Types of Urgent Care for Children

Types of Urgent Care for Children

For a parent of a sick child a children’s urgent care can be a big help, especially if you cannot get an appointment with their pediatrician that day. The sick child may need to be seen that day but is not sick enough that a run to the emergency room is necessary. These urgent care facilities for children focuses on the needs of children and are better equipped to deal with the needs of children. They often provide treatment for medical conditions like fevers, eye or ear infections, serious coughs, etc.

An urgent care facility for children is where medical personnel deliver care outside of the emergency room of the hospital. Most times it is on a “first come-first serve” walk-in basis. The hours of an urgent care varies. They can extended hours, regular business hours, and weekend hours. With extended hours this can mean being open until eight or nine in the evening. Most are open on weekends to see children that are not ill enough to go to the emergency room but cannot wait until their pediatrician opens on Monday. If it is late night then you may have no choice but go to the emergency room.

Urgent care for children has a goal, which is to give prompt care illnesses, non-life threatening illnesses and injuries, and acute injuries. Many times the nurses and physicians who work in this type of setting are more comfortable working with children and treating their illnesses and injuries than they are working with adults. When a child is hurt or sick they may be more relaxed and less frightened in the calmer environment of a children’s urgent care than in an emergency room that can be very noisy and crowed. They may also be treated more quickly because in an emergency room they work with the more serious cases first so the wait to be seen can be a long time.

It can be stressful when caring for a child that is injured or ill for a parent especially if they have to wait a long period of time in an emergency room. It can help to comfort the parent knowing that there is an urgent care for children nearby that they can take their child too to be treated by professionals who have experience working with children. Having this experience can help a physician and nurse to know how to talk to a child who is sick or injured and help them relax. This can make the visit less difficult for all involved. If the child is seriously ill or injured you should take them to an emergency room.

For additional local online slots visit topslotsite.

Who’s Paying For Health Care

Who’s Paying For Health Care?

America spent 17.3% of its gross domestic product on health care in 2009 (1). If you break that down on an individual level, we spend $7,129 per person each year on health care…more than any other country in the world (2). With 17 cents of every dollar Americans spent keeping our country healthy, it’s no wonder the government is determined to reform the system. Despite the overwhelming attention health care is getting in the media, we know very little about where that money comes from or how it makes its way into the system (and rightfully so…the way we pay for health care is insanely complex, to say the least). This convoluted system is the unfortunate result of a series of programs that attempt to control spending layered on top of one another. What follows is a systematic attempt to peel away those layers, helping you become an informed health care consumer and an incontrovertible debater when discussing “Health Care Reform.”

Who’s paying the bill?

The “bill payers” fall into three distinct buckets: individuals paying out-of-pocket, private insurance companies, and the government. We can look at these payors in two different ways: 1) How much do they pay and 2) How many people do they pay for?

The majority of individuals in America are insured by private insurance companies via their employers, followed second by the government. These two sources of payment combined account for close to 80% of the funding for health care. The “Out-of-Pocket” payers fall into the uninsured as they have chosen to carry the risk of medical expense independently. When we look at the amount of money each of these groups spends on health care annually, the pie shifts dramatically.

The government currently pays for 46% of national health care expenditures. How is that possible? This will make much more sense when we examine each of the payors individually.

Understanding the Payors

Out-of-Pocket

A select portion of the population chooses to carry the risk of medical expenses themselves rather than buying into an insurance plan. This group tends to be younger and healthier than insured patients and, as such, accesses medical care much less frequently. Because this group has to pay for all incurred costs, they also tend to be much more discriminating in how they access the system. The result is that patients (now more appropriately termed “consumers”) comparison shop for tests and elective procedures and wait longer before seeking medical attention. The payment method for this group is simple: the doctors and hospitals charge set fees for their services and the patient pays that amount directly to the doctor/hospital.

Private Insurance

This is where the whole system gets a lot more complicated. Private insurance is purchased either individually or is provided by employers (most people get it through their employer as we mentioned). When it comes to private insurance, there are two main types: Fee-for-Service insurers and Managed Care insurers. These two groups approach paying for care very differently.

Fee-for-Service:

This group makes it relatively simple (believe it or not). The employer or individual buys a health plan from a private insurance company with a defined set of benefits. This benefit package will also have what is called a deductible (an amount the patient/individual must pay for their health care services before their insurance pays anything). Once the deductible amount is met, the health plan pays the fees for services provided throughout the health care system. Often, they will pay a maximum fee for a service (say $100 for an x-ray). The plan will require the individual to pay a copayment (a sharing of the cost between the health plan and the individual). A typical industry standard is an 80/20 split of the payment, so in the case of the $100 x-ray, the health plan would pay $80 and the patient would pay $20…remember those annoying medical bills stating your insurance did not cover all the charges? This is where they come from. Another downside of this model is that health care providers are both financially incentivized and legally bound to perform more tests and procedures as they are paid additional fees for each of these or are held legally accountable for not ordering the tests when things go wrong (called “CYA or “Cover You’re A**” medicine). If ordering more tests provided you with more legal protection and more compensation, wouldn’t you order anything justifiable? Can we say misalignment of incentives?

Managed Care:

Now it gets crazy. Managed care insurers pay for care while also “managing” the care they pay for (very clever name, right). Managed care is defined as “a set of techniques used by or on behalf of purchasers of health care benefits to manage health care costs by influencing patient care decision making through case-by-case assessments of the appropriateness of care prior to its provision” (2). Yep, insurers make medical decisions on your behalf (sound as scary to you as it does to us?). The original idea was driven by a desire by employers, insurance companies, and the public to control soaring health care costs. Doesn’t seem to be working quite yet. Managed care groups either provide medical care directly or contract with a select group of health care providers. These insurers are further subdivided based on their own personal management styles. You may be familiar with many of these sub-types as you’ve had to choose between then when selecting your insurance.

Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) / Exclusive Provider Organization (EPO):This is the closet managed care gets to the Fee-for-Service model with many of the same characteristics as a Fee-for-Service plan like deductibles and copayments. PPO’s & EPO’s contract with a set list of providers (we’re all familiar with these lists) with whom they have negotiated set (read discounted) fees for care. Yes, individual doctors have to charge less for their services if they want to see patients with these insurance plans. An EPO has a smaller and more strictly regulated list of physicians than a PPO but are otherwise the same. PPO’s control costs by requiring preauthorization for many services and second opinions for major procedures. All of this aside, many consumers feel that they have the greatest amount of autonomy and flexibility with PPO’s.
Health Management Organization (HMO): HMO’s combine insurance with health care delivery. This model will not have deductibles but will have copayments. In an HMO, the organization hires doctors to provide care and either builds its own hospital or contracts for the services of a hospital within the community. In this model the doctor works for the insurance provider directly (aka a Staff Model HMO). Kaiser Permanente is an example of a very large HMO that we’ve heard mentioned frequently during the recent debates. Since the company paying the bill is also providing the care, HMO’s heavily emphasize preventive medicine and primary care (enter the Kaiser “Thrive” campaign). The healthier you are, the more money the HMO saves. The HMO’s emphasis on keeping patients healthy is commendable as this is the only model to do so, however, with complex, lifelong, or advanced diseases, they are incentivized to provide the minimum amount of care necessary to reduce costs. It is with these conditions that we hear the horror stories of insufficient care. This being said, physicians in HMO settings continue to practice medicine as they feel is needed to best care for their patients despite the incentives to reduce costs inherent in the system (recall that physicians are often salaried in HMO’s and have no incentive to order more or less tests).

The Government

The U.S. Government pays for health care in a variety of ways depending on whom they are paying for. The government, through a number of different programs, provides insurance to individuals over 65 years of age, people of any age with permanent kidney failure, certain disabled people under 65, the military, military veterans, federal employees, children of low-income families, and, most interestingly, prisoners. It also has the same characteristics as a Fee-for-Service plan, with deductibles and copayments. As you would imagine, the majority of these populations are very expensive to cover medically. While the government only insures 28% of the American population, they are paying for 46% of all care provided. The populations covered by the government are amongst the sickest and most medically needy in America resulting in this discrepancy between number of individuals insured and cost of care.

The largest and most well-known government programs are Medicare and Medicaid. Let’s take a look at these individually:

Medicare:

The Medicare program currently covers 42.5 million Americans. To qualify for Medicare you must meet one of the following criteria:

Over 65 years of age
Permanent kidney failure
Meet certain disability requirements

So you meet the criteria…what do you get? Medicare comes in 4 parts (Part A-D), some of which are free and some of which you have to pay for. You’ve probably heard of the various parts over the years thanks to CNN (remember the commotion about the Part D drug benefits during the Bush administration?) but we’ll give you a quick refresher just in case.

Part A (Hospital Insurance): This part of Medicare is free and covers any inpatient and outpatient hospital care the patient may need (only for a set number of days, however, with the added bonus of copayments and deductibles…apparently there really is no such thing as a free lunch).
Part B (Medical Insurance): This part, which you must purchase, covers physicians’ services, and selected other health care services and supplies that are not covered by Part A. What does it cost? The Part B premium for 2009 ranged from $96.40 to $308.30 per month depending on your household income.
Part C (Managed Care): This part, called Medicare Advantage, is a private insurance plan that provides all of the coverage provided in Parts A and B and must cover medically necessary services. Part C replaces Parts A & B. All private insurers that want to provide Part C coverage must meet certain criteria set forth by the government. Your care will also be managed much like the HMO plans previously discussed.
Part D (Prescription Drug Plans): Part D covers prescription drugs and costs $20 to $40 per month for those who chose to enroll.

Ok, now how does Medicare pay for everything? Hospitals are paid predetermined amounts of money per admission or per outpatient procedure for services provided to Medicare patients. These predetermined amounts are based upon over 470 diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) or Ambulatory Payment Classifications (APC’s) rather than the actual cost of the care rendered (interesting way to peg hospital reimbursement…especially when the Harvard economist who developed the DRG system openly disagrees with its use for this purpose). The cherry on top of the irrational reimbursement system is that the amount of money assigned to each DRG is not the same for each hospital. Totally logical (can you sense our sarcasm?). The figure is based on a formula that takes into account the type of service, the type of hospital, and the location of the hospital. This may sound logical but often times this system fails.

Medicaid:

Medicaid is a jointly funded (funded by both federal and state governments) health insurance program for low-income families. Eligibility rules vary from state to state and factors in age, pregnancy, disability, income and resources. Poverty alone does not qualify an individual for Medicaid (there is currently no government-provided insurance for the American poor…despite the fact that almost all first world countries have such a system…enter the current health care debate) but is a significant factor in Medicaid eligibility. Each state operates its own Medicaid program but must adhere to certain federal guidelines to receive matching federal funds (you may be familiar with California’s MediCal, Massachusetts’ MassHealth and Oregon’s Oregon Health Plan due to their recent media coverage). Medicaid payments currently assist nearly 60 percent of all nursing home residents and about 37 percent of all childbirths in the United States.

How are the bills paid?

We now understand who is paying the bill but we have yet to cover how those bills are paid. There are two broad divisions of arrangements for paying for and delivering health care: fee-for-service care and prepaid care.

Fee-for-Service

As we mentioned briefly while discussing PPO’s, in a fee-for-service structure, consumers select a provider, receive care (a.k.a. “service”) from the provider, and incur expenses (a.k.a. “a fee”) for the care. Deductibles and copayments are also required as previously discussed. Pretty simple. The physician is then reimbursed for their services in part by the insurer (i.e. a private insurance company or the government) and in part by the patient, who is responsible for the balance unpaid by the insurer (the return of the unanticipated medical bill despite your overpriced insurance). Again, the major downfall of the fee-for-service approach is that medical professionals are incentivized to provide services (and by this we mean any and all services they can legally request or must request to be protected legally), some of which may be nonessential, to increase their revenue and/or “C.Y.A.” (revenue that has steadily decreased as insurance companies continue to lower the amount they pay medical professionals for their services).

Fee Schedule

A fee schedule operates in the same way that Fee-for-Service does with one exception: instead of using the “usual, customary, and reasonable” amount to reimburse medical professionals, states set fees to be paid for specific procedures and services. The reimbursement is very low ($.10-.15 on the dollar) and barely covers the actual direct cost of providing the care. Physicians may chose to opt into the plan or not (starting to see why a doctor might not be so excited about this plan?). Would you sign up to be paid 10 cents for every dollar you charged for your work? Try the insurance reimbursement approach next time you go out to eat. We’ll come bail you out of the Big House if things go awry. What happens when the insurance system does this? You get the Wal-Mart approach to medicine (high volume, low quality). Not the kind of heath care we recommend.

Pre-Paid

Pre-paid health care? Like a phone card? Not exactly–but close. The pre-paid system evolved out of the insurance company’s desire to share its risk ( a.k.a “pooled risk”) with health care providers. Essentially, they wanted the doctors to have some skin in the game. In the pre-paid system, insurers make arrangements with health care providers to provide agreed-upon covered health care services to a given population of consumers for a (usually discounted) set price-the per-person premium fee-over a particular time period. What does that mean? It means that Dr. Bob gets paid, say, $30 per month to take care of Joe the Plumber including his blood work and x-rays. If Dr. Bob spends less than that caring for Joe, he makes money. If Joe is sick every month and needs lots of tests and follow-up visits, Dr. Bob could lose money caring for Joe. The set monthly fee paid to the doctor for taking care of a patient is set up on a per-member, per-month (PMPM) rate called a “capitated fee.” The provider receives the capitated fee per enrollee regardless of whether the enrollee uses health care services and regardless of the quality of services provided (not a good thing in our book). Theoretically, providers should become more prudent and subsequently provide services in a more cost effective manner because they are bearing some of the risk. Often times, however, less care is provided than is needed in hopes of saving money and increasing profits. In addition, physicians are incentivized to cherry pick the youngest and healthiest patients because these patients typically require less care (i.e. they are cheaper to keep healthy). We like that doctors are encouraged to keep patients healthy but we have to worry about the ways in which they are being encouraged to reduce costs (as little care as possible?). Again, the incentive system falls short and encourages providers to act unethically.

The Take Home Message:

Health Care in the United States today is complex and messy at best. The layers on top of layers of failed attempts to correct the system continue to encourage the wrong behavior in both patients (out of fear of medical bills) and providers (out of fear of bankruptcy). We have yet to provide every American citizen with medical care (something that goes without saying in most 1st World countries…even Cuba has it!). We spend more money on caring for our citizens than any country in the world yet we continue to lag behind in terms of national health outcomes. We think it’s safe to say that we’re not getting the best bang for our buck. The ultimate solution? We wish we knew. Only time will tell where the system goes from here. Our goal: to help you better understand the system as it stands today in hopes of developing a more effective, efficient, and comprehensive system for the future. Are you with us?

Health Care Reform is Not Healthy

Health Care Reform is Not Healthy

HEALTH CARE REFORM IS NOT HEALTHY!

LET’S CALL IT WHAT IT Is – HEALTH INSURANCE MONEY ALLOCATION AND RE-DISTRICTING

Health insurance premiums are driven by the success or failure of actual health recovery maintenance and the costs required to deliver of service. Harris L. Coulter, Ph.D., of Washington, DC, and editor of the 8th edition of the HPUS,is an internationally renowned medical historian and author of over 30 books and essays, which include: THE DIVIDED LEGACY, a four volume epochal history of medicine, which covers its origins to present day.

“Society today is paying a heavy price in disease and death for the monopoly granted the medical profession in the 1920’s. In fact, the situation peculiarly resembles that of the 1830s when physicians relied on bloodletting, mercurial medicines, and quinine, even though knowing them to be intrinsically harmful. And precisely the same arguments were made in defense of these medicines as are employed today, namely, that the benefits outweigh the risks. In truth, the benefits accrue to the physician, while the patient runs the risks.”-Harris Coulter, Ph.D., (Divided Legacy Vol 3)

There is no question we need reform in the areas of disease elimination improvements in Health, better delivery of health care when it is needed and health insurance parity. Personally, am all for reform, but let those reforms ring with the clarity of Truth and illuminate our way through the fog obfuscation.

Overall chemo-therapy and radiation are documented to be an absolute failure in the so-called war against cancer. The long-term survival rate of cancer patients using orthodox therapies remains abysmal and the statistical reportage is obfuscated.

Refer to: New England Journal of Medicine, “Progress Against Cancer,” May 8, 1986 by John C. Bailar, III and Elaine M. Smith, and a ten-year follow-up “The War on Cancer” which appeared in Lancet, May 18th, 1996, by Michael B. Spoorn. Therein is published in leading medical journals, but they remain as the only therapies and pharmaceutical companies enjoy federal mandate.
Stated simply you cannot poison a sick person well.

HEALTH CARE REFORM is a meme used to numb the mind and sway political process but has little or nothing to do with health and certainly is neither, reform in the ways the public perceives, nor what they dearly need.

Merely by changing who and how much they profit for health services is only a small fraction of the underlying problem and ultimately it’s you who pay. Current Congressional debates will not offer true reform of our systemic disease CARE, but strengthen insurance profits and control.

The fruit of the healthcare tree, while certainly abundant, is altogether rotten, because the roots are corrupted by disease. If the Food and Drug Administration which regulates both FOOD and drugs while having far reaching powers that are beyond the Constitution of the United States of America, is powerless to effectuate the genuine change required to modify the so-called health industry.

Nor can the FDA provide the reforms by its far reaching power and control, then how can we expect it to come from mandates from an under educated over lobbied congress?

Give credit where due, the FDA has been effective in causing millions of tones of ground meat and spinach. A little too late perhaps as the FDA has done nothing to stop chemical companies from pouring oceans of deadly toxic, and known carcinogens on our crops.

“Water and air, the two essential fluids on which all life depends, have become global garbage cans” ~ Jacques Cousteau

HOW CAN YOU HAVE HEALTH IF WE DON’T HAVE CLEAN WATER AND AIR?

We must stop poisoning our earth with unnecessary toxic chemicals, which leaches out the elements and minerals building blocks of the cells of our bodies, and support and teach the farmers on bio-dynamic farming.

Why is there no respect for and replication of how the Hunzas and several other tribes on earth, wholive to be well over 120, and disease free.

These tribes drink the water which comes off of the slow grinding of the glacier across mountain terrain and gives minute quantities of every element and every mineral. Their cells have
access to all the natural building blocks of life and therefore remain impervious to invasion and disease.

Health and Old Age Places with High Longevity: Hunza Pakistan the area of Hunza in Pakistan which has a high level of longevity. A Guide to Shangri-La: The Leading Longevity Sites on Earth

For Americans and the world at large where the crop land is awash in chemicals the minerals and elements are leached out of the soil and the roots of our food crops are have no way to chelate them so that we can digest them into our bodies.

What follows is a well known symptom called pica, and we are constantly looking for something to eat to satisfy the hunger of the cells and this leads to obesity and disease on a national scale.

There are solutions, but the FOOD administration, has done nothing to listen to, study, implement, nor promote the use of Bio-Dynamic Farming, which is proven to produce greater volumes of crops far healthier and do not poison our water aquifers.

One fairly recent proactive move; the FDA and the FTC have enforced the little known Federal Law under USC Title 21 Part 56, INFORMED CONSENT. This activity is evidenced by the too frequent drug commercials and advertisements. To name one example the anti depressant drug, ABILIFY, is known to cause death and suicide.

To our detriment and demise, the FDA has a tunnel vision partisan perspective and always reactive, rarely proactive when a patient actually dies from using an FDA approved drug, they routinely avoid any blame and state “there is no conclusive evidence to prove it was because of the drug.” No drug company is ever charged with a crime and no executives, nor doctors, are criminally charged for manufacturing, nor for prescribing the drugs.

WHY? Because the drugs are FDA approved so it would mean they are culpable.

However, when a substance derived and used by another Healing Art, i.e. Homeopathy, is found to be highly effective in combating and eliminating a disease such as cancer, or reversing the side effects of AIDS, a stroke, or Cystic Fibrosis, to name a few, the FDA routinely states there is no scientific evidence to support the claims moves swiftly to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.

We must continue to strengthen the education of the public on sound fundamentals of health maintenance.

We must allow for access and coverage to all branches of the Healing Arts. This is known as the ECLECTIC. The allopathic cartel are not the arbiters of truth, nor have they proven to be honorable stewards, nor have they provided viable solutions where other forms of healing arts have been successful, in some cases thousands of years.

THE PROBLEM

The problem is that over the past 67 years, a Federal Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, created in 1938 as an agency to ensure that Food, Drugs and Cosmetics moving in interstate commerce, were pure, unadulterated, contained what was stated on the label and safe for human consumption.

Over the years the FDA has undergone a metamorphosis and has become a threat to the civil liberties and public health of Americans, as well as added incredibly to the cost of the products it regulates.

The FDA has a long history of using the resources of the agency to conduct Gestapo type raids on medical clinics, terrorizing patients, staff and practitioners, seizing quantities of vitamins, manuals and harmless natural products, issues completely inaccurate, indeed, deliberately mendacious publicity releases slandering practitioners, nutritional products and innovative drugs and has so far departed from the purposes for which it was created as to become a menace to both the public’s health and their civil liberties.

Under 80 or more years of Allopathic domination, the standardized American health care system is unable to:

(1)Control the resurgence of Tuberculosis in the country;
(2)Control the rising rate of Cancer deaths;
(3)Control the rising rate of coronary artery deaths;
(4)Lower the infant mortality rate;
(5)Find an effective cure for AIDS.

There are available answers to all these deficiencies, but none of them are embraced in Allopathic Doctrine.

The question presented is, if there is any legal control over this vast agency and any way citizens can take legal action to cause the agency to be brought under control and be forced to comport itself in accordance with the intent of Congress in creating it, and the additional question of whether or not citizens who have been harassed by its Ultra Vires activities may sue for damages or other relief.

If such legal action is possible, is such legal action the best, or the sole means which can or should be employed to bring the agency under control.

A further question may be what or who is responsible for the agency getting out of control and what, if anything, can be done to ensure that the agency does not get out of control in the future and once again become a menace to society.

ANALYSIS

The agency in question, the Food and Drug Administration, is an out of control bureaucracy, undertaking to perform some proper regulatory functions but devoting many of its resources to illicit functions not contained in its enabling legislation and not permissible under the constitution.

The agency [which was] directed by Commissioner David Kessler, M.D, JD, who assumed the position after the enforced resignation of Joe Young, PhD, has done little to change its behavior except put on a fresh face from time to time.

An investigation revealed widespread corruption with many officials, taking large bribes, not to mention every member of Congress who are heavily lobbied by industries it was supposed to regulate, and the entire agency was demoralized and ineffective.

The agency has openly and notoriously formed “partnership” with private trade associations and special interest groups for the purpose of aiding and abetting non-price predation in the health care market.

The agency has lawful jurisdiction over some Foods, Drugs and medical devices which are in interstate commerce and has no jurisdiction over the practice of medicine or other healing professions.

Despite this rather clear distinction, the agency repeatedly attempts to interfere with health care practitioners by means of its enforcement powers and by liaison with state regulatory agencies, and by conducting Gestapo type raids on the offices and clinics of health care practitioners who practice in Schools of Practice other than the Allopathic School and by attempting to suppress the use of techniques of healing and of products for use in health care which are not within its regulatory jurisdiction.

THE BUREAUCRATIC ANTI-COMPETITIVE CAMPAIGN
WHICH POSSIBLY INADVERTENTLY or INTENTIONALLY CREATES GENOCIDE

This claim is born of deliberate suppression of health technologies which are non-toxic, effective and inexpensive; to name only a few in critical areas, these include:

I. CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES
EDTA Chelation – Adrenal Cortical Extract

II. STROKE PREVENTION AND REHABILITATION
Oxidative Therapies / Hyperbaric Chamber / Ozone
EDTA Chelation
Human Growth Hormone

III. CANCER AND AIDS
IAT, Laetrile, L-Arginine, Black & Yellow Salves, Gerson Therapy, 714-X, Homeotherapeutics, Krebiozen, Essiac, Immunostim, anti-neoplastin, Hoxey, Glixoxide, Revicci Therapies and many others, too numerous to mention here.

THE STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES INVOLVED IN ANTICOMPETITIVE ACTIVITY

California (most active)

Department of Consumer Affairs
State Board of Medicine
State Board of Dental examiners
State Board of Osteopathic Examiners
State Board of Chiropractic Examiners
Acupuncture Committee
Food and Drug Branch
Attorney General’s Office
San Diego City Attorney’s Office

Other States (Generic)
State Board of Medical Examiners
State Board of Dental Examiners
Attorney General’s Office

Private Organizations Involved
Pharmaceutical Advertising Council
National Council Against Health Fraud (and affiliated organizations)
National Federation of State Boards of Medical Examiners

Administrative Agencies
NCI – National Cancer Institute
CDC – Centers for Disease Control
FDA – Food and Drug Administration
NIH – National Institutes of Health

Private Organizations
American Heart Association
American Cancer Society
Memorial Sloan Kettering Institute
Mayo Clinic
American College of Allergy
Roswell, et al

In HEALTH UNITED STATES, an annual publication by the federal government, our national death rate from cancer is approximately 2,500,000 people per year and the rate is rising. Assuming a cost of $80,000 to $160,000 per person over the last 20 years, that figure represents $200,000,000 to $370,000,000 per year and 50,000,000 lives, or $4 TRILLION to $7.5 TRILLION dollars funneled from our collective economy into the hands of the medical pharmaceutical cartel. Is it any wonder, then, why we cannot find a cure?

In addition One of the first targeted, the FDA, or “Big Medicine,” since the early 1900’s, in this country was Dr. Royal Raymond Rife. His powerful evolutionary microscope, capable of shattering cancer cells and viruses with radio frequency vibrations, was destroyed and his books burned by federal authorities and he was imprisoned.

Some other embattled pioneers include, but are certainly not limited to: The healing arts of Ethno botany, Naturopathy Chiropractic and Acupuncture and Chelation, which all met intense resistance and violent opposition by federally protected orthodoxy.

Dietmar Schildwaechter, Ph.D., MD, was invaded in his home office in a militant style by state and federal authorities in the late 1980’s for introducing a cure for squamous cell cancer, which was proven in a 20-year study in Germany.

Andrew Ivy, MD, a pillar of the A.M.A., who came back from Germany after participating as a panelist in the Nuremberg war crime trials with a cure for cancer called Krebiozen, had his career shattered.

Bruce Halstead, MD;
Warren Levin, MD;
Vincent Speckhart, MD;
Royal Raymond Rife, MD
Wilhelm Reich, MD;
Jossef Issels, MD; and Max Gerson, MD;
Joseph Gold, MD,
Emmanuel Revici, MD;
Stanislaw Burzynski, MD;
James Privitera, MD;
Ed McCabe, author of Oxygen Therapies, jailed for 547 days; a best selling author.
Hulda Clark, ND;

There too many more which are not listed here. These gifted pioneers brought relief to a suffering humanity and were ruthlessly attacked by medical authorities and scientific dogma. Each paid a high price but distinguished themselves by their courage and resolves to stand up for their convictions, even in the face of overwhelming opposition, loss of license and jail. For a closer look at the inner workings, read: THE CANCER INDUSTRY: the Classic Expose ‘on the Cancer Establishment, by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.

The FDA regularly approves dangerous, often lethal pharmaceuticals. The side effects of these potentially deadly, or harm causing pharmaceutical drugs can only be fully discovered by wide-spread use. This is despite the average $250-500,000,000 and 15 years to bring these drugs to market, including phase trial tests, trying to prove the elusive “efficacy” requirement of the F.D. &C. Act.

Typically, after one of their highly publicized “wonder” drugs fails, causes death or serious side effects, no FDA official nor PAC member company president, research assistant, corporate official, company doctor, nor testing lab will be subjected to raid, investigation, indictment or jail term.

To the trauma and suffering to the patients and their families and the productive work force, it comes with a hefty price tag.

Both Gaston Naessens and Dietmar Schildwaechter, Ph.D., MD, spent the last 40 years perfecting independent blood tests, which are able to pre diagnose any type of cancer and immune disorders up to two years prior to their onset, with a 1% margin of error. The industrial average false/negative ratio remains extremely high by comparison, yet these new tests are ignored or met with resistance.

THE RELEVANT SERVICE MARKET AND SUBSTITUTABLE ECONOMIC COMPETITORS

The Eclectic Practice of Medicine*

In 1906, Dr. Rolla Thomas completely revised the 1866 teaching manual by John Milton Scudder, and revised it yet again in 1907. This was the culmination of a thirty-year frenzy of published creativity at the Eclectic Medical Institute in Cincinnati, Ohio, and was the main teaching text at that school until the1930s…the college closed in 1939.

“…it were better for the doctor if he can forget that his patient has typhoid fever, pneumonia, dysentery, or whatever he may have, and study the conditions that are present. This may be wrongs of the circulation, of the nervous system, of the secretions, of digestion, of assimilation, or wrongs of the blood, but whatever the basal lesion, it must be overcome if the patient is to be benefited by medication.”

THE MONOPOLIZATION OF MEDICINE

The health care industry during the Progressive Era is well documented in academic studies and can reasonably be accepted as a given here without describing in great detail how or why it occurred. However, it was funded largely by the Rockefeller and Carnegie fortunes and was done to guarantee a dominant place in health care for the products of the petrochemical industry.

The Allopathic School of Medical Practice was picked to become the dominant survivor of the monopolization because it was:

(1) Numerically the largest,

(2) Had no well established system of doctrines which made it antagonistic to the use of a system of therapeutics based on petrochemical therapeutics,

(3) Was represented by a fairly well organized and active Trade Association which was receptive to a take over by the funders,

(4) Urgently needed a large infusion of cash and political influence to stop the growing public acceptance of its economic rivals and competitors,

(5) Had little to offer its members without such an infusion of cash and political influence,

(6) Were headed by a staff which welcomed any help – motivated by absolutely no idealism and almost entirely by avarice, the staff of the AMA was easy to enlist in the monopolization and proved extremely efficient – particularly Morris Fishbein, whose role was pivotal and whose service spanned several decades of the monopolization.

One of the chief monopolization strategies was through take over of medical education and the schools or universities which offered this. There were several hundred which offered a two year course in Allopathic Medicine and granted the M.D. degree, which was the sole credential necessary for practice at that time.

Competitive medical universities operated by Homeopathic and Eclectic interests were fewer, but at least 75 existed – some well established and endowed.

The monopolist could have selected any of these; they were all easy targets, but the Allopathic School of Practice had a void in its therapeutic system which made it ideal for the monopolist and the Homeopathic and Eclectic Schools had therapeutic systems which offered little room for the
incorporation of petrochemical technology.

Many Americans, at least those who could afford to do so, went abroad for their medical education, initially to England or Scotland but eventually to Germany where State supported Universities had better facilities and foreign students who could and would pay tuition to augment the salaries of the faculty were welcomed to the extent that lectures were offered in English as well as German to facilitate and accommodate these foreign scholars.

To a man, the initial faculty of John’s Hopkins, the first of the Medical Universities to be established and funded by the monopolists were graduates of German Universities and brought to the University both the medical and the political orientations gained as students at German universities, which they passed on to the students of John’s Hopkins, most of whom went out to become the faculties of other American medical colleges and further incorporate both the medical and the political orientations of German universities into the graduates of American Medical Universities funded by the monopolists. Those orientations remain a part of Allopathic medicine in the United States today.

This is primarily important in considering the role of the Allopathic School in genocidal activity, which the German medical profession entered into without protest between 1934 and 1945 under the National Socialist Regime in Germany.

Federal control started in earnest around 1938 with the Pure Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and this became what it is today in 1962 with the Kefauffer Amendments to that Act, which amendments included for the first time, an efficacy requirement which gave the FDA far more power to control both drugs and information about drugs.

The Federal Act was not intended to give the agency any control over the practice of medicine or other health care professions and both its language and many decisions of Federal Courts make that clear. Nevertheless, the agency has made and continues to make increasing excursions into attempts to control the practice of medicine.

Since 1910, a combination of some practitioners and some manufacturers of goods involved in this market has attempted to attain a monopoly in the market to the exclusion of substitutable economic competitors.

Some of the goods in this market, particularly those consisting of synthetic petrochemical pharmaceuticals, are preferentially used by the practitioners involved in the monopolization to the virtual exclusion of other goods.

However, a large amount of the goods involved may be purchased and used by consumers without the recommendation or authorization of health care practitioners and the consumer is free to consult such practitioners or not as he or she sees fit, in most circumstances.

Licensure of health care practitioners is a function of State governments, all of which have a system of examination and licensure of some health care practitioners. There is some variation from state to state in which practitioners are licensed and which are not licensed.

There is universal licensure of physicians and surgeons, osteopathic physicians and surgeons, dentists, chiropractic physicians and there is considerable variation as to the licensure of naturopathic physicians and Oriental medical practitioners (acupuncturists) on a state by state basis.

Despite the state by state variation, all of these practitioners practice in a virtually uniform fashion all have trade associations and specialty societies which are national in scope and all receive fairly standardized training.

Licensure for physicians and surgeons was initially begun around 1890 on a state by state basis at the instigation of the American Medical Association, which is the trade association for the Allopathic School of Medical Practice.

When the process was begun, State Legislatures typically created three separate State Boards of Medical examiners, to examine and license medical practitioners of the Allopathic, Homeopathic and Eclectic Schools of Medical Practice; in many states the Osteopathic School was also given a Board of Examiners.

Initially, the licenses granted to these practitioners was to treat any human disease, disorder or condition by drugs, surgery or any other means and all persons not so licensed were forbidden to undertake such activities for compensation.

Shortly thereafter, other health care practitioners were also given licenses which carried out certain exceptions to the universal licensure of physicians, such as Dentists, Podiatrists, Pharmacists, Nurses, Midwives, Physiotherapists and eventually, Acupuncturists.

The campaign for licensure carried out by the AMA was for the purpose of attaining for its members an exclusive license to practice health care for compensation and to exclude all substitutable economic competitors from the market.

This was not accomplished as State Legislators usually saw fit to license their economic competitors as well in order to maintain competition in the Relevant Service Market.

The campaign to attain exclusive licensure not having succeeded, the AMA next attempted to bring about a merger between the competitive schools of medical practice; that campaign is ongoing and has succeeded in some states to a degree, although all states continue to license health care practitioners who are substitutable economic competitors to allopathic physicians and have clearly articulated policies encouraging competition between different sorts of health care providers, set forth in state legislation.

The AMA and its component state medical societies, nevertheless, continued with unrelenting efforts to monopolize health care and have been convicted of Antitrust violations repeatedly.

The Federal Trade Commission brought an enforcement action against the AMA and its component societies resulting in information concerning anticompetitive misconduct and subsequently a private enforcement action by 4 chiropractors resulted in further permanent injunctions against anticompetitive misconduct.

The later action, Wilk, et al. v. AMA was based upon a campaign conducted by the AMA through its Department of Investigation and Council Against Quackery “to first contain then eliminate Chiropractic”.

During the litigation, the Department of Investigation and the Council Against Quackery were hurriedly disbanded by the AMA and files of these organizations were handed over to a private organization which, funded by the Pharmaceutical Advertising Council, continues the anticompetitive campaigns as an ostensible private organization, which is actually an AMA front organization. Its anticompetitive activities have intensified since the injunctions against the AMA were issued and affirmed.

A large part of the plan of monopolization has been and continues to be the suppression of information about health care providers and modalities which are competitive with those of AMA members.

The AMA initially formed a sub rosa organization, the “Health Information Control Council” which had members from several bureaucratic regulatory agencies as members. This was also broken up during the Wilk litigation.

As a part of the Wilk litigation, the Court held that calling a licensed competitor a Quack would constitute an antitrust offense; since that time the AMA front organization has substituted the word “fraud” for “quack” in its anticompetitive campaigns which increasingly are undertaken with State and Federal bureaucrats into whose “hidden agendas” the achievement of monopoly by the AMA and standardization of therapeutics fit extremely well.

During the past 25 years, most of the monopoly activity of this AMA front organization has been with bureaucrats and third party payees, such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield, which are both private insurers and pay agents for governmental programs such as Medicare.

In these situations, these “insurance companies” do not function in their traditional roles as casualty insurers, but rather as cost-plus contract pay agents and, in this role, their activities neatly interface with both the AMA’s monopolization efforts and the “hidden bureaucratic agendas” of regulatory agencies.

It is this combination of the AMA, acting through a front organization, the “insurance” companies who are not insuring but acting as cost-plus contract pay agents and the regulatory agencies involved in a “hidden agenda” which in combination, are bringing about and attempting to bring about the monopoly in health care which the AMA has been engaged in creating since 1890.

This combination has already succeeded in dangerously decreasing the quality of goods and services and astronomically increasing their price in the Relevant Service and Goods Market.

This has been accomplished by bureaucratic activity which is directly violative of the clearly articulated policies of the States and has as its purpose both increasing such costs and decreasing the quality of goods and services, and although it is state action, it is not such state action as is protected from Antitrust scrutiny by the State Action Exemption to the Antitrust Laws.

RESOURCE READING

A FEW OF THE MANY AVAILABLE

Thoma Szasz, Ph.D.

Books by Harris Coulter
[1994] Empiricism vs. Rationalism in Medicine by Harris L. Coulter, Ph.D.

Childhood Vaccinations and Juvenile-Onset (Type-1) Diabetes by Harris Coulter, Ph.D

Vaccination and Social Violence by Harris Coulter, Ph.D

Vaccination and Violent Crime by Harris Coulter, Ph.D

Critique of government funded studies–Harris Coulter Ph.D.

SIDS and Seizures by Harris L. Coulter, PhD

Do Vaccines Cause Cot Deaths?—Harris L. Coulter (1996)

An Italian Study Finding Biochemical Markers of Vaccine Damage 1996, Harris L. Coulter, Ph.D.
Books

1972, Homeopathic Medicine

1975, Divided Legacy (Volume I): The Patterns Emerge: Hippocrates to Paracelsus

1977, Divided Legacy (Volume II): The Origins of Modern Western Medicine: J. B. Van Helmont to Claude Bernard

1981, Homeopathic Science and Modern Medicine

1982, Divided Legacy (Volume III): The Conflict Between Homeopathy and the American Medical Association: Science and Ethics in American Medicine 1800-1910

1986, A Shot in the Dark, ISBN 089529463x —Harris Coulter & Barbara Loe Fisher

1987, AIDS & Syphilis — The Hidden Link

1990, Vaccination, Social Violence and Criminality ISBN 1556430841—Harris Coulter
Medical historian Harris Coulter presents evidence to show that disabilities caused by vaccines are often “disguised” under different names: autism, dyslexia, learning disability, epilepsy, mental retardation, hyperactivity & minimal brain dysfunction. Up to 25% of American schoolchildren suffer from “development disabilities”. A classic.

‘…It is the thesis of this remarkable book that early vaccinations can result in mild cases of sub-clinical encephalitis which, in turn, may well be responsible — at least in part — for the increase in autism, hyperactivity, dyslexia, sociopathy, and developmental disabilities, a rise that roughly coincides with the initiation of infant vaccinations. Coulter suggests further linkages to the increase in adolescent crime and suicide, and the decline in SAT scores.’ Stanley Kripner, AHP, January 1993.

1990, The Controlled Clinical Trial: an Analysis

1994, Divided Legacy (Volume IV): Twentieth-Century Medicine, The Bacteriological Era”

How Did Health Care Costs Get So High

How Did Health Care Costs Get So High?

First, let’s get a little historical perspective on American health care. To do that, let’s turn to the American civil war era. In that war, dated tactics and the carnage inflicted by modern weapons of the era combined to cause terrible results. Most of the deaths on both sides of that war were not the result of actual combat but to what happened after a battlefield wound was inflicted. To begin with, evacuation of the wounded moved at a snail’s pace in most instances causing severe delays in treatment of the wounded. Secondly, most wounds were subjected to wound related surgeries and amputations and this often resulted in massive infection. So you might survive a battle wound only to die at the hands of medical care providers whose good intentioned interventions were often quite lethal. High death tolls can also be ascribed to everyday sicknesses and diseases in a time when no antibiotics existed. In total something like 600,000 deaths occurred from all causes, over 2% of the U.S. population at the time!

Let’s skip to the first half of the 20th century for some additional perspective and to bring us up to more modern times. After the civil war there were steady improvements in American medicine in both the understanding and treatment of certain diseases, new surgical techniques and in physician education and training. But for the most part the best that doctors could offer their patients was a “wait and see” approach. Medicine could handle bone fractures and perform risky surgeries and the like (now increasingly practiced in sterile surgical environments) but medicines were not yet available to handle serious illnesses. The majority of deaths remained the result of untreatable conditions such as tuberculosis, pneumonia, scarlet fever and measles and/or related complications. Doctors were increasingly aware of heart and vascular conditions, and cancer but they had almost nothing with which to treat these conditions.

This very basic understanding of American medical history helps us to understand that until quite recently (around the 1950’s) we had virtually no technologies with which to treat serious or even minor ailments. Nothing to treat you with means that visits to the doctor if at all were relegated to emergencies so in that scenario costs were obviously minuscule. A second factor that has become a key driver of today’s health care costs is that medical treatments that were provided were paid for out-of-pocket. There was no health insurance and certainly not health insurance paid by someone else like an employer. Costs were the responsibility of the individual and perhaps a few charities that among other things supported charity hospitals for the poor and destitute.

What does health care insurance have to do with health care costs? Its impact on health care costs is enormous. When health insurance for individuals and families emerged as a means for corporations to escape wage freezes and to attract and retain employees after World War II, almost overnight there was a great pool of money available for health care. Money, as a result of the availability of billions of dollars from health insurance pools, encouraged an innovative America to increase medical research efforts. As more and more Americans became insured not only through private, employer sponsored health insurance but through increased government funding that created Medicare, Medicaid and expanded veteran health care benefits, finding a cure for almost anything has become very lucrative. This is also the primary reason for the vast array of treatments we have available today. I do not wish to convey that this is a bad thing. Think of the tens of millions of lives that have been saved, extended and made more productive as a result. But with a funding source grown to its current magnitude (hundreds of billions of dollars annually) upward pressure on health care costs are inevitable. Doctor’s offer and most of us demand and get access to the latest available health care technology, pharmaceuticals and surgical interventions. So there is more health care to spend our money on and until very recently most of us were insured and the costs were largely covered by a third-party (government, employers). This is the “perfect storm” for higher and higher health care costs and by and large, the storm is intensifying.

At this point, let’s turn to a key question. Is the current trajectory of U.S. health care spending sustainable? Can America maintain its world competitiveness when 16%, heading for 20% of our gross national product is being spent on health care? What are the other industrialized countries spending on health care and is it even close to these numbers? Add politics and an election year and the whole issue gets badly muddled and misrepresented.

I believe that we need a revolutionary change in the way we think about health care, its availability, its costs and who pays for it. And if you think I am about to say we should arbitrarily and drastically reduce spending on health care you would be wrong. Here it is fellow citizens – health care spending needs to be preserved and protected for those who need it. And to free up these dollars those of us who don’t need it or can delay it or avoid it need to act. First, we need to convince our politicians that this country needs sustained public education with regard to the value of preventive health strategies. This should be a top priority and it has worked to reduce the number of U.S. smokers for example. If prevention were to take hold, it is reasonable to assume that those needing health care for the myriad of life style engendered chronic diseases would decrease dramatically. Millions of Americans are experiencing these diseases far earlier than in decades past and much of this is due to poor life style choices. This change alone would free up plenty of money to handle the health care costs of those in dire need of treatment, whether due to an acute emergency or chronic condition.

Let’s go deeper on the first issue. Most of us refuse do something about implementing basic wellness strategies into our daily lives. We don’t exercise but we offer a lot of excuses. We don’t eat right but we offer a lot of excuses. We smoke and/or drink alcohol to excess and we offer a lot of excuses as to why we can’t do anything about it. We don’t take advantage of preventive health check-ups that look at blood pressure, cholesterol readings and body weight but we offer a lot of excuses. In short we neglect these things and the result is that we succumb much earlier than necessary to chronic diseases like heart problems, diabetes and high blood pressure. We wind up accessing doctors for these and more routine matters because “health care is there” and somehow we think we have no responsibility for reducing our demand on it.

It is difficult for us to listen to these truths but easy to blame the sick. Maybe they should take better care of themselves! Well, that might be true or maybe they have a genetic condition and they have become among the unfortunate through absolutely no fault of their own. But the point is that you and I can implement personalized preventive disease measures as a way of dramatically improving health care access for others while reducing its costs. It is far better to be productive by doing something we can control then shifting the blame.

There are a huge number of free web sites available that can steer us to a more healthful life style. “Google” “preventive health care strategies”, look up your local hospital’s web site and you will find more than enough help to get you started. Let’s go America – we can do this!

Hiring a Home Health Care Employee

Hiring a Home Health Care Employee

Providing the primary care for an elder loved one can be difficult. When you cannot deliver all the elder care yourself and support from friends, family, and community organizations is not enough, it may be useful to hire a home health care worker. He or she can offer care from a few hours a week to 24 hours a day, and can provide many other helpful services. Types of in-home health care services include:

General Health Management like administration of medication or other medical treatments
Personal care such as bathing, oral hygiene, dressing, and shaving
Nutrition help like preparing meals, assisting eating, and grocery shopping
Homemaking services including laundry, dishwashing, and light housework
Companionship for example reading to the senior or taking them on walks

Recruiting and Interviewing Applicants

There are many avenues for hiring a home health care employee. Generally, home health care workers can be hired directly or through an agency. Home health care agencies often have a staff that includes social workers and nurses that will manage your care. However hiring an independent home health care worker is generally more cost effective, it will also give you more control over the type of care you receive.

Senior home care workers should be carefully screened for proper training, qualifications, and temperament. Fully discuss the needs of the elder care recipient during an interview with a prospective home health care employee. There should be a written copy the job description and the type of experience you are looking for.

References

Have applicants fill out an employment form that includes the following information:

Full name
Address
Phone number
Date of birth
Social Security number
Educational background
Work history

Before hiring, you should ask to see the senior home care worker’s licenses and certificates, if applicable, and personal identification including their social security card, driver’s license, or photo ID.

References should be checked out thoroughly. Prospective employees should provide the employer with names, dates of employment, and phone numbers of previous employers and how to contact them. It is best to talk directly to previous employers, rather than just to accept letters of recommendations. Also ask the applicant to provide or sign off on conducting a criminal background check

Special Points to Consider

Make sure the person you are considering hiring knows how to carry out the tasks the elder care recipient requires, such as transferring the senior to and from a wheelchair or bed. Training may be available, but make sure the worker completes the training successfully before hiring him or her.

No one should be hired on a seven-day-a-week basis. Even the most dedicated employee will soon burn out. All employees need some time to take care of their personal needs. No worker should be on call 24-hours a day. If the elder care recipient needs frequent supervision or care during the night, a family member or second home health care worker should be able to help out or fill in.

Live-in assistance may seem to be more convenient and economic than hourly or per-day employees but there can be drawbacks. Food and lodging costs must be calculated into the total cost of care, and it could be difficult to dismiss someone without immediate housing alternatives. If you decide to utilize a live-in arrangement, the employee should have his own living quarters, free time, and ample sleep.

Job Expectations and Considerations

Before hiring a senior home health care worker, you should go over the tasks you expect them to perform and other issues, such as promptness, benefits, pay scale, holidays, vacations, absences, and notification time needed for either employer or employee before employment is terminated. If you work and are heavily dependent on the home health care worker, emphasize the importance of being informed as soon as possible if he or she is going to be late or absent so that you can make alternative arrangements. Be clear about notification needed for time off, or what to do in the case the home health care worker experiences a personal emergency that requires them to abruptly leave work. It is important to have a backup list of friends, family, other home care workers, or a home health care agency you can call on.

Be clear about issues concerning salary, payment schedule, and reimbursement or petty cash funds for out of pocket expenses.

You should spend the day with the home health care worker on his first day to make sure you are both in agreement over how to carry out daily tasks. It would also be helpful to supply the home health care worker with a list of information on the elder care recipient such as: special diets, likes, dislikes, mobility problems, health issues, danger signs to monitor, possible behavior problems and accompanying coping strategies, medication schedule, therapeutic exercises, eye glasses, dentures, and any prosthetics.

You should also provide the following information to your home health care worker: your contact information, emergency contacts, security precautions and access to keys, clothing, and locations of washing/cleaning supplies, medical supplies, light bulbs, flashlights, fuse box, and other important household items.

Transportation

Another big consideration in hiring a senior home care worker is how he or she is going to get to work. If they do not have a reliable car or access to public transit, then you might want to consider hiring someone to drive him or her, which might be more economical than using taxis. Inform your insurance company if the home health care worker is going to drive your car when caring for the senior. Your insurance company will perform the necessary driving background checks. If the home health care worker is using his or her car to drive the elder care recipient, then discuss use of her or his car, and conduct a driving background check.

Insurance and Payroll

Check with an insurance company about the proper coverage for a worker in your home.

Make sure all the proper taxes are being drawn from the employee’s check by contacting the Internal Revenue Service, state treasury department, social security, and the labor department. If you do not want to deal with the complexities of the payroll withholdings yourself, than you can hire a payroll company for a fee.

Even if your home health care worker is working as a contractor, you are still obligated to report the earnings to the IRS. Talk to your accountant or financial adviser about making sure you are following IRS rules.

Ensuring Security

You should protect your private papers and valuables in a locked file cabinet, safe deposit box, or safe. If you are unable to pick up your mail on a daily basis, have someone you trust do it, or have it sent to a post box. You should check the phone bill for unusual items or unauthorized calls. You should put a block on your phone for 900 numbers, collect calls, and long-distance calls.

Keep checkbooks and credit cards locked up. Review credit card and bank statements on a monthly basis, and periodically request credit reports from credit reporting agencies. Lock up valuable possessions or keep an inventory of items accessible to people working in the house.

You can help to prevent elder abuse to your loved one by:

Make sure the home health care worker thoroughly understands his or her responsibilities, the elder care recipient’s medical problems and limitations, and how to cope with stressful situations.
Do not overburden the home health care worker.
Encourage openness over potential problems.

The following are possible signs of elder abuse or neglect:

Personality changes
Crying, whimpering, or refusing to talk
Sloppy appearance
Poor personal hygiene
Disorganized or dirty living conditions
Signs of inappropriate sedation, such as confusion, or excessive sleeping
Mysterious bruises, pressure sores, fractures, or burns
Weight loss

If you suspect abuse, act immediately. Do not wait until the situation turns tragic. Investigate the situation by talking to the elder care recipient in a safe situation, or install monitoring equipment. Examples of abusive behavior include yelling, threatening, or over controlling behavior that could involve isolating the senior from others. If the situation is serious, you should replace the home health care worker as quickly as possible. If you fear the elder care recipient is in danger, he or she should be separated from the home health care worker as soon as possible. Place the elder care recipient with a trusted relative or in a respite care facility. Make sure your loved one is safe before confronting the home health care worker, especially if there is concern about retaliation.

Report the situation to Adult Protective Services after ensuring the safety of the elder care recipient. The police should be contacted in the case of serious neglect, such as sexual abuse, physical injury, or misuse of funds.

Supervising a Home Health Care Worker

The most important thing to remember after hiring a home health care worker is to keep the lines of communication open. You should explain the job responsibilities clearly, and your responsibilities to the home health care worker. Do not forget that the home health care worker is there for the elder care recipient and not the rest of the family. For live-in arrangements, the maximum amount of privacy should be set up for the home health care worker’s living quarters. Meetings should be set up on a regular basis to assure that problems are nipped in the bud. If conflicts cannot be resolved after repeated attempts, than it is best to terminate the employee. In such a case, you may have to either place the elder care recipient in a nursing home temporarily or hire a home health care worker through an agency. Reserve funds should be kept on hand in the case of such an emergency.

General Eligibility Requirements for Home Care Benefits

Hiring a home health care worker directly is usually less expensive than hiring through a home health care agency; but if the elder care recipient is eligible and you wish to use assistance from Medicare, you must hire someone through a certified home health care agency. For the senior patient to be eligible, three or more services must be ordered by a physician. Other factors or eligibility are the required need for skilled nursing assistance, or one of the following therapies: physical, speech or occupational. The elder care recipient’s medical needs will determine asset and income requirements.

Hiring Home Health Care Workers through Home Health Care Agencies versus Independently

Different health professionals can assess the elder care recipient’s needs. A nurse or social worker can help with design and coordination of a home care plan. Your care manager, doctor, or discharge planner can help with services being covered by Medicare. They generally help make the arrangements with a home care agency.

You should ask the home health care agency how they supervise their employees, and what kind of training their employees receive. Find out the procedures for when an employee does not show up. Also ask about the fee schedule and what it covers, there may be a sliding fee schedule. Furthermore, find out if they have a policy for minimum or maximum hours. Ask the agency if there are any limitations on the types of tasks performed.

Especially if you have to pay for the care services yourself, find out if there are any hidden costs such as transportation. If all the costs for hiring a care worker through an agency become too much, you may want to consider hiring directly.

Hiring independent home health care workers is not only more economical than using an agency, but it also allows more direct control over the elder care.

An American Universal Health Care System

An American Universal Health Care System

Health Care System Needs Reform, Not a Government Takeover

Believe it or not, America boasts some of the world’s best doctors, the most advanced health care system, and the most technically superior resources in the world, bar none. Those who travel globally and have gotten sick know that their first choice for treatment would be in the U.S. Though health care in America is, more expensive than any other country, many of the worlds wealthiest come to the U.S for surgical procedures and complex care, because it holds a worldwide reputation for the gold standard in health care.

To examine the complex health care issue, a small research study was conducted from randomly selected doctors in a best doctors database. We ask 50 top doctors, located in different states and who practice different specialty fields, ” Is a universal health care plan good for America?” Forty-eight of these doctors essentially responded that it was a “bad idea” that would have negative impacts on the quality of our nation’s health care.

Social Engineering Medicine

One of the greatest mis-conceptions some people have relied on with regard to the health care debate is that, given a universal health care system, every person in the U.S. would receive the highest quality health care – the kind our nation is renowned for and that we currently receive. However, unlike some public amenities, health care is not a collective public service like police and fire protection services, therefore the Government cannot provide the same quality of health care to everyone, because not all physicians are equally good orthopedic surgeons, internists, neurosurgeons, etc, in the same way that not all individuals in need of health care are equally good patients.

As an analogy – stay with me – when you design a software program, there are many elements that are coded on the back-end, and used to manipulate certain aspects of the software program, that your average “John Doe” who uses the software (the end user) does not understand or utilize, nor do they care about these elements. Certain aspects of the program are coded, so that when one uses that portion of the program, other elements of the program are manipulated and automatically follow the present or next command.

Likewise, once a universal care plan is implemented in America and its massive infrastructure is shaped, private insurance companies will slowly disappear, and as a result, eventually patients will automatically be forced to utilize the government’s universal health care plan. As part of such a system, patients will be known as numbers rather than patients, because such a massive government program would provide compensation incentive based on care provided, patients would become “numbers,” rather than “patients.” In addition, for cost savings reasons, every bit of health information, including your own, will be analyzed, and stored by the Government. What are the consequences? If you’re a senior citizen and need a knee replacement at the age of 70, the government may determine that you’re to old and it’s not worth the investment cost, therefore instead of surgery, you may be given medication for the rest of your life at a substantial cost savings to the government, and at a high quality of life price to you.

Solutions:

Fixing the current U.S. health care system might require that we;

1. Encourage prevention and early diagnosis of chronic conditions and management.
2. Completely reform existing government are programs, including Medicare and Medicaid.
3. Forgive medical school debt for those willing to practice primary care in under-served areas.
4. Improve access to care, provide small businesses and the self-employed with tax credits, not penalties for providing health care.
5. Encourage innovation in medical records management to reduce costs.
6. Require tort reform in medical malpractice judgments to lower the cost of providing care.
7. Keep what isn’t broken-research shows 80% of Americans are happy with their current insurance, therefore, why completely dismantle it?
8. Reimburse physicians for their services.
9. Innovate a system in which Medicare fraud is dramatically decreased.

Devil In the Details

Socialized medicine means:

1. Loss of private practice options, reduced pay for physicians, overwhelming numbers of patients, and increasing burn-out may reduce the number of doctors pursuing the profession.

2. Patient confidentiality will need to be compromised, since centralized health information will be maintained by the government and it’s databases.

3. Healthy people who take care of themselves will pay for the burden of those with unhealthy lifestyles, such as those who smoke, are obese, etc.

4. Patients lose the incentive to stay healthy or aren’t likely to take efforts to curb their prescription drug costs because health care is free and the system can easily be abused.

5. The U.S. Government will need to call the shots about important health decisions dictating what procedures are best for you, rather than those decisions being made by your doctor(s), which will result in poor individualized patient care.

6. Tax rates will rise substantially-universal health care is not free since citizens are required to pay for it in the form of taxes.

7. Your freedom of choice will be restricted as to which doctor is best for you and your family.

8. Like all public programs, government bureaucracy, even in the form of health care, does not promote healthy competition that reduces costs based on demand. What’s more, accountability is limited to the budgetary resources available to police such a system.

9. Medicare is subsidized by private insurers to the tune of billions of dollars, therefore if you take them out of the equation, add a trillion dollars or more to the current trillion dollar-plus cost estimates.

10. Currently, the government loses an estimated $ 30 billion a year due to Medicare fraud. Therefore, what makes anyone think that this same government will be able to run & operate a universal health care system that is resistant to fraud and save money while doing so?.