Sen. Sanders: I’ll Create Jobs, Provide Better Care for Less
It is true that I would invest $1 trillion into rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure
By Sen. Bernie Sanders
The Wall Street Journal, Letters, Sept. 17, 2015
Your article “Price Tag of Sanders Proposals: $18 Trillion” (page one, Sept. 15) is misleading.
It is true that I would invest $1 trillion into rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. Not only would this long-overdue investment make our country more productive and efficient, it would put 13 million Americans to work in good-paying jobs. It is true that I would invest in making all public colleges and universities tuition free and substantially reduce student debt. This higher-education proposal, estimated to cost about $75 billion a year, would be more than paid for by a tax on Wall Street speculation. It is true that I proposed to extend the solvency of Social Security until the year 2065 and to expand benefits. This proposal would be offset by lifting the cap on taxable income above $250,000 a year.
But, here’s where the article is mistaken. While a Medicare-for-all program may cost $15 trillion over 10 years, this proposal would eliminate all payments made by Americans and businesses to health-insurance companies. At a time when the U.S. spends substantially more per capita on health care than does any other country on earth, a single-payer health-care program would substantially lower our total health-care costs and would guarantee health care to all Americans. This approach would end the international embarrassment of the U.S. being the only major country on earth that doesn’t already do this. For The Wall Street Journal to ignore the enormous savings that Medicare-for-all would bring to our wildly inefficient and dysfunctional health-care system is irresponsible.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) writes from Washington. He is a candidate for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ill-create-jobs-provide-better-care-for-less...
By Sen. Bernie Sanders
The Wall Street Journal, Letters, Sept. 17, 2015
Your article “Price Tag of Sanders Proposals: $18 Trillion” (page one, Sept. 15) is misleading.
It is true that I would invest $1 trillion into rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. Not only would this long-overdue investment make our country more productive and efficient, it would put 13 million Americans to work in good-paying jobs. It is true that I would invest in making all public colleges and universities tuition free and substantially reduce student debt. This higher-education proposal, estimated to cost about $75 billion a year, would be more than paid for by a tax on Wall Street speculation. It is true that I proposed to extend the solvency of Social Security until the year 2065 and to expand benefits. This proposal would be offset by lifting the cap on taxable income above $250,000 a year.
But, here’s where the article is mistaken. While a Medicare-for-all program may cost $15 trillion over 10 years, this proposal would eliminate all payments made by Americans and businesses to health-insurance companies. At a time when the U.S. spends substantially more per capita on health care than does any other country on earth, a single-payer health-care program would substantially lower our total health-care costs and would guarantee health care to all Americans. This approach would end the international embarrassment of the U.S. being the only major country on earth that doesn’t already do this. For The Wall Street Journal to ignore the enormous savings that Medicare-for-all would bring to our wildly inefficient and dysfunctional health-care system is irresponsible.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) writes from Washington. He is a candidate for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ill-create-jobs-provide-better-care-for-less...
The Wall Street Journal, Letters, Sept. 17, 2015
Your article “Price Tag of Sanders Proposals: $18 Trillion” (page one, Sept. 15) is misleading.
It is true that I would invest $1 trillion into rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. Not only would this long-overdue investment make our country more productive and efficient, it would put 13 million Americans to work in good-paying jobs. It is true that I would invest in making all public colleges and universities tuition free and substantially reduce student debt. This higher-education proposal, estimated to cost about $75 billion a year, would be more than paid for by a tax on Wall Street speculation. It is true that I proposed to extend the solvency of Social Security until the year 2065 and to expand benefits. This proposal would be offset by lifting the cap on taxable income above $250,000 a year.
But, here’s where the article is mistaken. While a Medicare-for-all program may cost $15 trillion over 10 years, this proposal would eliminate all payments made by Americans and businesses to health-insurance companies. At a time when the U.S. spends substantially more per capita on health care than does any other country on earth, a single-payer health-care program would substantially lower our total health-care costs and would guarantee health care to all Americans. This approach would end the international embarrassment of the U.S. being the only major country on earth that doesn’t already do this. For The Wall Street Journal to ignore the enormous savings that Medicare-for-all would bring to our wildly inefficient and dysfunctional health-care system is irresponsible.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) writes from Washington. He is a candidate for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ill-create-jobs-provide-better-care-for-less...
Not Up for Debate: The Science Behind Vaccination
Whenever I sit down to watch a presidential debate, I have one sincere hope: that vaccines won’t come up at all. Besides the fact that there really is no “debate” when it comes to the science of how they work or how they may harm, merely talking in public about denying vaccinesoften leads to the solidifying of people’s views.
My hopes were dashed as Wednesday night’s debate wound down, though. Questions about vaccines and autism were asked not only of Donald Trump, but also of the two physicians taking part: Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon, and Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist. The doctors, at least, should know better.
Here are the facts:
Vaccines aren’t linked to autism.
The number of vaccines children receive is not more concerning than it used to be.
Delaying their administration provides no benefit, while leaving children at risk.
All the childhood vaccines are important.
There is simply no scientific evidence that links vaccines to autism. Many, many, many studies have confirmed this. The most recent Cochrane systematic review of research on the MMR vaccine included six self-controlled case series studies, two ecological studies, one case crossover trial, five time series trials, 17 case-control studies, 27 cohort studies and five randomized controlled trials. More than 15 million children took part in this research. No one could find evidence that vaccines are associated with autism.
Whenever I sit down to watch a presidential debate, I have one sincere hope: that vaccines won’t come up at all. Besides the fact that there really is no “debate” when it comes to the science of how they work or how they may harm, merely talking in public about denying vaccinesoften leads to the solidifying of people’s views.
My hopes were dashed as Wednesday night’s debate wound down, though. Questions about vaccines and autism were asked not only of Donald Trump, but also of the two physicians taking part: Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon, and Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist. The doctors, at least, should know better.
Here are the facts:
Vaccines aren’t linked to autism.
The number of vaccines children receive is not more concerning than it used to be.
Delaying their administration provides no benefit, while leaving children at risk.
All the childhood vaccines are important.
There is simply no scientific evidence that links vaccines to autism. Many, many, many studies have confirmed this. The most recent Cochrane systematic review of research on the MMR vaccine included six self-controlled case series studies, two ecological studies, one case crossover trial, five time series trials, 17 case-control studies, 27 cohort studies and five randomized controlled trials. More than 15 million children took part in this research. No one could find evidence that vaccines are associated with autism.
Vaccine Issue Arises at Republican Debate, to Doctors’ Dismay
When Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist in Tennessee, flicked on the television last night to catch the end of the Republican debate, he watched a scene that felt unsettlingly familiar: A candidate was talking about vaccines and autism.
Dr. Schaffner has spent much of his career trying to debunk the contention that childhood shots can cause serious medical conditions, but he had hoped that national soul-searching this year after an outbreak of measles at Disneyland had moved the country past some of these old notions.
“I think it’s sad,” said Dr. Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University, who said he cringed through the autism exchange at the end of the debate. “I would have hoped — since two of the discussants were physicians — that there would have been a ringing discussion about safety and value of vaccines, and an affirmation of the schedule set out by the American Academy of Pediatrics.”
For infectious disease doctors around the country watching the exchange, it felt a little bit like Groundhog Day. In 2011, during the last election cycle, Michele Bachmann, at the time a leading Republican candidate, called the vaccine to prevent cervical cancer “dangerous,” setting off a controversy that damaged the image of vaccines and set back doctors working to promote them as safe.
Antidepressant Paxil Is Unsafe for Teenagers, New Analysis Says
When Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist in Tennessee, flicked on the television last night to catch the end of the Republican debate, he watched a scene that felt unsettlingly familiar: A candidate was talking about vaccines and autism.
Dr. Schaffner has spent much of his career trying to debunk the contention that childhood shots can cause serious medical conditions, but he had hoped that national soul-searching this year after an outbreak of measles at Disneyland had moved the country past some of these old notions.
“I think it’s sad,” said Dr. Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University, who said he cringed through the autism exchange at the end of the debate. “I would have hoped — since two of the discussants were physicians — that there would have been a ringing discussion about safety and value of vaccines, and an affirmation of the schedule set out by the American Academy of Pediatrics.”
For infectious disease doctors around the country watching the exchange, it felt a little bit like Groundhog Day. In 2011, during the last election cycle, Michele Bachmann, at the time a leading Republican candidate, called the vaccine to prevent cervical cancer “dangerous,” setting off a controversy that damaged the image of vaccines and set back doctors working to promote them as safe.
Antidepressant Paxil Is Unsafe for Teenagers, New Analysis Says
Fourteen years ago, a leading drug maker published a study showing that the antidepressant Paxil was safe and effective for teenagers. On Wednesday, a major medical journal posted a new analysis of the same data concluding that the opposite is true.
That study — featured prominently by the journal BMJ — is a clear break from scientific custom and reflects a new era in scientific publishing, some experts said, opening the way for journals to post multiple interpretations of the same experiment. It comes at a time of self-examination across science — retractions are at an all-time high; recent cases of fraud have shaken fields as diverse as anesthesia and political science; and earlier this month researchers reported that less than half of a sample of psychology papers held up.
“This paper is alarming, but its existence is a good thing,” said Brian Nosek, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, who was not involved in either the original study or the reanalysis. “It signals that the community is waking up, checking its work and doing what science is supposed to do — self-correct.”
Pope Francis connects dots linking war, poverty, climate crisis, violence
By Mary Ellen Quinn, Special to the BDN
“What kind of world do we want to leave to those who come after us, to children who are now growing up?”
This question is posed by Pope Francis in his encyclical, “Laudato Si’ — On Care of Our Common Home,” released in June. “Laudato Si” has engaged people around the world in dialogue. Its content is compelling and far-reaching. The title, which comes from the words of St. Francis of Assisi in his “Canticle of the Creatures,” is translated as “Praise be to you,” referring to the creator of life.
In Catholic tradition, an encyclical is an important teaching on moral topics; however, Pope Francis has made it known that he is addressing this encyclical not solely to Catholics but to “everyone who lives on the planet.” The spiritual leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics will soon be visiting the United States with stops in Washington, D.C.; New York City; and Philadelphia. Pope Francis will address the urgent issues he raises in the encyclical with President Barack Obama and with member nations at the United Nations.
In the opening chapter, he introduces the central themes of the document: “I will point to the intimate relationship between the poor and the fragility of the planet, the conviction that everything is connected, the critique of new paradigms and forms of power derived from technology, the call to seek other ways of understanding the economy and progress, the value proper to each creature, the human meaning of ecology, the need for forthright and honest debate, the serious responsibility of international and local policy, the throwaway culture and the proposal of a new lifestyle.”
Pope Francis asserts at the outset that Christians and others have been influenced by “a flawed theology” when they quote the Genesis passage that refers to “man’s dominion over all the earth and creatures of the earth” as justification for the exploitation of our natural resources. His teaching clearly states that humans are integral to nature instead of nature being subject to human domination.
http://bangordailynews.com/2015/09/16/opinion/contributors/pope-francis-connects-dots-linking-war-poverty-climate-crisis-violence/print/
When Crime Pays: J&J’s Drug Risperdal
by Nicholas KristofRisperdal is a billion-dollar antipsychotic medicine with real benefits — and a few unfortunate side effects.
It can cause strokes among the elderly. And it can cause boys to grow large, pendulous breasts; one boy developed a 46DD bust.
Yet Johnson & Johnson marketed Risperdal aggressively to the elderly and to boys while allegedly manipulating and hiding the data about breast development. J&J got caught, pleaded guilty to a crime and has paid more than $2 billion in penalties and settlements. But that pales next to some $30 billion in sales of Risperdal around the world.
In short, crime pays, if you’re a major corporation.
Oh, and the person who was in charge of marketing the drug in these ways? He is Alex Gorsky, who was rewarded by being elevated to C.E.O. of J&J. He earned $25 million last year.
This tale is told in a devastating 58,000-word epic by Steven Brill that is being serialized on The Huffington Post. Some has already been covered in The Times and other papers, or in Senate investigations and innumerable court decisions, but it’s still wrenching to read the comprehensive account of how a company put profit above everything and then benefited handsomely for doing so.
AUGUSTA, Maine — Two Republican state lawmakers say they want more accountability from the Fund for a Healthy Maine, created from a landmark settlement against tobacco companies.
Senate Majority Leader Garrett Mason of Lisbon Falls and Rep. Jeff Timberlake of Turner are asking the Government Oversight Committee for a formal review.
The settlement, which was reached against tobacco companies for misleading the public about the health risks of smoking, provides more than $50 million per year to Maine.
Under state law, that money goes into the Fund for a Healthy Maine, which was created to help improve health outcomes for Mainers. The problem, said Timberlake, is that it is not clear how that money is being spent.
“We should know how much of that money is actually getting to the end user and how much is being used to pay for salaries,” he said. “And that’s the biggest reason. It’s a lot of money.”
Republican Sen. Roger Katz of Augusta serves with Timberlake on the Appropriations Committee. He also co-chairs the Government Oversight Committee. He shares Timberlake’s frustration with getting information about how money from the Fund for a Healthy Maine is used and whether it is used effectively.
Uninsured rate plunges as nation’s median income, poverty rate stay level
By Amy Goldstein, Jeff Guo and Lazaro Gamio, Washington Post
Posted Sept. 16, 2015,
WASHINGTON — The proportion of Americans who lack health insurance took a big dip last year, with nearly 9 million people gaining coverage since 2013, according to federal figures announced Wednesday morning.
The new figures, from the large annual Census survey that measures Americans’ well-being in several ways, found that the share of people across the country who were uninsured fell from 13.1 percent in 2013 to 10.4 percent last year.
The share of uninsured people in Maine dropped an estimated 1 percentage point, from 147,000 to 134,000. The 13,000 drop comes with a margin of error of 11,000.
At the same time, the nation’s official poverty rate stayed level at 14.8 percent, equivalent to 46.7 million people in poverty. This marks the third consecutive year in which median incomes for Americans remained constant.
Meanwhile, wages continued a long stagnation, with the median household income remaining at $53,657, effectively the same, after being adjusted for inflation, as the year before, showing why so many Americans feel they have not experienced a major improvement in their economic prospects. Income remains 6.5 percent lower than in 2007.
8.8 Million More Americans Have Health Insurance in 2014 — But Can They Afford to Use It?
However, just because you’re insured doesn’t mean you can still afford health care, experts say
By Jennifer Gerson UffalussyYahoo Health, September 16, 2015
The latest census data released today (Sept. 16) shows that the percentage of people without health insurance was 10.4 percent lower than the number of uninsured in 2013.
While 41.8 million, or 13.3 percent of Americans, were without health insurance in 2013, that number dropped to 33 million — 10.4 percent of Americans — in 2014.
That’s 8.8 million more people who have health insurance coverage year over year.
Between 2008 and 2013, the uninsured rate was relatively stable — despite the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. In 2014, thought, the uninsured rate sharply decreased, with the percentage of people with health insurance coverage in 2014 spiking to 89.6 percent.
The 2014 numbers show that age is strongly associated with the likelihood that a person has health insurance. In 2014, 98.6 percent of adults aged 65 years or over had some type of health insurance during the year, compared with 93.8 percent of children under age 19 and 85.7 percent of working-age adults aged 19 to 64 years.
However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts that at least 27 million Americans will be uninsured every year for the next 10 years. And the stakes are high: A study in the American Journal of Public Healthshowed in a given year, there are 1,000 deaths for every 1 million people related to the lack of insurance.
What the Census Bureau report neglects to mention is that for some people, just because they have insurance doesn’t mean they can afford to use it due to high deductibles and co-pays, says Robert Zarr, MD, MPH, president of Physicians for a National Health Program.
That’s a problem called underinsurance — when people have skimpy policies with high deductibles and copays that leaves them with high out-of-pocket expenses when paying for their health care.
“A recent study by the Commonwealth Fund shows that about 31 million people who have health insurance – nearly a quarter of all insured non-elderly adults – are underinsured, nearly double the rate in 2003,” Zarr says. “Of these, 44 percent went without a doctor’s visit, medical test, or prescription due to cost, while 51 percent had problems paying off medical bills or were paying off medical debt over time.”
Zarr notes that the average deductible for a family with a silver-level plan— the marketplace standard plan that offers, on average, 70 percent cost coverage for retail medical services — bought through the Healthcare.gov marketplace is estimated to be $6,010. And out-of-pocket costs for copayments and deductibles, after premium payments, for a family of four with an income of about $60,000 per year can be as high as $13,200.
Report: Maine Lags Nation in Health Coverage
By PATTY WIGHT
The Maine Center for Economic Policy says that Maine is the only state in the nation that has not seen an increase in the percentage of people with health insurance since passage of the Affordable Care Act.
"In fact, Maine has fallen from 10th to 24th in the nation for the percentage of people with health coverage since 2010," says Garrett Martin, the Center's executive director.
Martin says about 134,000 people, or 10 percent of the population, is uninsured. He says to improve the situation, Maine should accept federal funds to expand Medicaid as allowed under the Affordable Care Act.
No comments:
Post a Comment