<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><DIV>In the November 2008 general election, health care equipment manufacturers (Medtronics, etc.) funded an initiative for bonds to pay for expensive incubators. Meanwhile, local government-run clincs have been closing in recent years (preventive care that lessens the need for incubators). Here was the Green Party's recommendation:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<H3><A name=_prop3></A>Prop. 3: $2 Billion Children's Hospital Bond <SPAN style="COLOR: red">[No]</SPAN></H3>
<P>If this passes, $980 million (almost one billion dollars), in bonds will be sold by the state to be paid back with interest over 30 years from the general fund, to expand capacity in Californias Childrens Hospitals. The total cost is expected to be about $2 billion in taxpayer funds. At first glance, who could be against improving and expanding hospitals for children? Looking deeper however, it is evident that Prop 3 has serious problems.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>First, this is essentially the same measure as Proposition 61 on the 2004 ballot, which passed giving $750 million to the same hospitals. Only $403 million (53.7%) of that money has been used. Shouldnt the prior fund be depleted before asking the taxpayers to fund another round?</P>
<P> </P>
<P>Second, it is unclear if this taxpayer money is being used in the public interest. Eighty percent of the money will go to private hospitals (the other 20% goes to University of California facilities). Just looking at one of these private institutions, Childrens Hospital of Oakland, one finds that the President/CEO was paid $673,000 in compensation in 2006, and the Chief Operation Officer was paid $420,000 that year.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>Third, this campaign represents an abuse of the Initiative process. These private hospitals, crying poor, actually have substantial assets and are using them to get additional public subsidies. Moreover, these institutions have hired Richie Ross, the high priced Sacramento political consultant, to run their slick campaign to tap into the taxpayers to fund their private hospitals.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>Fourth, if the taxpayers are going to fund the expansion of privately owned hospitals, the taxpayers should get a share of the ownership and control of these institutions, (including board seats and watchdog positions), something, (of course), not part of this proposition.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>Finally, it is far past time that we have democratic discussion, debate and action about how to fix our broken health care system, which leaves almost 50 million people without health care in this country.</P>
<P>A single payer health care system for all, similar to the Medicare system, should be central to this discussion, which must include how to fund and improve our stressed public hospitals. This is likely a much better use of our scarce tax dollars. Prop 3 simply perpetuates the existing and unfair privately dominated medical system.</P>
<P> </P>
<P><A href="http://www.cagreens.org/elections/2008/Propositions.081104.shtml#_prop3">http://www.cagreens.org/elections/2008/Propositions.081104.shtml#_prop3</A></P><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13@yahoo.com><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> E.Wayne Johnson <ewj@pigs.ag><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</SPAN></B> peace discuss <peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Mon, April 19, 2010 9:12:23 AM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [Peace-discuss] a critique of american medicine and theflexner report<BR></FONT><BR>
<META content=off http-equiv=x-dns-prefetch-control>
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>Well, it's for the same reason that other big complicated machines are expensive -- combines, telescopes like the Hubble, planetarium projectors like Adler's or Parkland's... and most med facilities pay for them by charging patients and their ins companies for their use. This would all go away for individuals and their for-huge-profits ins companies if we got rid of the latter and replaced them entirely w/ government funded plans... but that would be socialized medicine, unacceptable to those wanting less gov't involved (while wanting yet more gov't involved -- medicare, overturning Roe v Wade, etc). Welcome to the Rabbit Hole.
<DIV> --Jenifer<BR>
<DIV><BR><BR>--- On <B>Mon, 4/19/10, E.Wayne Johnson <I><ewj@pigs.ag></I></B> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><BR>From: E.Wayne Johnson <ewj@pigs.ag><BR>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] a critique of american medicine and theflexner report<BR>To: <BR>Cc: "peace discuss" <peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net><BR>Date: Monday, April 19, 2010, 1:28 AM<BR><BR>
<DIV id=yiv1890795200>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Why are MRI's and CTs expensive?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>The machines are sitting there. The technician is there. Those</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>are sunk costs. Does an MRI machine degrade by some fraction every time</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>it is used? Does a CT machine use a lot of expendibles causing the high cost?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>People seem to be so mystified by doctors that they dont ask any questions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>They are also terrified that if they dont pay tribute to the medical industrial complex,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>their doctors will let them die.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4"><B>From:</B> <A title=jencart13@yahoo.com rel=nofollow>Jenifer Cartwright</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=slevy@ncsa.uiuc.edu rel=nofollow>Stuart Levy</A> ; <A title=ewj@pigs.ag rel=nofollow>E.Wayne Johnson</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net rel=nofollow>peace discuss</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, April 19, 2010 12:05 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Peace-discuss] a critique of american medicine and theflexner report</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>Sometimes doctors recommend expensive procedures such as MRIs or CT Scans to rule out e g CA, stroke, heart attack. If the results are positive, I guess the procedures were necessary, but if they're negative, then I guess they weren't, huh?
<DIV> --Jenifer<BR><BR>--- On <B>Sun, 4/18/10, E.Wayne Johnson <I><<A rel=nofollow>ewj@pigs.ag</A>></I></B> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><BR>From: E.Wayne Johnson <<A rel=nofollow>ewj@pigs.ag</A>><BR>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] a critique of american medicine and theflexner report<BR>To: "Stuart Levy" <<A rel=nofollow>slevy@ncsa.uiuc.edu</A>><BR>Cc: "peace discuss" <<A rel=nofollow>peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A>><BR>Date: Sunday, April 18, 2010, 4:21 PM<BR><BR>
<DIV class=plainMail>actually some people do just what Baker says, going to India for some surgeries<BR>and to other countries like China for dental care. I know of people who come back to China to have their teeth fixed and they can save enough money to pay for their air ticket and get a visit with the family to boot.<BR><BR>I dont agree with every thing the guy says but he makes some interesting points.<BR><BR>Insurance has indeed led to many abuses. On a couple of occasions members of my family were requested to have unnecessary and costly examinations and we were given as a defense, "your insurance will pay for it".<BR><BR><BR>----- Original Message ----- From: "Stuart Levy" <<A rel=nofollow>slevy@ncsa.uiuc.edu</A>><BR>To: "E.Wayne Johnson" <<A rel=nofollow>ewj@pigs.ag</A>><BR>Cc: "peace discuss" <<A rel=nofollow>peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A>><BR>Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 4:58 AM<BR>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss]
a critique of american medicine and theflexner report<BR><BR><BR>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 03:51:38AM +0800, E.Wayne Johnson wrote:<BR>>> My contention has long been that one of the primary problems with medical<BR>>> care in the USA is that there are too few providers and that the number of<BR>>> health care providers is held low artificially by the deceit of the AMA. I<BR>>> have suggested a drastic loosening of the standards to promote more<BR>>> providers. There havent been many takers for my notions, but here someone<BR>>> examines the history of medicine and the Flexner report and the fake reform<BR>>> of Obama and Co.<BR>>> <BR>>> <A href="http://mises.org/daily/4276" rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://mises.org/daily/4276</A><BR>> <BR>> Actually, economist Dean Baker agrees with you on this -- at least that<BR>> US medical providers are deliberately being kept scarce, and
that<BR>> this raises the cost of medical care. He's said a number of times<BR>> that any consistent supporter of free trade should oppose this highly<BR>> protectionist policy.<BR>> <BR>> Baker also promotes medical tourism as a way to provide competition<BR>> to the overpriced US system, though I'm uneasy with this.<BR>> It seems as though it would entice medical tourist destinations'<BR>> providers to flock to (likely better-paying) private tourist clinics,<BR>> at the expense of their own domestic medical systems.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> There are some pretty half-baked things in this Mises article though.<BR>> For-profit hospitals have better incentives than nonprofit ones<BR>> to control costs? Not in our system, where costs and effectiveness<BR>> are not transparent. Insurance of routine procedures leads to<BR>> overuse of services? Has the author never heard of the
effectiveness<BR>> of preventive care, or the value of public health measures?<BR>> <BR><BR><BR>-- This message has been scanned for viruses and<BR>dangerous content by MailScanner, and is<BR>believed to be clean.<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Peace-discuss mailing list<BR><A rel=nofollow>Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A><BR><A href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</A><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>-- <BR>This message has been scanned for viruses and <BR>dangerous content by <A href="http://www.mailscanner.info/" rel=nofollow target=_blank><B>MailScanner</B></A>, and is <BR>believed to be clean. </DIV><BR>-----Inline Attachment Follows-----<BR><BR>
<DIV class=plainMail>_______________________________________________<BR>Peace-discuss mailing list<BR><A rel=nofollow>Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A><BR><A href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</A><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR>-- <BR>This message has been scanned for viruses and <BR>dangerous content by <A href="http://www.mailscanner.info/" rel=nofollow target=_blank><B>MailScanner</B></A>, and is <BR>believed to be clean.
<META content=on http-equiv=x-dns-prefetch-control></DIV></DIV></div><br>
<br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.
</body></html>