions transparent. Is the AAPA PAC supporting health policy that you support?

This page at the Kaiser Foundation gives a summary and comparison table of the 2008 presidential candidates’ health care proposals. We must remember, however, that the congress proposes and votes on laws before they go to the president. In the right-hand column of this web page at Americans for Prosperity (AFP), you will find a great little application entitled “Write to Congress” . Just enter your zipcode and it will tell you all your representatives for both the central and state government and give links so you can write them. AFP is a pro-free-market, pro-limited-government group.

Source: AAPA News, May 30, 2008

The AAPA has a new project: “PAs for a Healthy America: Vote 2008” . According to the article on the same, the AAPA will be distributing campaign-style pins with the slogan at the conference. So what is behind this? The insert in this weeks News lists the “AAPA Principles for Health Care Reform” with the first being: “Access to quality, affordable, cost-effective health care for all”.

Anyone who know political keywords, knows that these all point to socialized medicine. Major players in the AAPA are using our organization to push their political agenda. Bill Leinweber, the AAPA’s new executive vice president/CEO says, “With a mission to promote quality, cost-effective, and accessible health care, and with our vision for PAs to be worldwide leaders vital to providing and improving the medical care of all people, we cannot remain silent at this time.” Translation: “PAs should vote for socialized medicine.” We disagree. But more than must disagreeing, we are offended that our national organization is taking a political stance while its members come from many political positions.

Source: Boston Globe, March 26, 2008

In 2007 Massachusetts became the first state to pass a law requiring health insurance coverage by every citizen. It’s been less than two years since this legislation took effect, and already the state government is looking to cut costs which will allow it to provide more people with more care…..for today. As stated in the article, almost 350,000 people now have some form of coverage that they did not have before the law took effect. Of these, nearly half have been signed up for government sponsored care (medicaid, medicare, etc). So, the amount of money the state is spending on health care has of course drastically increased in a very short period of time.

Rather than re-thinking whether or not they are able to provide people with coverage, the governement is instead seeking a different, and unfortunately predictable, approach: cut the cost of health care. Nevermind controlling the number of people you have promised care to–instead seek to tamper with the market until it works to your advantage. Then when costs (and quality, as we’ve learned) are rock bottom there just might be enough capital to support the people you have promised coverage…for now. Nevermind that the mean and median ages of the state is growing older, or that there are still roughly 300,000 people who haven’t signed up for coverage yet (ie it’s likely there will be at least another 100,000 people seeking government sponsored care). Forget that new technologies cost more, often equate to better, more reliable care, and often cannot thrive in a government-controlled market. Fix the market, raise taxes on things that are “bad” for us, and milk the federal government for financial support appears to be all that they can come up with for solutions.

The most important statement in this article is the last sentence: “Nobody has to give much up to expand coverage, but in controlling cost there will always be losers.” Couldn’t agree more. It would be wise for a few lawmakers to look critically at what has happened to other nation-states (Oregon, Canada, England, etc) who have sought to expand coverage by cutting costs…

Source: NYT May 3, 2008

A NYT article faults McCain for:

repeatedly suggesting that his Democratic rivals are proposing a single-payer, or even a nationalized health care system along the lines of those in countries like Canada and Britain.

The article then tries to show how Clinton & Obama are not proposing an actual single-payer system. Nonetheless, after essentially labeling McCain as a liar, the article confesses:

Some opponents — and even some supporters — of such universal health care proposals believe that they could eventually lead to something like a single-payer system.

I agree. Incrementalism towards a single-payer, full-blown, socialized health care system has been the Democrat’s self-confessed strategy for years.

The NYT then quotes this Harvard article showing how voters are divided on the Socialize Medicine issue and emphasized that the expression “socialized medicine” means different things to different people. OK, so, maybe McCain should have said, “Clinton and Obama are proposing yet another stepping-stone on the planned agenda to get us socialized medicine”? But I don’t think that sound bite would work. McCain is essentially correct about Clinton and Obama, why mince words.

Note: In the coming election, more is at stake than just our direction in Health Care — but this blog is just aimed at the discussing health freedom. Our members differ strongly on their prioritizing of issues and voting styles. Go to our Forums/Election 2008 to read & discuss these differences.

Source: May 15, 2008 AAPA News

From the article on “Clinical Resolutions on 2008 HOD Agenda:

“Genetic testing by private non-clinical companies is addressed in a resolution proposed by the Clinical and Scientific Affairs Council (CSAC). The resolution states that “AAPA believes that genetic testing for the presence of or susceptibility to disease should be available to the public only through the services of a qualified health care provider.”

My read of this statement: “The AAPA feels the public is not smart enough to be allowed a choice (free market) in who provides them with genetic information. The AAPA and other health industry stakeholders will decide what is good for people. Further, the AAPA will accept the opinion of the few PAs on the Clinical and Scientific Affairs Council’s (CSAC) as speaking for all PAs. After all, the CSAC knows better than any of us what we Americans need.”

Source: Medical Watch (for AAPA Members) May 1, 2008 (below)

MW Bias alert ! MW today subtley put down Health Savings Accounts (AKA: Consumer Driven Health Care -CDHC). The article alludes that CDHC is “pushed” by Bush administration as tax shelter for the rich. The counter quoted is put forth weakly and not the best counter.

Goodman, a supporter of CDHC, reports on a study which shows that CDHC patients were twice as likely as patients in traditional plans to ask about cost and three times as likely to choose a less expensive treatment option, and chronic patients were 20 percent more likely to follow treatment regimes carefully. (Goodman, John (2006), “Consumer Driven Health Care“, Networks Financial Institute Policy Brief, Indiana State University)

Bottom line: Costs have to be curtailed and this can be done in two ways, consumer-driven (we decide individually what we want to spend money on) or government-driven (the government curtails everyone’s health care and decides exactly what we can or can not have) — mixed model exist (as we have today) but history shows that government inevitably bureaucracies grow unchecked until economic disaster demands it).

——————————————-