web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > healthcare

America is Out-Performing the “Medical Paradise” of Canada In Procedure Wait Times

Westlake Legal Group national-flag-canada-lge2-620x414 America is Out-Performing the “Medical Paradise” of Canada In Procedure Wait Times United States surgeries. Politics Medicare healthcare Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats Canada Allow Media Exception

In the course of every debate about Medicare in the United States, someone on the left will eventually bring up Canada. Glorious Canada, where medicine flows freely down panacea rivers and Canadians don’t have to pay a dime for it. 

Only none of that is true. It’s a horrendous healthcare system with horrible wait times, excessive costs via taxes, and you’re forced to pay for everybody’s bad decisions in regard to how they lived their life. Regardless of this being the reality, leftists like Sen. Bernie Sanders will tell you how much better Canada’s healthcare system is as opposed to America where, from the sounds of it, we have people dying in the streets over it.

This is odd, seeing as how in Canada you may be waiting quite a bit for care once it’s proven that you need it. You’re made to wait long periods for treatment as your condition worsens over time.

But in America, you’re far more likely to get that treatment ASAP.

According to the Foundation for Economic Education, a new study by the Fraser Institute shows just how fast America is in getting care to those who need surgeries compared to its Canadian cousin:

Surgeries are scheduled after patients are seen by the surgeon, and most people see surgeons only after a referral by either their primary care physician in America, or their general practitioner in Canada. In the United States, 70 percent of patients are able to be seen by specialists less than four weeks after a referral. In Canada, less than 40 percent were seen inside of four weeks.

After being advised that they need a procedure done, only about 35 percent of Canadians had their surgery within a month, whereas in the United States, 61 percent did. After four months, about 97 percent of Americans were able to have their surgery, whereas Canada struggled to achieve 80 percent.

America is significantly outperforming Canada in surgery wait times even as it’s likely that tens of thousands of Canadians come here to use the American system.

America’s healthcare system isn’t perfect. That much is clear. However, it still beats Canada’s.

 

The post America is Out-Performing the “Medical Paradise” of Canada In Procedure Wait Times appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group healthcare-300x200 America is Out-Performing the “Medical Paradise” of Canada In Procedure Wait Times United States surgeries. Politics Medicare healthcare Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats Canada Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

With Leana Wen Gone, Planned Parenthood’s Interim CEO Brings With Her a Religious Message: Abortion is for Christians, Too

Westlake Legal Group mother-84628_1280-620x413 With Leana Wen Gone, Planned Parenthood’s Interim CEO Brings With Her a Religious Message: Abortion is for Christians, Too Uncategorized transgender The Sexes the christian post Politics planned parenthood LifeNews LGBT LEANA wen healthcare Front Page Stories Featured Story eugene gu democrats Culture Congress Allow Media Exception alexis mcgill

 

 

Planned Parenthood’s Leana Wen was let go Tuesday after nearly a year as the abortion provider’s CEO.

During her tenure, she generated news stories such as these:

New Planned Parenthood President Says It’s ‘About Saving People’s Lives’

Planned Parenthood President Guests On Comedy Central, Brags Of Her New ‘Badge Of Honor’

Planned Parenthood President Offended ‘As A Mother’ By Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Leading the charge for abortion, she tweeted things like this:

Now that she’s been pushed out, whats’ the status of the organization’s interim leader?

She’s a woman of faith.

In 2014, Alexis McGill took her message to the church.

She described herself to The Christian Post as a Christian who believes abortion is complicated issue rightfully managed between the woman, the doctor, and God:

“We all recognize that abortion and terminating a pregnancy is a very complicated decision, but that issue needs to be left to a woman, her doctor and her God, not a politician. I felt that it was a very insulting way of trying to suggest that we’re not capable of grappling with the implications of the decisions that we make.”

Also, keep those black abortions coming:

“I feel like [the pro-life campaign is] an assault on black women’s ability to make a decision. We’d have to talk about the conditions under which that is happening. Black women have less access to healthcare for a whole variety of reasons, and so trying to create those causal links are not always the easiest ways to understand really what’s underlying the challenges that black women are facing.”

Christian Alexis — who’s served, according to LifeNews, on the PP board of directors for “many years” — is sure to generate some compelling headlines of her own.

Concerning Leana — who appeared to perpetually take the position that abortion is all about healthcare rather than politics — there may be a particularly political reason she was ousted.

As reported by The Daily Wire:

Insiders note…that another factor that contributed to Wen’s departure was her lack of “trans-inclusive” language, believing that it would isolate moderates from supporting Planned Parenthood.

Is this a sign of the ubiquitous abortion giant slimmings its waistline, or will the new direction mean impregnated sales?

RedState’s Kira Davis noted on the 16th:

A recent Gallup poll revealed that a mere 25% of Americans support abortions under any circumstances. That puts into question the wisdom of advocating for things like partial birth abortion.

Kira included an interesting quote from Students for Life President Kristin Hawkins:

“The musical chairs at the top of the nation’s number one abortion vendor changes nothing. Women don’t need what Planned Parenthood is selling. Pregnancy is not a disease cured by abortion, and with federally qualified health centers standing by to offer true, full-service healthcare, women have lots of options that don’t include abortion.”

As for Leana’s lack of transgender inclusion, Alexis is primed for such a move. As we’ve already seen in the early Democratic debates, there’s support there. Julian Castro is wholly on board:

“And, you know, what that means is that just because a woman — or, let’s also not forget, someone in the trans community, a trans female — is poor doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the right to exercise that right to choose.”

And as I covered twice this week, so is bellowing anti-Trump doctor Eugene Gu:

It’s a new frontier. So get ready, Christians and men: Your abortions await.

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: here, here, here, and here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

New Video Allegedly Reveals Planned Parenthood Instructing Teachers On How To Help Kids Hide Abortions From Their Parents

A Continuing Degradation Of Life: Government Orders The Killing Of A Man Who Was Left Quadriplegic By A Car Accident

Apple Co-Founder Has A Message For The World: Get Off Of Facebook

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.

If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”

The post With Leana Wen Gone, Planned Parenthood’s Interim CEO Brings With Her a Religious Message: Abortion is for Christians, Too appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group mother-84628_1280-300x200 With Leana Wen Gone, Planned Parenthood’s Interim CEO Brings With Her a Religious Message: Abortion is for Christians, Too Uncategorized transgender The Sexes the christian post Politics planned parenthood LifeNews LGBT LEANA wen healthcare Front Page Stories Featured Story eugene gu democrats Culture Congress Allow Media Exception alexis mcgill   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Why Do Republicans #Persist in Adding Government to Health Care?

 

Westlake Legal Group persist-800x800_10b4b419-72b8-4b93-836e-95eacfded6ac_580x@2x-620x237 Why Do Republicans #Persist in Adding Government to Health Care? senator lamar alexander republicans Politics Policy Obamacare News medicare for all lower health care costs act of 2019 law healthcare Government Front Page Stories Front Page Economy democrats Business & Economy Bipartisanship bipartisan

Welcome to Tweetlandia.  The shambling wreck of a carcass our once great nation has become.

One of the very many trends that exists in Tweetlandia – is the diminution of all thought.  Often down to Twitter hashtag length – and depth.

One such Leftist hashtag pseudo-thought – is the anti-everything-to-the-Right-of-Karl-Marx #Persist.  It’s one-word-brevity is of particular assistance to its Leftist wielders.

In Tweetlandia, the Urban Dictionary has replaced Merriam Webster’s – so we go there:

“Persist: Continue firmly or obstinately in an opinion or a course of action in spite of difficulty, opposition, or failure.”

Leftists #Persist in pursuing all sorts of already-proven-to-be failures.

To wit: Government medicine.  Government medicine – is an unmitigated disaster.

Obamacare was a huge disaster:

“Obamacare stripped millions of people of their insurance.  For those who survived that mass slaughter – Obamacare doubled the average insurance premium and tripled the average insurance deductible.”

Following on Medicare – which is a $38-trillion-short titanic disaster:

“The unfunded liability is the amount that has been promised in benefits to people now alive that will not be funded by the tax revenue the system is expected to take in to pay for those benefits.”

And that titanic shortfall – is with private insurance subsidizing the daylight out of Medicare.

Medicare For All – What About Cost Shifting?:

“When Medicare was introduced in 1966, the government reached out to the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association to come up with a way to determine what to pay hospitals for treating patients….

“Medicare quickly figured out a sad truth. There wasn’t enough Medicare money….

“The Inpatient Prospective Payment System was implemented, meaning all direct connection to costs were now gone – but however you sliced it, Medicare was now paying less than the cost of treating patients.

“If Medicare did not pay its fair share, then hospitals would make it up on other payers. This is known as cost shifting.”

Get that?  Medicare payments don’t even cover the base costs of treating patients.

Private patients and their insurance companies – have been subsidizing Medicare since just about its 1966 inception.

Yet the Leftists #Persist.  Because $38 trillion short – ain’t nearly enough of a nation-wrecking debit to stop the Left.

Oh – and the Left wants to ban all private insurance.  You know, the companies that have been propping up Medicare for decades.

So everything medicine can as quickly as possible collapse into one giant smoldering government-induced heap.

#Persist!

Why any Republican anywhere would in any way expand government’s role in medicine – is light years beyond me.

Yet we have just such Republicans.  Joining the #Persist “movement” – whether they realize it or not.

A great many of us have spent the last several weeks pointing out the stupidity of this notion.

Why Are Some Republicans Looking to Add More Government to Health Care?

Yet these Republicans…#Persist!:

Behold – Tennessee Republican Senator Lamar Alexander.  Who very recently penned an editorial defending his government-expanding decision.  His very own title – admits the inherent error.

Lower Health Care Costs Act Aims to End Surprise Billing

Your legislation “aims to end surprise billing” – ?!?

Government is the worst shot in the history of aiming.

Obamacare aimed to “reduce premiums by $2,500 per year.”  They DOUBLED.

I guarantee you no one around at Medicare’s inception said they were aiming to put US taxpayers $38 trillion underwater.  Yet that’s what it’s done

Yet Senator Alexander #Persists:

“Instead of remaining stuck in a perpetual partisan argument over the Affordable Care Act and health insurance, senators are working across party lines to lower the costs of what Americans pay for health care out of their own pockets.”

Of COURSE Democrats want to stop talking about Obamacare (the woefully mis-named “Affordable Care Act.”)

Democrats were either exponentially wrong about it – or lying their faces off about it.

Republicans won more than 1,000 elected offices up and down the ballot since Democrats jammed Obamacare down our throats.  And only started again losing seats – when it became clear their promises to repeal Obamacare were…exceedingly disingenuous.

Republicans should want to continue the Obamacare conversation – right up until they actually repeal the awfulness.

But on this they do not #Persist.

More from Senator Alexander:

“(U)p to half of the $3.5 trillion Americans spent on health care in 2017 may have been unnecessary, according to testimony before the Senate health committee from the National Academies.”

Yes, we have.  And an excruciating percentage of this unnecessary expenditure – is the subsidies we are forced to provide to prop up Medicare.

So how on Earth does Senator Alexander think his “aim” – on this the latest government “solution” to high health care costs – be any better?

Answer: Of course, it absolutely isn’t.

Government is the reason our health care system is as screwed up as it is.

Senator Alexander – we need LESS government.

Your bill – is more.

Which only makes sense in Tweetlandia.

The post Why Do Republicans #Persist in Adding Government to Health Care? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group persist-800x800_10b4b419-72b8-4b93-836e-95eacfded6ac_580x@2x-300x115 Why Do Republicans #Persist in Adding Government to Health Care? senator lamar alexander republicans Politics Policy Obamacare News medicare for all lower health care costs act of 2019 law healthcare Government Front Page Stories Front Page Economy democrats Business & Economy Bipartisanship bipartisan   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump’s Main Competitor Launched a Major Platform Yesterday and Not a Soul Noticed

Westlake Legal Group Biden-620x378 Trump’s Main Competitor Launched a Major Platform Yesterday and Not a Soul Noticed Trump platform pelosi Obamacare Joe Biden healthcare Front Page Stories Featured Story elections 2020 Democrats

While we’re all parsing out Trump’s tweet storm, analyzing every word to death and raging into the wind on one side or other the rest of the world has just kept turning.

The path to 2020 is unfolding and with dozens of Democrat presidential candidates it is more important than ever for each one of them to be able to grab as much of the media spotlight as possible. However, at this point only one candidate is polling with numbers high enough to be considered any type of threat to Trump – Joe Biden.

There are a few vital subjects that every Democrat candidate must officially approach in order to reach their base -the border and illegal immigration, race, and healthcare.

When Obama first jammed Obamacare down America’s throat some of us who have lived under socialized medicine understood that the only thing it would guarantee is that politicians would forever be running on “fixing” the “fix” for healthcare. As a born Canadian, I can attest to that. I’ve never experienced on Canadian election in my 40-plus years in which a politician hasn’t run on fixing the broken medical system, because government doesn’t fix things.

So naturally Joe Biden’s stance on healthcare was set to be a major wind in his sails media-wise. After all, this is the man who served under the very president who brought us the “Affordable” Healthcare Act. It would be a delicate launch considering the failure of the policy. Biden needs to be able to carefully straddle the line between being proudly connected to it and admitting it didn’t really do what it promised.

On Monday Biden finally released his long-awaited healthcare platform…to deafening silence.

While Biden released the details of Obamacare 2.0, the rest of the world was raging at – or defending – Trump. Nary a soul noticed Biden’s soulless rehash of a nearly dead piece of legislation.

You can read about Biden’s plan here but it’s hardly worth the time. The bullet point wrap up is:

  • lower healthcare costs
  • expand insurance to the uninsured or underinsured
  • take on Big Pharma
  • improve healthcare quality
  • offer a public health exchange

Basically everything Obamacare was supposed to have done and didn’t.

It could have been worth at least a tiny boost in sycophant media circles…but then along came Trump. Suddenly, instead of talking about Joe Biden – the man who served as vice president to American’s first Black president – all they could talk about was Trump; and following that, the “Broad Squad” as they hogged the evening news cycle by stepping way out of their lane and into oncoming traffic.

Oh, to hear the conversations between Biden and Pelosi right now! Two of America’s most experienced politicians upstaged by a tweet-happy president and four freshman congresswomen.

It’s almost as if it were planned.

The post Trump’s Main Competitor Launched a Major Platform Yesterday and Not a Soul Noticed appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group trump-smirk2-300x200 Trump’s Main Competitor Launched a Major Platform Yesterday and Not a Soul Noticed Trump platform pelosi Obamacare Joe Biden healthcare Front Page Stories Featured Story elections 2020 Democrats   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Joe Biden, Dazed and Confused, Promises If You Like Your Insurance, You Can Keep Your Insurance

Westlake Legal Group media.townhall-1-620x317 Joe Biden, Dazed and Confused, Promises If You Like Your Insurance, You Can Keep Your Insurance warren Politifact Politics Obamacare Lie of the Year Joe Biden healthcare harris gaffe Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story democrats Barack Obama

You may recall back in 2009 when former President Obama proclaimed that “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.” Because the media felt the need to fluff the former President at all times, that obvious fib went nearly unchecked outside of right-wing sources for nearly five years. Politifact even dutifully gave it a “half true” rating twice. But by 2013, as Obamacare finally kicked in fully, they finally saw the light and rated it their “lie of the year.”

Obama even went so far as to admit he lied, in very diplomatic terms of course.

In announcing the fix, Obama again conceded he had exaggerated. “There is no doubt that the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate,” he said. “It was not because of my intention not to deliver on that commitment and that promise.  We put a grandfather clause into the law, but it was insufficient.”

Given that Joe Biden was Obama’s VP at the time and helped spread the falsehood, he obviously learned his lesson and wouldn’t repeat the same lie again, right?

Nah, he just repeated the same lie again.

Are we back in 2009?

Did no one think to tell him this was a bad idea? Perhaps they did though but Joe Biden has developed a reputation in his young campaign of not listening to aids (sounds familiar) and choosing to just wing it. But come on, it’s nearly a word for word reproduction of Obama’s lie of the year. This should have been flashing red light for Biden to avoid. Instead, he stumbles right into it.

Some apologists may say things will be different this time, but nah, no chance. His proposed plan, which includes a public option and further restrictions on insurance, will undoubtedly produce even worse results than Obamacare for those with private and employer plans. As the market shifts and more people take the free healthcare option, insurance providers will be forced to drop people, raise prices, and ultimately may end up out of business. There’s no scenario where everyone just gets to “keep their healthcare” if they like it.

This smacks of him promising to cure cancer. It’s nonsensical, political garbage. There’s nothing worse than when someone running for office makes promises they know they can’t keep and Biden isn’t quick stupid enough to not realize what he was saying. Or maybe he is? Perhaps he’s just going senile and it didn’t dawn on him how big of a gaffe this is?

I don’t know, but what I do know is that Biden is really bad at campaigning. I’m not going to bury him just yet, but with Warren and Harris hot on his heels, the inevitability of Biden has vanished. He’s got a dogfight ahead and I don’t think “sleepy” Joe is up for it.

————————————————-

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

 

The post Joe Biden, Dazed and Confused, Promises If You Like Your Insurance, You Can Keep Your Insurance appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group media.townhall-8-300x153 Joe Biden, Dazed and Confused, Promises If You Like Your Insurance, You Can Keep Your Insurance warren Politifact Politics Obamacare Lie of the Year Joe Biden healthcare harris gaffe Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story democrats Barack Obama   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Anti-Trump Doctor Gets Pounced on Twitter After Advocating for Men Who ‘Can Get Pregnant & Also Have Abortions’

Westlake Legal Group nature-blossom-wing-plant-photography-sweet-842526-pxhere.com_-620x319 Anti-Trump Doctor Gets Pounced on Twitter After Advocating for Men Who ‘Can Get Pregnant & Also Have Abortions’ Uncategorized The Sexes Sex Science pregnancy LGBT healthcare Front Page Stories Featured Story eugene gu donald trump colin kaepernick biology Allow Media Exception

 

 

Have you heard of anti-Trump surgeon Eugene Gu?

More importantly, have you heard the news about men?

I’ll let Eugene deliver it:

“It’s a scientific and medical fact that men can get pregnant and also have abortions.”

That’s what he posted to Twitter on July 12th.

It brings to mind, of course, Julian Castro’s comment in the Democratic debate (here):

“And, you know, what that means is that just because a woman — or, let’s also not forget, someone in the trans community, a trans female — is poor doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the right to exercise that right [to an abortion].”

“Trans female” = dude.

The good doctor was also referencing a notion of opposite-sex identity, though he got the plumbing correct:

“Trans men and non-binary individuals are human beings who deserve to be acknowledged by society. They choose their own identity — not me, not you, not any doctor, and certainly not any politician.”

If I may, I’d like to pause here and point out something that has nothing to do with transgenderism, but rather, a larger idea:

Nobody has the “right” to be acknowledged by society as any given thing. People have the right to think whatever they want, about whatever and whomever they want. Furthermore, they have the right to say whatever they want, about whatever and whomever they want.

It is, to me, both against liberty and in support of one of our greatest contemporary maladies — narcissism — to suggest that people have a “right” to be considered in any given way. You should live your life as you deem fit; if you’re waiting for the world to salute you for it, you’re living according to others. That’s good for no one.

Back to Dr. Eugene, Twitter had a lot to say:

Dr. Rosen Rosen is a musician who composed for the movie Son of Eyeball Man.

Here’s Dr. Hackenbush:



Inez Stepman, of The Federalist, added one:

And there was this:

One user called up Rachel Dolezal:

More:

And this:

And that’s where we are.

This isn’t Dr. Gu’s first time to make headlines. As reported by The Daily Wire:

Gu’s claim to fame is kneeling to apparently protest America’s pervasive racism, a nod to anthem-kneeling former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick. The persistent Trump-basher even sued the president after Trump blocked him on Twitter; Trump was eventually forced to unblock Gu’s account.

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

Defying The Left’s Caricature Of The Right, Donald Trump Jr. Comes To The Defense Of Chelsea Clinton

Woman’s Rapists Exonerated Due To 3 Judges’ Ruling That She Was Too Ugly To Have Been Raped

Unearthed Young Beto Poem Asks The Reader To ‘Wax [His] A**’ & ‘Scrub [His] B*Lls’

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.

If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”

The post Anti-Trump Doctor Gets Pounced on Twitter After Advocating for Men Who ‘Can Get Pregnant & Also Have Abortions’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group nature-blossom-wing-plant-photography-sweet-842526-pxhere.com_-300x154 Anti-Trump Doctor Gets Pounced on Twitter After Advocating for Men Who ‘Can Get Pregnant & Also Have Abortions’ Uncategorized The Sexes Sex Science pregnancy LGBT healthcare Front Page Stories Featured Story eugene gu donald trump colin kaepernick biology Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Cost of Innovation: New Cures Are Invaluable

Westlake Legal Group capsules-chemistry-coated-143654-620x413 The Cost of Innovation: New Cures Are Invaluable socialism rationing medicare for all Innovation healthcare Health Care Front Page Stories Allow Media Exception
There was a lot of talk in the recent Democratic debates about healthcare and how to fix our broken system. Unfortunately, but also Unsurprisingly, the Democrat presidential wannabees stuck to staid and vague plans which hinge on government intervention and control.

We should be frank: healthcare is voters’ number one concern and millions of Americans are struggling with high premiums, out of pocket costs and other fees when trying to afford care.

But the Democrats and many recent media reports miss the mark when considering this issue. Take recent headlines about new medicines that have overwhelmingly emphasized the cost of the treatments, without taking into account the long-term economic benefits and the lives saved by these treatments.e

For patients, these cures are invaluable.

Take, for example, a recent drug approved to treat spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), Zolgensma. The drug is a medical breakthrough; a cutting-edge, gene-therapy which is administered in one dose to infants and has so far shown to lead to dramatically improved outcomes.

SMA is one of the most common genetic diseases affecting up to 25,000 individuals in the U.S. alone, and among the most serious. Those with severe forms of the disease typically die before they turn two.

For these patients, this drug is a lifesaver. One patient with SMA, who is also an adjunct professor of economics and finance, made this case in STAT News. Nathan Yates explained the factors at play in pricing this drug and why it is a step in the right direction and potential life saver for patients. He explains:

We should not put a price tag on life, though…think about the parents who will no longer have to receive the heartbreaking news that my parents were given 29 years ago: “Your child has spinal muscular atrophy, and there’s nothing we can do. Survival beyond early childhood is unlikely.”

These are families that now have hope for not just an improved quality of life, but life at all. This drug is actually a long-term cost saver, costing less in the single treatment than the multiple years of previously existing treatments.

We see this time and again with new, breakthrough cures. For example, a new treatment for advanced lung cancer was shown to lead to five-year survival rates of 25 percent. While that may not seem significant, prior to this treatment the survival rate was five percent.

These are lives saved. This is the point of medicine.

This perspective was lost in the coverage, likely due to a renewed hyper focus from elected officials to prove to voters that they are serious about addressing healthcare costs.

This enthusiasm to show progress on addressing healthcare costs has led members of all parties to examine radical proposals. From single payer, Medicare-for-all to unelected arbiters setting prices, these proposals threaten patient access to cures as well as the robust, market forces which drives medical innovation in the U.S.

Numerous studies have shown the link between market forces and size and increases in innovation. One paper by MIT economists Daron Acemoglu and Joshua Linn showed just this, when the market for a drug grows, so too does the number of drugs entering that market. This should surprise no one. It’s simple supply and demand.

When healthcare markets adopt socialist policies, however, they reduce the demand via cost controls and rationed care. The end result is that investment into those cures, i.e. supply, is reduced, as well. This would have an immediate chilling effect, not only for U.S. patients but as well for the international medical community. The U.S. “funds about 44 percent of world medical R&D, invests 75 percent of global medical venture capital, and holds the intellectual property rights for most new medicines,” according to the White House Council of Economic Advisers. Reducing investment and innovation in the U.S. will reduce the number of cures for the entire world.

This is why headlines decrying the cost of a treatment miss the full picture. These cures are invaluable to those who will benefit from them, while, from an economic perspective, new cures shove open the door to more research and more cures, further bringing down cost.

Therefore, we must fiercely protect this market and reject policies like Medicare-for-all which will reduce research into new cures. We must think critically about healthcare costs, of course, but without losing sight of the value these cures have and the importance of innovation to future generations.

We engage in medical research to save lives. It’s time we appreciate that we’re making progress on doing just that.

Or, we could just adopt whatever it was that Marianne Williamson was talking about.

The post The Cost of Innovation: New Cures Are Invaluable appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group pills-300x196 The Cost of Innovation: New Cures Are Invaluable socialism rationing medicare for all Innovation healthcare Health Care Front Page Stories Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Rep. Jim Jordan at Obamacare Hearing: “How Can You Undermine Something That’s Already Failed?” (Video)

Westlake Legal Group JimJordanAPPhoto-620x317 Rep. Jim Jordan at Obamacare Hearing: “How Can You Undermine Something That’s Already Failed?” (Video) washington D.C. Social Media republicans Politics Ohio Obamacare North Carolina Jim Jordan hearings healthcare Government Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Congress Allow Media Exception

Ranking Member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, asks questions to Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer, during a hearing of the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2019. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

On Wednesday, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform held a hearing on Obamacare. Specifically, the committee wanted to discuss what they called the Trump administration’s “attacks” on the ACA:

The purpose of the hearing is to examine the Administration’s decision to reverse its position in Texas v. United States and assert that the entire health care law should be struck down, as well as the impact this reversal could have on millions of Americans—including those with pre-existing conditions—and the United States health care system.

Ranking member Jim Jordan (R-OH) didn’t mince words in an opening statement that questioned how Obamacare could be “undermined” if it had already failed. He also talked about what he called the “Nine lies of Obamacare.”

After asserting that the committee was not interested in working towards bipartisan healthcare solutions that would “make the lives of everyday Americans better”, Jordan said the goal of the hearing was to score “political points” against the Trump administration.

“The Majority’s title for today’s hearing is ‘Trump’s Efforts to Undermine the ACA’,” Jordan said, reading off the agenda in front of him. “Undermine the ACA? Think about what we were told when this bill passed now, what, 9 years ago? I call them the nine lies of Obamacare”:

1 – “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. Y’all remember that one?”
2 – “How about the one if you like your plan you can keep your plan?”
3 – “We were told by the President of the United States premiums were gonna go down.”
4 – “He then got more specific: Premiums will go down on average $1,500.”
5 – “He said deductibles would decline.”
6 – “This was in the fall of 2013, remember this one? They told us the website was gonna work.”
7 – “They told us the website was secure. Your information would be secure there.”
8 – “They told us that these [Obamacare] co-ops were wonderful, end-all, be-all creations. Twenty-three were created. Guess how many are still in existence? Four. The other nineteen went bankrupt.”
9 – “First they told us [the individual mandate penalty] it’s not a tax, then they went to court and said it is a tax. Now they’re saying no it’s not really a tax at all ’cause you can’t tax them now ’cause the individual mandate’s gone. There’s no penalty.”

Nine different lies we were told about Obamacare and the hearing is titled ‘Trump’s Efforts to Undermine the ACA.’ How can you undermine something that’s already failed?”

Watch Rep. Jordan’s opening remarks about Obamacare below:

Matt Margolis at PJ Media has a good explainer giving some background on each of the lies Jordan talked about. Make sure to check it out.

———–
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Rep. Jim Jordan at Obamacare Hearing: “How Can You Undermine Something That’s Already Failed?” (Video) appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group JimJordanAPPhoto-300x153 Rep. Jim Jordan at Obamacare Hearing: “How Can You Undermine Something That’s Already Failed?” (Video) washington D.C. Social Media republicans Politics Ohio Obamacare North Carolina Jim Jordan hearings healthcare Government Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Congress Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Why I believe that the NHS should cover social care

Jacob-Rees Mogg is MP for North East Somerset.

A proposal to solve the social care issue was one of the reasons for the Conservatives’ dismal performance at the last election. There has long been a need to develop a system – but that it had such stark electoral consequences is a reminder of the sensitivity of any policy solutions, though bringing it forward it showed how serious the issue is.

The current system does not work. It is arbitrary. Families argue with the authorities as to what part of care is medical and what is social and diseases of old age, especially dementia, seem to be excluded, at least in part. This leaves some families with bills of tens of thousands of pounds each year, potentially for many years, while those with heart disease or cancer will see all the costs fall on the state. This principle of health provision free at the point of use is one of the main stays of the British welfare state. It provides security for all of us if certain types of illness hit, but leaves the failure to provide social care, that has crossed a narrow boundary from medical care, appear all the more unfair.

Not only is there an arbitrariness in the definition but the rules of who pays what are complex and problematic. Council budgets take the strain for social care but the NHS for medical, which leads to people spending too long in hospital. All the while, budgets are argued over and higher-cost hospital beds remain occupied by people who ought to be elsewhere – possibly, with a little support, even back in their own homes.

Once the bureaucracy has determined the fall of costs, the ways that these fall on individuals are equally complex. Quite rightly, an individual who shares a home will not normally be expected to see the value of the property taken into account. Yet, the frail, elderly parent who has been looked after by a child for ten years who then spends the last year of their life in a home could see the family property taken, whereas if the child had moved in it would not be. Complex charging rules inevitably lead to the system falling harshly on some and not on others, contributing to changes in behaviour.

It is, perhaps, easy to set out the problem but less so the solution. An ageing population and the growing complexities of care make the costs high and move from self-paying to government-paying increases demand. This is an iron law of economics – there is more demand for something that is free. So why is Warwick Lightfoot of Policy Exchange right to say that the state must take on this burden?

It is the role of the state to save and shelter us from the overwhelming problem. The cost of long-term social care is more than all but the super-rich can easily afford, and the risk of it falls indiscriminately. The majority of families will not be hit in this way, but some will be hit completely.

It is also a continuation of the NHS principle of care free at the point of use: any constituency MP will have helped constituents argue what proportion of care is NHS and free and what is social, so paid.

Additionally, the cost, though high, is affordable if it is a priority. Lightfoot’s paper suggests £11 billion, but there would be some savings from the NHS budget as beds are freed up, reducing the misallocation of resources. The ONS has recently revised up the nation’s GDP to £2.2 trillion so this is 0.5 per cent of national income, a significant but not disproportionate amount to provide for the needs of the most vulnerable elderly.

To prevent a spiralling of costs, it is important to keep an affordable element of co-payment: £5000 per year seems to strike the right balance. Families would still have an incentive to keep their elderly relations at home, avoiding the probably vast cost of all this care falling on the state. However, once this amount had been spent, the rest of the base cost would fall on taxpayers, although families would be free to buy extra services and the supply would continue to be from private operators as no one wants to go back to council-run nursing homes.

There are some things that ought to fall on central taxation, and it is anomalous that social care does not, especially when the individual cost is potentially ruinous. It has become a near 100 per cent wealth or inheritance tax that falls randomly on an unlucky few. It is, therefore, a risk that it makes sense to pool but, with no insurance available, it is an area where it is right and fair for the state to step in.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Mark Harper: Our social care policy should be more ambitious

Mark Harper is MP for the Forest of Dean, a former Chief Whip, and former Minister for Disabled People.

When social care is discussed in the media or in Parliament, the conversation almost always focuses on the needs of older people. What is not widely known is that just over half of the adult social care budget in England is actually spent, not on older people, but on working age adults with some form of disability. And I am going to talk about both.

A lot of the discussion on social care for older people is about how it is paid for, that is to say how you split the cost between the individual and the taxpayer. That is because many older people will have accumulated significant assets by the time they need social care, and it is reasonable that the cost is shared between them and the taxpayer. The debate is about the balance between the two.

For the last two years, the Government has been talking about how to fund social care. However, the Dilnot Commission in 2011 confirmed that the public agreed that the cost of social care for older people should be shared between the individual and the taxpayer.

We have already put down the foundations for some of the recommendations from Dilnot in primary legislation with the Care Act 2014. All that remains is to draft the secondary legislation to put the figure for the cap in. This could be done very quickly – taking action beats more talking.

Britain has a proud record of being a leading country on enabling disabled people to be more independent and get into work. I am familiar with this policy area because I was the Shadow Minister for Disabled People for almost three years, between 2007 and 2010, and the Minister for Disabled People between 2014 and 2015.

In our 2017 general election manifesto, we set out an ambition to get a million more disabled people into employment over ten years. That is the right direction of travel, but I would like to see us be more ambitious about both the destination and the speed with which we intend to reach it.

I have a suggestion: perhaps we should re-adopt the commitment we made in our 2015 manifesto that ‘we will aim to halve the disability employment gap’. The Social Market Foundation has said that the 2015 commitment would see between 200,000 to 500,000 extra disabled people in work compared to our 2017 promise. In the interests of transparency, I should explain that, as the Minister for Disabled People in the run up to the 2015 election, I may have had a hand in drafting said manifesto commitment myself!

The Social Care Green Paper offers an opportunity to set out some of the Government’s thinking and some of the options it has for action for working age adults with some form of disability. Publishing it would kick off the necessary debate about the right solutions. The Government would have an opportunity to listen to valuable feedback from disabled people, expert organisations involved in this field and the wider public. It would then be able to set out specific actions it is going to take, legislating where necessary. The sooner we begin, the sooner we can see real change taking place and the sooner disabled people will feel the benefit.

I chair the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Learning Disability, and recently chaired a joint meeting with eight other relevant APPGs to talk about what we wanted to see in the Green Paper. This meeting was attended by a number of disabled people and campaigners for change. A summary of the meeting will shortly be sent to the Health and Social Care Secretary.

One clear theme that emerged was to see better joined-up working between the social care, health, and welfare systems. There is quite a lot of support available already, but it does not always work well together as a package. For example, if someone acquires a disability, the rest of their life (their work, their family) keeps going at the same pace but things can go wrong because the support they need, like social care, home adaptations, and financial help, do not get going quickly enough.

The funding of social care for working age adults is very different from funding social care for older people, as they often have few, if any, assets. Any kind of means testing for social care support for them runs the risk of creating further barriers to getting into work.

Looking at the system overall, there may be areas where an increase in spending is required but that may lead to savings elsewhere. For example, more resources available to enable somebody to work is likely to lead to better health outcomes as well as that person making a financial contribution to the public finances.

Conservatives want to enable disabled people to live their lives as independently as possible to reach their full potential. We should be ambitious about our commitments, so I would like to see us improve our goal for getting more disabled people into work, reverting to the better target we had in our 2015 general election manifesto. We need to see more effective joined up working between the social care, health, and welfare systems. To that end, publishing the Social Care Green Paper now would kick off the necessary debate. There are millions of disabled people in our country who will welcome us gripping this issue and making rapid progress to deliver real improvements to their lives.

And for those older people needing social care, swift implementation of a cap as recommended by the Dilnot Commission would lead to a much fairer system.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com