The Truth About Time: It Does NOT Exist

Thank you(R)evolutionScape for another awesome bulletin. I suscribe to their e-mail list and get a lot of interesting information often. I wanted to share this info with you guys.

The Truth About Time: It does not exist except as you say it does

Time is a funny thing. A very funny thing. The biggest trick time ever played on us was to make us think it was real, and that we were under its full control. Yet, time is a complete illusion, a strong and persistent illusion.

What wonderful news that is! Time is an illusion created by you. Once you understand how this illusion is created by you, you then begin to re-create it as you wish, consciously and deliberately instead of unconsciously and accidentally as you may have been doing.

What is time? What do I have to do with time? How should I think and be about time so that I may experience wealth and other things in larger quantities faster? This chapter will begin to answer these questions. In other chapters in this book, these concepts will become more real to you.

The only time that truly exists is Now...

The distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, however persistent - Albert Einstein

- I AM WEALTH. I AM ABUNDANCE. I AM JOY -

Whether time is long or short, and whether space is broad or narrow, depend upon the mind. Those whose minds are at leisure can feel one day as a millennium, and those whose thoughts are expansive can perceive a small house to be as spacious as the universe. - Hung Tzu-ch'eng

- I AM WEALTH. I AM ABUNDANCE. I AM JOY -

Time flows in all directions, not forwards only as it appears to. The past, present and future exist simultaneously.

- I AM WEALTH. I AM ABUNDANCE. I AM JOY -

Here is an easy explanation of what time is. This is an extremely simplified explanation but it will do for now. Imagine a football or soccer field with 10 objects spread around it. Now, imagine that a certain object A represents a child being born and a certain object B represents being a 10 year old child. If object A was to travel to object B, that travel would take what you now call '10 years of time'. That is 10 human years of a child growing up. Now, it gets a little complex: What if that football field was to shrink? Object A would reach B and pass through all the experiences of 10 years of childhood, but the sensation of time would change. In other words, 10 years would feel very different. If that field shrunk enough, ten years could feel like an instant. And you have experienced this often. When you are having a great time, you feel as if time flew by. You did not notice the hours pass; yet your watch said they passed, because your watch is designed to take the same amount of 'time' to move from one second marker on the clock face to the next. But you are not designed that way. Time is the moving of your consciousness past pre-existing events in the space-time continuum. You will soon see what this is.

The field of life that we live in is not static - it keeps changing its dimensions. That is why we have to keep readjusting our watches worldwide all the time for this crazy thing called time to make sense for us - but only because we think of time as consistent slices of periods. It is not. It is merely our misinterpretation of our consciousness moving by one pre-existing event in the filed of Life to the next event, as you shall soon see. The field of life is not static, nor does our consciousness move at a fixed speed. The field may not change that fast for us, and our consciousness may not change its rate that fast unless we will it to do so, and that is why we do not usually notice these differences that much and see that time is not constant.

But if you were to travel very fast in a spaceship, as you may well have heard from Einstein's Theory of Relativity, you can slow down time or even go back in time. Time is more of a sensation of passing events and the faster or slower you pass these events, the faster or slower the calibration of time changes. It is not the taking of time that changes; it is the calibration of time (one minute no longer takes one minute).

Ok, back to the soccer field. Imagine you were one of the objects. You would feel time as you move around the field passing other objects that you see, isn't it? Yes. Now, imagine if you were born moving faster, say three times the speed. Time would seem shorter. Now, imagine you were the soccer field itself! Or even an object large enough to cover the whole field. Now we are talking! Time would cease to exist for you. Because you are the field and you can feel, touch, and be with all the objects on you at the same time always, there would be no travel from one object to another. It would all be happening Here, Now. All of it. All the 10 objects would be happening at the same 'time' for you, always. This is the eternal moment of Now, Here. Everything that can possibly happen in the universe, everything that can possibly be created, the past, present and future, are all running all at the same 'time' in one huge field. Your consciousness and awareness are awake to only a small section of this field at any one 'time' and as you move them about from one point to another, you experience 'time', experiencing a sensation of past, present, and future. The field itself does not experience time; it only experiences an eternal process that is always happening all at one go, Now, Here, Always, All Ways. You can think of the whole field as The Source.

As you expend your consciousness and awareness, as you take up more and more of the field, and time shrinks for you. Can you see that? Now the amazing thing is that, the mind and the Self (or soul or spirit, whichever you are used to referring to) is a lot larger than your physical body. We are used to thinking of the soul or Self as a little thing contained inside our body. That is just human thinking - relating things to containers. Have you ever considered that the soul, being far more powerful than the body, actually holds the body together and surrounds it? And the mind holds the brain and nervous system together and surrounds it? If you have considered that the soul and mind are larger than the body and brain, have you ever considered where they end? How many feet away from your body? Or is it how many miles away? Or how many light years away from your body does your soul end? It is not impossible that your Soul and Mind are a billion times larger than your body (why not?). They are infinite and eternal.

Yet, this humongous powerful Self is you. Anyway, let us get back to wealth. Understanding time clearly, how it works and how to take control of it, and understanding your Self and your Self's composition and relation with everything else physical and non-physical, is of high importance if you wish to experience massive wealth 'fast'. It is all a matter of expanded consciousness, right state and right thought and choice. These lead to your consciousness becoming awake to wealthy parts of the whole and doing so in wider circles.

- I AM WEALTH. I AM ABUNDANCE. I AM JOY -

Now is the only moment that exists. An eternal moment of Now is all there is. You can remember the past and dream the future but you can only be, exist, Here, Now. Make an irrevocable commitment to yourself to make Now the best moment of your life ever!

- I AM WEALTH. I AM ABUNDANCE. I AM JOY -

Do not dwell in the past, or live in the future. Your only moment is Now. Dwell in Now.

- I AM WEALTH. I AM ABUNDANCE. I AM JOY -

As you will soon see, your outer world mirrors your inner world. You will see in this book how this is so.

Do you feel as if you do not have enough time to do what you wish to do? People short of time on the outside are short of it on the inside. They act, think, and speak believing they are short of time. Stop thinking and saying you do not have enough time. Do not believe that for a second. The universe has no shortages of anything including time, and neither do you, except for the ones that you build for yourself. Believing in any sort of shortage makes your consciousness smaller and slower so that you may experience what you believe in.

- I AM WEALTH. I AM ABUNDANCE. I AM JOY -

The present moment is the greatest gift you can have. It is perfectly created for you according to your stated designs. You state these designs by the thoughts, states of being, words, and actions that you held most true to yourself earlier. The present is something that you send yourself, a perfectly pre-sent moment. It allows you to experience, taste, review, and change your past thoughts, states of being, words and actions. Be grateful for the present, for you know you can change it, for it allows you to experience your Self, for its entire existence is to serve you. Cursing, condemning and judging the present moment will only keep it as it is longer. What you resist, judge, and condemn persists. What you embrace and bring to the light for non-judgmental, honest and clear examination reveals the lessons you are looking for, the key to the next level that you seek.

- I AM WEALTH. I AM ABUNDANCE. I AM JOY -

Time is only an illusion produced by the succession of our states of consciousness as we travel through eternal duration, and it does not exist where no consciousness exists in which the illusion can be produced; but 'lies asleep.' - H. P. Blavatsky

- I AM WEALTH. I AM ABUNDANCE. I AM JOY -

The future influences the present just as much as the past. - Nietzsche

- I AM WEALTH. I AM ABUNDANCE. I AM JOY -

The first time you do something is a journey of discovery. You take in the details and learn many new things. At this point, there are no labels and memories to enable you to pre-judge the new experience. Learning is at its highest. The hundredth time you do it is often very different. For most people, repetition brings about unconsciousness. Most people do and see the things that occur most often in their lives in an unconscious and unaware state. Because they have seen or done something once, they turn to relying on their memories of it and labels about it that they built in their minds the first time. Learning and discovery drops to zero. Memories of the past experiences take over. What good does it serve you to live today based on your memory of it yesterday? You miss the gift of the present moment totally! In your business or work, do you take an absolutely fresh look at your work, workmates and customers each new day, or do you go by how you 'know' them in their past?

Everything changes, and using memory keeps you from seeing that change, seeing things as they truly are. Try to 'forget' everything about what you are looking at, and you will discover a whole new world, and you will grow a whole lot faster, grow your wealth and self a whole lot quicker.

Think about it. It is quite often that a stranger will complement your work mate or spouse over something that you totally miss every day because you do not look at them as if they were totally new to you. Memory has its place, but many people overuse it, often in an unbeneficial way.

Decide right now to face every experience anew by choosing to forget that you have ever faced it before. Decide not to anticipate a specific appearance or behavior, an anticipation based on your memory and emotions. Practice detachment of outcome, but have certainty of your choices and intention, and you will find a world that has been hiding from you all along, right in front of your eyes all along.

- I AM WEALTH. I AM ABUNDANCE. I AM JOY -

This text was extracted from the book A Happy Pocket Full of Money
__________________________________________________________________________
For the home webpage of this site go to:
http://www.revolutionscape.com

Tell BLM no more public lands for the world's dirtiest fossil fuel!

Friends,

Did you know that Bush-era environmental policies are still on the books, jeopardizing our natural places?

Because of a rule issued by the Bush Administration, the Bureau of Land Management is poised to lease millions of acres of public land in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming to develop oil shale – the dirtiest fossil fuel in the world.

Please let the Bureau of Land Management know that you want public lands protected from oil shale development.

Oil shale development is not environmentally sound, nor is it economically viable. If it moves forward now, we don't know if we'll get usable energy sources – but we do know that we'll end up with polluted air, wild lands that are carved up by roads and transmission lines, and depleted water resources in these already arid Western States.

Email the Bureau of Land Management today and urge them to protect our public lands from oil shale development.

Here is the web page: http://action.wilderness.org/campaign/oilshale00a

Its free and its easy!

Thanks for your help!

Liz Blackstone

Aspartame reply to Joel with bodytransformationinsider.com

I subscribe to Joel with www.bodytransformationinsider.com because he has posted some good workout ideas and other helpful information. However, after hearing his view point stating aspartame being safe, I had to disagree. So this is my reply to his post.

Originally I was not going to comment. As a mother of a 6 year old, and I also work a full time job. I understand how busy life can be and I figured most people didn’t have the time to research the subject for themselves. Luckily, I save almost every article I really enjoy along with their web pages. So I decided to do my best to present some of the research I have found.

Growing up I never used diet products. Then I had my son and I gained over 65 pounds. I was desperate and wanted to lose the weight. I heard of diet products and figured less calories had to be better right? So I started drinking diet sodas and diet foods. At first I didn't realize much, I had slight head aches but I didn't associate that with the Splenda. Then the headaches turned to migraines. I never had migraines growing up. That was a new experience for me and let me tell you those migraines really hurt. After speaking with a friend who is a doctor he asked if there was anything new I had been doing and I at first thought, no. But as he went on he told me it could be after prolonged use of something and I thought about how I recently (just under a year) started with the diet drinks. I mentioned it and he told me the same thing Jane (post a couple above this) said. He told me the negative effects had been known since the year after its’ release on the market. He told me to use my common sense and stop ingesting those products to see what would happen.

I stopped taking diet drinks and foods and the headaches subsided. I guess it could be coincidence but after more research online I heard a lot of interesting things that doctors, human rights activists and regular people like you and me were saying. I was surprised at was the amount of people (especially the doctors) who are concerned because of this substance.

I was curious as to what exactly aspartame was made of and found interesting information. I do hope that the following information provides more avenues for your research on the subject.

I attempted writing before, but due to copy right laws I could not copy information from other sites. However I am allowed to paste the link of where interesting content is found and can give a summary of some of the things you will find inside those links. I will do my best to pass along information while not plagiarizing the web pages and inserting the links that go with the corresponding web site so you can check out the pages for yourself.

The first site I would like to share explains how sucralose is made. Sucralose is comes from sucrose. But did you know the process to change sucrose to sucralose involves chemically changing the structure of the sugar molecules through a process where the sugar is chlorinated? What they do is take 3 hydroxyl atoms from the sugar and substitute them with 3 chlorine atoms.

This web site talks about many other issues such as the origin of sucralose and how Tate & Lyle arranged with Johnson & Johnson in 1980 to develop sucralose. Then Johnson & Johnson formed McNeil Speciality Products Company in 1980 to commercialize sucralose. Sucralose is not yet approved for use in most European countries, where it is still under review.

Here is the web site where this and more information can be found.
http://www.karlloren.com/Diabetes/p40e.htm

This web site lists its resources so I would like to add them here:

Sources:
Food and Drug Administration "Final Rule " for Sucralose, 21 CFR Part 172, Docket No. 87F-0086.
Lord GH, Newberne PM. Renal mineralization--a ubiquitous lesion in chronic rat studies. Food Chem Toxicol 1990 Jun;28:449-55.
Labare MP, Alexander M. Microbial cometabolism of sucralose, a chlorinated disaccharide, in environmental samples. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 1994 Oct;42:173-8.
Hunter BT. Sucralose. Consumers' Research Magazine, Oct90, Vol. 73 Issue 10, p8, 2p.
Maudlin RK. FDA approves sucralose for expanded use. Modern Medicine, Oct99, Vol. 67 Issue 10, p57, 1/9p
Sucralose--a new artificial sweetener. Medical Letter on Drugs & Therapeutics, 07/03/98, Vol. 40, Issue 1030, p67, 2p.
Q&A: Is newly FDA approved sweetener sucralose good for you? Executive Health's Good Health Report, Nov98, Vol. 35 Issue 2, p6, 1p, 1c.
Gain B. FDA approves J&J Sweetener. Chemical Week, 04/15/98, Vol. 160 Issue 14, p27, 1/4p.
Sucralose Toxicity Information Center
Splenda Product Web Site
Official Tate & Lyle Sucralose Web Site
Endurance News, Issue 26.
____________________________________________

The next bit of info address aspartame. This information is from the National Institute of Science, Law, and Public Policy.

There is a LOT of interesting information on this site. Did you know there were other studies that were not just performed on mice, but on child size monkeys? 7 monkeys were fed milk with aspartame; one died and 5 had 'grand mal' seizures.

This site also goes into detail about how people who saw the negative effects of aspartame started taking this issue publicly as early as the late 1960's.

Dr. Olney in 60's publicly announced that aspartame caused a loss of neurons, and was responsible for stunted and retarded growth of the pituitary glands, testes and ovaries in the animals. Dr. Olney is a conservative scientist, and yet he is adamant and says, "there is no margin of safety for aspartame in a child's diet."

Olney was worried because aspartame had very similar properties to glutamate (an ingredient of monosodium glutamate) and in his groundbreaking research with glutamate he had shown that it caused brain lesions in baby rats.

Turner and Olney decided to fight aspartame's approval. Representing a Washington, D.C. public interest group, The Consumer Nutrition Institute (CNI), Turner and Olney filed formal objections with the FDA They challenged the validity of some of the key aspartame safety tests which Searle submitted to the FDA, They presented animal studies by Olney and others that showed evidence that aspartame causes brain damage, brain tumors, seizures and changes in brain chemistry. Turner and Olney were especially concerned about the new sweetener's potential effects on pregnant women and young children.

In April 1975, the FDA set up a hearing, a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI), to review the objections to aspartame. While preparing for the PBOI. Dr. Olney examined the FDA files which contained Searle's "Safety Data Studies." What Olney discovered buried in those files would obsess him for years to come He was shocked when he found results of aspartame feeding experiments conducted by Searle which showed an unusually high incidence;' of brain tumors in rats that ingested the sweetener and no rumors in the control rats.

They suggest for further information to read Mullarkey’s book, Bittersweet Aspartame, A Diet Delusion.

They offer a lot more information on their web site including some side effects of aspartame.

Their address and web pages you can find this information are as followed:

National Institute of Science, Law, and Public Policy.
1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 101, Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 462-8800 Fax: (202) 265-6564
tamara@swankin-turner.com

http://swankin-turner.com/
http://swankin-turner.com/nislapp.html
http://www.swankin-turner.com/aspartame.html


There is a little bit more information I would like to share.

Aspartame was not approved until 1981, in dry foods. For over eight years, the FDA refused to approve it because of the seizures and brain tumors this drug produced in lab animals. The FDA continued to refuse to approve it until President Reagan took office (a friend of Searle) and fired the FDA Commissioner who wouldn’t approve it. Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes was appointed as commissioner. Even then, there was so much opposition to approval, that a Board of Inquiry was set up. The Board said: “Do not approve aspartame.” Dr. Hayes OVERRULED his own Board of Inquiry.

In February of 1994, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released the listing of adverse reactions reported to the FDA (DHHS 1994). Aspartame accounted for more than 75% of all adverse reactions reported to the FDA’s Adverse Reaction Monitoring System (ARMS).

The following information can be found inside http://dorway.com/

They encourage anyone who has experience adverse affects of aspartame, to fill an aspartame reaction form and fax it. The office addresses for this company is as follows:

Commissioner
Food and Drug Administration
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, Maryland 20857

Mrs. Betty Martini
Mission Possible International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
Internet E-mail:

If you are further interested and would like more places to research check out these links:
http://www.dorway.com/badnews.html
• http://www.dorway.com Front door to everything!
• http://www.dorway.com/possible.html Mission Possible Files
• http://www.dorway.com/asprlink.html Links to more sites/source information
• http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame More in-depth Information
• http://www.trufax.org/menu/chem.html More good articles
•
Links for books:
http://www.dorway.com/books.html
• http://www.dorway.com/amazon.html DORway Amazon Bookshelf

I sincerely hope this gives the reader a greater understanding of the ramifications of sugar free products.

I also hope the reader finds that there are many more books and websites that they can research for themselves to see the bigger picture.

Best wishes to everyone,
Sincerely,
Liz Blackstone

CA Gov. "Its time to debate legalizing marijuana." & Mexican Congress Passes... read for more

We are witnessing a lot of change that many thought would be impossible to see in our life time- if they thought it could happen at all! Every week I hear more and more about this subject and the positive implications. Please read and share what you head lines interest you the most. This is a very exciting period in history.

1. California: Governor Says It's Time To Debate Legalizing Marijuana

2. Mexican Congress Passes Drug Decriminalization Measure

3. Maine: Lawmakers Expand Marijuana Decriminalization Law

4. PA: Bill In State House Would Make Marijuana Legal For Medical Use

5. NH House creates team to work out pot bill

6. Conservative Poll Shows 52% of Americans Say Legalize Marijuana
________________________________________________

1. California: Governor Says It's Time To Debate Legalizing Marijuana

Sacramento, CA: Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced this week that he believes that California legislators ought to publicly debate the merits of taxing and regulating the production and sale of cannabis for adults.

"I think it's time for a debate (regarding taxing and regulating the sale of cannabis for adults)," Schwarzenegger said. (*Note: his comments come at the very end of the video.) "I think all of those ideas of creating extra revenues, I'm always for an open debate on it. And I think we ought to study very carefully what other countries are doing that have legalized marijuana and other drugs, what effect did it have on those countries? ... It could very well be that everyone is happy with that decision and then we could look at that."

The Governor's remarks came less than one week after a Field Research Corporation poll of 901 registered voters reported that 56 percent of Californians agree with the statement: "Legalize marijuana for recreational use and tax its proceeds."

A separate Zogby poll of approximately 4,000 voters released this week indicates that just over half of Americans nationally support legalizing marijuana.

Current estimates indicate that California's budget deficit will grow to $28 billion by the end of the 2009/2010 state budget year.

In February, California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano introduced legislation — Assembly Bill 390: The Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act — to tax the commercial production and retail sale of cannabis.

A fiscal analysis of this proposal by the State Board of Equalization estimates that AB 390 could raise more than $1.3 billion yearly in tax revenue for the state of California.

Last week Oakland City Council members approved a 1.8 percent tax on medicinal marijuana sold by the city's four licensed dispensaries. Lawmakers believe that the tax could generate between $400,000 and $1 million annually for the city.

The citywide measure will be decided upon by voters on July 21, 2009.
For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre, NORML Deputy Director, at (202) 483-5500 or Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director, at: http://us.mc01g.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=paul@norml.org. ________________________________________________________

2. Mexican Congress Passes Drug Decriminalization Measure

Mexico City, Mexico: Mexican lawmakers enacted legislation last week to decriminalize the possession of small quantities of controlled substances. The measure now goes to Mexican President Felipe Calderon for his approval.

As passed, the proposal would eliminate criminal penalties for the personal possession of up to five grams of marijuana, as well as minor quantities of other drugs.

The legislation also authorizes state and local police to enforce drug trafficking laws. Under current law, only federal police (about five percent of Mexico's law enforcement personnel) may arrest individuals suspected of selling drugs.

In 2006, Mexico's Congress passed a virtually identical measure, only to have it vetoed by former President Vincente Fox, who stated, "Congress ... [needs] ... to make it absolutely clear in our country [that] the possession of drugs and their consumption [is], and will continue to be, a criminal offense." Fox's veto came after political pressure from members of the US State Department who warned that enacting such a law could promote so-called "drug tourism."

Last month, Mexico's ambassador to the United States Arturo Sarukhan told CBS's Face the Nation that legalizing marijuana could potentially quell ongoing border violence. "This (legalization) is a debate that needs to be taken seriously – that we have to engage in on both sides of the border," he said.

However after meeting with Calderon days later, United States government officials said that the option of the US liberalizing its pot laws is "not on the table." The White House instead proposed increased efforts to curb domestic drug demand, and also called for expanding the use of 'drug courts' and coerced drug treatment.

According to the Associated Press, Mexican drug cartels now derive an estimated 60 percent of their income from illicit pot sales.

For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director, at (202) 483-5500.
_________________________________________________________

3. Maine: Lawmakers Expand Marijuana Decriminalization Law

Augusta, ME: Democrat Gov. John Baldacci signed legislation on Friday expanding the state's longstanding marijuana 'decriminalization' law.

Under current law, possession of up to 1.25 ounces of marijuana is treated as an infraction, punishable by a fine of no more than $600. Defendants who possess greater amounts are presumed to be engaging in the sale of cannabis and face criminal penalties and potential jail time.

The newly approved legislation (LD 250) states that the possession of over 1.25 ounces but less than 2.5 ounces of marijuana will also be defined as a civil offense, punishable by a fine of $700 to $1,000 dollars. (Civil fines for the possession of less than 1.25 ounces of marijuana will remain the same.) The new law also removes the inference that the possession of quantities of marijuana above 1.25 ounces but less than 2.5 ounces is presumed to be for sale.

"Maine's new law will save prosecutorial resources and it makes common sense," NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre said. "It is expensive and illogical to presume that minor marijuana offenders are criminal traffickers. Kudos to the Maine legislature and to the Governor for supporting this effort to revise the state's longstanding cannabis decriminalization law."
The new law takes effect 90 days following adjournment of the state legislature.

To date, 13 states – including Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Ohio – have enacted versions of marijuana decriminalization, replacing criminal penalties and jail time for the personal possession of cannabis with the imposition of nominal fines. Only one state, Ohio, treats the possession of more than 2.5 ounces of cannabis as a fine-only (no jail) offense.

For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director, at, (202) 483-5500.
__________________________________________________________

4. PA: Bill In State House Would Make Marijuana Legal For Medical Use

Bill Waschko reached to the shelf of vintage medicine bottles at his family’s century-old drug store in Hazleton and pulled down one labeled “Cannabis.”

The powdered extract of marijuana was bottled by Eli Lilly and Co., but although the bottle is empty and the label has no date, marijuana was a legal drug around the country until 1937.

A bill in the state House of Representatives would make marijuana legal again for medical uses, emulating action already taken in 13 states and also proposed in New York and New Jersey.

The Pennsylvania bill, sponsored by Reps. Phyllis Mundy, D-Kingston, and Mark Cohen, D-Philadelphia, would set up compassion centers for growing and distributing marijuana to patients who had registered identification cards. Physicians would give written statements to patients whom they believe would benefit medically from using marijuana, but they would not write prescriptions, which could subject them to federal prosecution.

They would have a (marijuana) clinic like a methadone clinic,” suggested George Waschko, Bill’s brother and the pharmacist at Waschko’s Pharmacy.

George Waschko said the possible medical uses of marijuana include treating glaucoma and nausea caused by chemotherapy given to cancer patients.

The bill also lists marijuana as a treatment for wasting due to AIDS and for chronic pain, seizures and Crohn’s disease.

Tom Dougherty, a pharmacist at Valley Pharmacy in Sugarloaf, remembers marijuana was in the dispensary at Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia while he was a student.
“It sat there. We had to count it every month. We never used it,” Dougherty said.

Dougherty wonders whether there is a great medical need for marijuana or whether it would be “an orphan drug where you have six patients who need it in Pennsylvania.”

The Medical Board of California, which in 1996 became the first state to re-legalize marijuana, issued a statement in 2004 calling medical marijuana an emerging treatment.

Ed Pane, director of Serento Gardens Alcoholism and Drug Services in Hazleton, supports the use of marijuana for medical purposes only and said numerous patients might benefit from it.

He said marijuana can reduce vomiting in chemotherapy patients, and treat migraines and the spasms of multiple sclerosis, “which can be extremely painful.”

Three hundred thousand Americans have multiple sclerosis, and 1.25 million people are diagnosed yearly with cancer, Pane wrote in a paper this fall for a class he is taking while earning a master’s degree.

Marijuana “helps individuals to put on weight and handle food and cuts down on the need for pain medication by enhancing what the person is taking. It doesn’t make the medication stronger to the point of overdose, but makes it more effective,” Pane said in an interview Friday.

While 32,000 people die yearly from prescription medicines, including overdoses and allergic reactions, no one ever has died from an overdose of marijuana, he said.

States can make money by taxing medical marijuana and save the expenses of prosecuting patients who use marijuana, but Pane still wants Pennsylvania to prohibit abuse of the drug.

“Street dealing under any guise needs to be illegal,” he said. “From my standpoint, it breaks my heart when I see kids using it. They’re not going to grow up emotionally. It becomes a means of handling problems. www.citizensvoice.com
___________________________________________________________________

5. NH House creates team to work out pot bill

CONCORD – House supporters of legalizing medical marijuana for chronic or terminally ill patients slowed their campaign Wednesday after fearing Gov. John Lynch would veto the bill (HB 648) as the state Senate had passed it.

The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to create a team of legislative negotiators to try and work out differences between the two branches.

State Rep. Cindy Rosenwald, D-Nashua, said there's broad agreement among House and Senate supporters.

The goal of the working group, she said, would be to try and address eight specific problems Lynch and his staff identified during private meetings with House supporters earlier this week.

Full story and Bill No. HB 648 at a glance here:

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090507/NEWS02/305079899/-1/XML15
__________________________________________________________________

6. Conservative Poll Shows 52% of Americans Say Legalize Marijuana

WASHINGTON D.C. - A new Zogby poll commissioned by the conservative-leaning O'Leary Report has found 52 percent voter support for treating marijuana as a legal, taxed, regulated substance. The survey, published as a full-page ad in today's issue of the political newspaper The Hill, polled a sample of 3,937 voters weighted to match the 2008 presidential outcome -- 54 percent Obama voters and 46 percent McCain supporters.

"This new survey continues the recent trend of strong and growing support for taxing and regulating marijuana and ending the disastrously failed policy of prohibition," said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C.

Voters were asked: "Scarce law enforcement and prison resources, a desire to neutralize drug cartels and the need for new sources of revenue have resurrected the topic of legalizing marijuana. Proponents say it makes sense to tax and regulate the drug while opponents say that legalization would lead marijuana users to use other illegal drugs. Would you favor or oppose the government's effort to legalize marijuana?"

The results showed a decisive majority of 52 percent in favor with 37 percent opposed and 11 percent not sure -- slightly higher than the 46 percent support reported in an ABC News/Washington Post poll released at the end of April.

In California, the respected Field poll recently found 56 percent support for making marijuana a taxed, regulated product that is legal for adults.

"Voters are coming to realize that marijuana prohibition gives us the worst of all possible worlds -- a drug that's widely available but totally unregulated, whose producers and sellers pay no taxes but whose profits often support murderous drug cartels," Kampia said.
"The public is way ahead of the politicians on this."

With more than 27,000 members and 100,000 e-mail subscribers nationwide, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States. MPP believes that the best way to minimize the harm associated with marijuana is to regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol.

http://www.salem-news.com/

What Is Single-Payer National Health Insurance? Doctors answer these questions and more.

I am surprised to see how many people have not heard the term "Single Payer" when talking about health care. And the few that have heard it before, did not quite know understand it.

Thankfully the folks at One Care Now have a lot of information. (Here is there web page: http://onecarenow.org/ )

If you agree after reading (and researching), please go to the link below and sign a petition.

What Is Single-Payer National Health Insurance? Doctors answer these questions and more. (Direct link to this information.)

Single-Payer National Health Insurance

by Physicians for a National Health Program

Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private.

Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($7,129 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 46 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered.

The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans' health dollars.

Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.

Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, long-term care, mental health, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.

Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formulary or receive salary from a hospital or nonprofit HMO / group practice. Hospitals would receive a global budget for operating expenses. Health facilities and expensive equipment purchases would be managed by regional health planning boards.

A single-payer system would be financed by eliminating private insurers and recapturing their administrative waste. Modest new taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing.

Is national health insurance "socialized medicine"?

No. Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for the government and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. Examples also exist in Great Britain and Spain. But in most European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan they have socialized financing, or socialized health insurance, not socialized medicine. The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. This is similar to how Medicare works in this country. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage their medical practices or hospitals.

The term socialized medicine is often used to conjure images of government bureaucratic interference in medical care. That does not describe what happens in countries with national health insurance. It does describe the interference by insurance company bureaucrats in our health system.

Won't this raise my taxes?

Currently, about 64% of our health care system is financed by public money: federal and state taxes, property taxes and tax subsidies. These funds pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, coverage for public employees (including teachers), elected officials, military personnel, etc. There are also hefty tax subsidies to employers to help pay for their employees' health insurance. About 17% of heath care is financed by all of us individually through out-of-pocket payments, such as co-pays, deductibles, the uninsured paying directly for care, people paying privately for premiums, etc. Private employers only pay 19% of health care costs. In all, it is a very "regressive" way to finance health care, in that the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income for health care than higher income individuals do.

A universal public system would be financed this way: The public financing already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees' health care. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and any and all other out of pocket payments. For the vast majority of people a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and in out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly for anyone who has had a serious illness or has a family member with a serious illness. It is also a fair and sustainable contribution. Currently, over 41 million people have no insurance and thousands of people with insurance are bankrupted when they have an accident or illness. Employers who currently offer no health insurance would pay more, but they would receive health insurance for the same low rate as larger firms. Many small employers have to pay 25% or more of payroll now for health insurance – so they end up not having insurance at all. For large employers, a payroll tax in the 7% range would mean they would pay less than they currently do (about 8.5%). No employer, moreover, would hold a competitive advantage over another because his cost of business did not include health care. And health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees.

Won't this result in rationing like in Canada?

The U.S. Supreme Court recently established that rationing is fundamental to the way managed care conducts business. Rationing in U.S. health care is based on income: if you can afford care you get it, if you can't, you don't. A recent study by the prestigious Institute of Medicine found that 18,000 Americans die every year because they don't have health insurance. That's rationing. No other industrialized nation rations health care to the degree that the U.S. does.
If there is this much rationing why don't we hear about it? And if other countries do not ration the way we do, why do we hear about them? The answer is that their systems are publicly accountable and ours is not. Problems with their health care systems are aired in public, ours are not. In U.S. health care no one is ultimately accountable for how it works. No one takes full responsibility.

The rationing that takes place in U.S. health care is unnecessary. A number of studies (notably the General Accounting office report in 1991, and the Congressional Budget office report in 1993) show that there is more than enough money in our health care system to serve everyone if it were spent wisely. Administrative costs are far higher in the U.S. than in other countries' systems. These inflated costs are directly tied to our failure to have a publicly-financed, universal health care system. We spend at least twice more per person than any other country, and still find it necessary to deny health care.

Another consideration is that everyone would have the same comprehensive health coverage, including all medical, hospital, eye care, dental care, long-term care, and mental health services. Currently, many people and businesses are paying huge premiums for insurance that is almost worthless if they were to have a serious illness.

Who will run the health care system?

There is a myth that, with national health insurance, the government will be making the medical decisions. But in a publicly-financed, universal health care system medical decisions are left to the patient and doctor, as they should be. This is true even in the countries like the UK and Spain that have socialized medicine.

In a public system the public has a say in how it's run. Cost containment measures are publicly managed at the state level by an elected and appointed body that represents the people of that state. This body decides on the benefit package, negotiates doctor fees and hospital budgets. It also is responsible for health planning and the distribution of expensive technology.

The benefit package people will receive will not be decided upon by the legislature, but by the appointed body that represents all state residents in consultation with medical experts in all fields of medicine.

What about medical research?

Much current medical research is publicly-financed through the National Institutes of Health. Under a universal health care system this would continue. A great deal of drug research, for example, is funded by the government. Drug companies are invited in when it comes to marketing successful new drugs. AZT for HIV patients is one example. All the expensive clinical trials were conducted with government money. When it was found to be effective, marketing rights went to the drug company. (This is a controversial practice because it means pharmaceutical companies enjoy significant profits on the back of taxpayer-financed research.)

Medical research does not disappear under universal health care system. Many famous discoveries have been made in countries that have national health care systems. Laparoscopic gallbladder removal was pioneered in Canada. The CT scan was invented in England. The new treatment to cure juvenile diabetics by transplanting pancreatic cells was developed in Canada.

It is also important to note that studies show that the number of clinical research grants declines in areas of high HMO penetration. This suggests that managed care increasingly threatens clinical research. Another study surveyed medical school faculty and found that it was more difficult to do research in areas with high HMO penetration.

Won't this just be another bureaucracy?

The United States has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. Over 24% of every health care dollar goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, and other non-clinical costs. Because the U.S. does not have a system that serves everyone and instead has over 1,500 different insurance plans, each with their own marketing, paperwork, enrollment, premiums, rules, and regulations, our insurance system is both extremely complex and fragmented. The Medicare program operates with just 3% overhead, compared to 15% to 25% overhead at a typical HMO.

It is not necessary to have a huge bureaucracy to decide who gets care and what care they get, if and when everyone is covered and has the same comprehensive benefits. With a universal health care system we would be able to cut our bureaucratic burden in half and save nearly $150 billion per year.

How will we keep costs down if everyone has access to comprehensive health care?

People will seek care earlier when diseases are more treatable (and affordable). We know that the uninsured delay or avoid seeking care because they are afraid of health care bills. This will be eliminated under such a system. Undoubtedly costs of taking care of the medical needs of people who are currently doing without will cost more money in the short run. But we will be spending proportionately less on administration to compensate.

In the long run, the best way to control costs is to negotiate fees and budgets with doctors, hospitals, and drug companies and to set and enforce an overall budget.

How will we keep doctors from doing too many procedures?

This is a problem in systems that reimburse physicians on a fee-for-service basis. In today's health system, another problem is physicians doing too little for patients. So the real question is, "how do we discourage both overcare and undercare"? One approach is to compare physicians' use of tests and procedures to their peers with similar patients. A physician who is "off the curve" will stand out. Another way is to set spending targets for each specialty. This encourages doctors to be prudent stewards and to make sure their colleagues are as well, because any doctor doing unnecessary procedures will be taking money away from other physicians in the same specialty. Another way is to continue to develop expert guidelines by groups like the American College of Physicians, etc. to shape professional standards – which will certainly change over time as treatments change. This really gets to the heart of "how do you improve the quality of health care" which is a longer topic . Suffice it to say that universal coverage is a pre-requisite for quality improvement.

What will happen to physician incomes?

On the basis of the Canadian experience, average physician incomes should change little. However, the income disparity between specialties is likely to shrink.

The drop in income that a physician might experience under a single-payer system could be mitigated by a drastic reduction in office overhead and malpractice costs. Billing would involve imprinting the patient's national health program card on a charge slip, checking a box to indicate the complexity of the procedure or service, and sending the slip (or a computer record) to the physician-payment board. This simplification of billing would save thousands of dollars per practitioner in annual office expenses.

How will we keep drug prices under control?

When all patients are under one system, they wield a lot of clout. The VA can purchase drugs for 40% discounts because they are a bulk purchaser. This is called monopsy buying power and it is the main reason why other countries' drug prices are lower than ours. The same could happen with medical supplies and durable medical equipment.

Why shouldn't we let people buy better health care if they can afford it?

Whenever we allow the wealthy to buy better care or jump the queue, health care for the rest of us suffers. One need only look at the example of the nation's health insurance program for the poor, versus the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, MD, that serves members of Congress. Access to care for the poor is deteriorating because Medicaid is a grossly underfunded health care program. Because it doesn't serve the wealthy, the payment rates are low and many physicians refuse to see Medicaid patients. D.C. General Hospital in D.C., which serves the poor, is always on the brink of bankruptcy. Calls to improve Medicaid fall on deaf ears because the beneficiaries are not considered to be politically important. On the other hand, members of Congress have completely free access to care at National Naval, where the quality of care couldn't be better.

What will be covered?

All medically necessary care, including doctor visits, hospital care, prescriptions, mental health services, nursing home care, rehab, home care, eye care and dental care.
What about alternative care, will it be covered?

Alternative care that is proven in clinical trials to be effective will be covered. For example, spinal manipulation for some back conditions. Other treatments will be decided by the health care planning board or other public body. New kinds of treatments will be added to the benefits package over time as they are shown to be effective, including "alternative" treatments. Similarly, ineffective, harmful, or wasteful care can be removed from the benefits package, such as funding for a costly medication that is no better than aspirin for arthritis.

Isn't a payroll tax unfair to small businesses?

The payroll tax is more costly to businesses who are not currently insuring their workers. However, it is much less THAN what they would pay for good private insurance for themselves and their workers. For most of the small businesses already providing coverage, the payroll tax will be much less expensive than what they are paying now.

Ideally, the payroll tax will be replaced in the future by a tax that doesn't charge an administrative assistant making $17,000 a year the same percentage of salary as a CEO earning $175,000 a year.

Can a business keep private insurance if they choose?

Yes and no. Everyone has to be included in the new system for it to be able to control costs, reduce bureaucracy, and cover everyone. However, business and anyone who wants to can purchase additional private insurance that covers things not covered by the national plan (e.g. cosmetic surgery, orthodontia, etc.).

Insurance companies will no longer be needed to decide who gets medical care and what kind of medical care, and would not be allowed to offer the same benefits as the universal health care system. Any allowance for this would weaken and eventually destabilize the health care system. It would undermine the principle of pooling the risk. Health care systems act as universal insurers. At any one time the healthy help pay for those who are ill. If private insurers are allowed to cherry pick the healthy, leaving the public health care system with the very sick, the system cannot help but fail. This is part of what is happening in U.S. health care now.

Another reason is that, if allowed, patients would enroll in the private system while they were healthy (and their premiums were low), and enroll in the public system when their care (and private premiums) became expensive. This, in fact, is what we saw happen to Medicare and HMOs. There, patients needing expensive care, e.g., a hip replacement, were encouraged to drop out of their HMO so traditional Medicare would pick up the tab. However, while they are healthy they enroll in the HMO for the modest additional dental and drug benefits.

What will happen to all of the people who work for insurance companies?

The new system will still need people to administer claims. Administration will shrink, however, eliminating the need for a large bureaucracy. The focus will shift to those who deliver health care. More health care providers, especially in the field of long-term care and home health care, will be needed, and many insurance clerks can be retrained to enter these fields. Many people now working in the insurance industry are, in fact, already health professionals (e.g.nurses) who will be able to find work in the health care field again.

How will we contain costs with the population aging and the advent of expensive technology?
Japan and Europe are already facing this problem head-on and doing fine. They have a much higher percentage of elderly than we do, and still spend less on health care by far.
The best way to approach this is to regard it as a societal problem, one that needs a solution with everyone in mind. Germany and Japan recently adopted single-payer long-term care systems to cover the long-term care needs of the elderly at home and in specialized housing. Germany is pioneering a program that pays family members to care for the elderly at home. That's family values!

What about ERISA? Doesn't it stand in the way of implementing a universal health care plan?

No. ERISA (the Employees Retirement Income Security Act) prevents a state from requiring that a self-insured employer provide certain benefits to their employees. However, a single payer plan would not mandate the composition of employer benefit plans – it would replace them with a new system that would essentially be "Medicare for All". The state would require employers to pay a payroll tax into the health care trust fund. This is legal and is done now with taxes levied to pay for Medicare.

How will the Health Planning Board operate?

In Vermont, it would work something like this: The health planning board (the Health Care Administration) would be a public body with representatives from every legislative district. The representatives would be appointed by each member of the state house of representatives. The state would be divided into 7 regions. The appointed members from each region would elect one person among them to serve on the health planning board. The board would consult regularly with a medical expert advisory committee. The latter would advise the regional board members on what treatments, medications and services should be covered, decisions supported by medical science.

Since we could finance a fairly good system , like the Norwegian, Danish or Swedish system with the public money we are already spending (60% of health costs), why do we need to raise the additional 40% (from employers and individuals)?

There are three reasons why the U.S. health care system costs more than other systems throughout the world. One, we spend 2-3 times as much as they do on administration. Two, we have much more excess capacity of expensive technology than they do (more CT scanners, MRI scanners, mammogram machines than we need). Three, we pay higher prices for services than they do. There is no doubt that we do not need to spend more than we currently spend to cover comprehensive care for everyone. But it would make the transition to a universal system very difficult at first if we spent less. That is because we have a tremendous medical infrastructure, some of which would likely retain its slightly larger than necessary capacity during the transition phase. Secondly, we would likely retain salaries for health professionals at their current levels. Thirdly, we would cover much more than most other countries do by including dental care, eye care, and prescriptions. And for these reasons we would need the extra 40% that we are already spending – but NOT more. We could cover all the uninsured for the same amount we are currently spending!

How much of the health care dollar is publicly financed?

Previous calculations of the percentage of the health care dollar that is publicly financed were estimated to be around 50%. That was from federal and state taxes to fund Medicare, Medicaid and the VA. 30% was out-of-pocket and 20% from employers.

Estimates differ depending on how they factor in certain costs. For example, recent studies put the tax subsidy offered to employers into the public spending column. A tax subsidy to help employers buy health insurance for employees means the public helps pay the bill. Another factor is that many employees pay the full cost of the premiums for their health insurance at work – not the employer. Newer analyses of these factors put the public financing estimate at 60%, out-of-pocket at 17% (for uncovered services, premiums not paid for by an employer) and employers' contributions at 19%.

(Woolhandler and Himmelstein, Health Affairs, 2002, 21(4), 88, "Paying for National Health Insurance—And Not Getting It,")

Why not MSAs?

Medical savings accounts (MSAs) and similar options such as health reimbursement arrangements are individual accounts from which medical expenses are paid. Once the account is depleted and a deductible is met, then medical expenses are covered by a catastrophic managed care plan, usually a restricted PPO plan. Individuals with significant health care needs may rapidly deplete their accounts and then be exposed to large out-of-pocket expenses. They would tend to select plans with more comprehensive coverage. Since only healthy individuals would be attracted to the MSAs, higher-cost individuals would be concentrated in the more comprehensive plans, driving up premiums and threatening affordability. By placing everyone in the same pool, the cost of high-risk individuals is diluted by the larger sector of relatively healthy individuals, keeping health insurance costs affordable for everyone. Also, since healthy individuals cannot possibly predict whether or when they would develop significant health care needs, they would eliminate that potential financial risk by being included in the comprehensive pool with everyone else.

Why not use tax subsidies to help the uninsured buy health insurance?

The major flaw of tax subsidies is that they would be used to help purchase plans in our current fragmented system. The administrative inefficiencies and inequities that characterize our system would be left in place, and we would continue to waste valuable resources that should be going to patient care instead. In spite of tax subsidies, moderate and lower income individuals would be able to afford only those plans with very modest benefits, and with higher cost sharing that might make health care unaffordable. Instead of perpetuating our current inequities, tax policies should be used to create equity in contributions to a system in which everyone is assured access to comprehensive beneficial services.

If the tax subsidies are granted to individuals, employers would be motivated to drop their coverage, and most individuals covered would have merely rotated from employer coverage to individual coverage. The net reduction in the numbers of uninsured would be close to negligible. If the tax subsidies are granted to employers, a major shift in funding passes from employers to taxpayers without significant improvements in the inefficiencies and inequities of our current system. We can use the tax system to create equity in the way we fund health care, but we should also expect equity and efficiency in allocation of our health care resources. That is possible only if we eliminate the private health plans and establish our own publicly administered system.

Won't competition be impeded by a universal health care system?

Advocates of the free market approach to health care claim that competition will streamline the costs of health care and make it more efficient. What is overlooked is that competitive activities in health care under a "free market" system have been wasteful and expensive and can be blamed for raising costs. Not only have they NOT contained costs, they have raised costs. In fact it has been shown that in some states where competition among insurers and HMOs is fiercest, such as California, costs are higher than the national average.

There are two main areas where competition exists in health care. Among the providers, and among the payers. When, for example, hospitals compete they often duplicate expensive equipment in order to corner more of the market. This drives up overall medical costs to pay for the equipment. They also waste money on advertising and marketing. The preferred scenario has hospitals coordinating services and cooperating to meet the needs of the public.

Competition among medical care providers can be beneficial in terms of improving the quality of medical care. Take for example, three primary care doctors in a certain area "competing" for patients for which they will receive equal reimbursement from every patient. The doctor who is most competent in different areas will attract the most patients in that area. One doctor may make house calls to see the elderly. Another may be very good at mental health care. This is competition based on quality not on price. Competition among insurers (the payers) is not effective in containing costs either. Rather, it results in competitive practices resorted to by private payers such as avoiding the sick, cherry picking, denial of payment of expensive procedures, marketing, etc.

Why not make people who are Higher Risk pay Higher Premiums?

Experience rated insurance requires higher risk people to pay higher premiums. This approach says that people who have had cancer or other problems in the past, or who have chronic conditions like diabetes and hypertension, must pay more because they are at higher risk of getting cancer again or having a stroke or other health problem. Experience rating allows insurance companies to "cherry pick" the healthiest people and either refuse to insure the sickest or, what amounts to the same thing, charge prohibitively high rates.This approach makes no sense. The whole point of insurance is to spread the risk so that everyone is covered. If you raise premiums – and thereby exclude from coverage – those people unfortunate enough to have been sick in the past, you defeat the point of both insurance and the health care system. Genetic conditions, childhood diseases, accidents, injuries and income distribution (or how much equality there is in a society) play a much bigger role in people's health than so-called "lifestyle" factors. It costs much less to care for a smoker than a driver who has a paralyzing accident. (Of course, we need public health and education programs to try to prevent both!).

Community rated health insurance is the socially fair approach. It spreads the risks evenly among all the insured. It removes the punitive element. It does not discriminate against the very sick, nor against those of us who are at higher risk because of our age (say, over 50) or our gender (females have higher health expenses in their 20's and 30's than men do).

It appears that for what should be a broad social service an insurance-based approach does not work. For it to work at all society is asked to surrender all control of the system and what is left is both discriminatory and unaccountable to anyone. At some point in our lives all of us without exception have needed or will need some level of health care. Health insurance is unlike any other form of insurance. We all are involved in it. It is profoundly intertwined with social principles of decency and fairness. A system that punishes the sick is neither. Any reform of the health care system must begin from a principled approach.

Walter Reed Army Medical Center has been in the news lately for poor care and treatment of returning soldiers from Iraq. Won't national health insurance have similar problems?

As we consider what we can learn from the Walter Reed Army Medical Center debacle with regard to government-run efforts, some clarifications should be made:

1) Walter Reed Army Medical Center is an Army hospital and is run by the Department of Defense. The VA hospitals are run by the Veterans Administration (Veterans Health Administration) and are a separate structure. The reporting in the news media has clouded this fact and has led the public to presume that all government-run health efforts should be tarred and feathered and run out of town. Nevertheless, the VA health system continues to hold the position of the US health system with the most satisfied patients and one of the highest quality ratings for its use of information systems, access of patients to their medical records, transparency and accountability programs for dealing with medical errors, application of AHRQ quality guidelines to patient care for both inpatients and outpatients, and it won the Baldridge Prize (2004) for quality and patient-safety improvements.

2) There is a lot we can learn from the Walter Reed disgrace. Its operation was outsourced to a Halliburton-connected company in 2002, over the objections of some Army medical personnel and leadership, with a subsequent loss of government employees with institutional experience and a drastic reduction in staff. There was also some hanky-panky with the contracting process when the government employees' bid for the operations contract came in lower than the Halliburton company's bid, and the bids were subsequently "recalculated" to make the private company the lowest bidder. Here is a link to an eye-opening article:inistration push for privatization may have helped create Walter Reed 'disaster'" This article has links to Rep. Waxman's letter to the Army generals and to the Army Times article that "connects the dots". (contributed by Dr. Anne Carroll)

What about incremental reform of the health system?

As a matter of policy, PNHP expressly opposes what are sold as "gradual" steps towards single-payer. Many well-meaning supporters often push these bills as "feasible steps" to move us towards single-payer, but the history of these kinds of health reform efforts - Hawaii in 1974; Massachusetts in 1988; Oregon in 1989; Tennessee in 1992; Minnesota in 1992; Maine in 2003, etc. - shows that despite all their claims of pragmatism, incremental reforms have failed to shepherd in meaningful reform in more than three decades of trying. In addition, these reforms distract attention away from the real problems, and since they are bound for failure, compromise the ability to enact real reform.

Furthermore, many incremental reforms would expand the private insurance industry, precluding any of the positive aspects of single-payer (administrative savings, global budgeting, cost control, single-tier universal coverage, etc). It is our fear that these bills distract attention away from the real problems and solutions, and would hurt the chances of real reform down the road (as the Clinton plan did to health reform for 15 years.)

What happens to investor-owned hospitals under national health insurance?

"The NHI program would compensate owners of investor-owned hospitals, HMO.s, nursing homes and clinics for the loss of their clinical facilities, as well as any computers and administrative facilities needed to manage NHI. They would not be reimbursed for loss of business opportunities or for administrative capacity not used by NHI".…. "Investor-owned providers would be converted to non-profit status. The NHI would issue long-term bonds to amortize the one-time costs of compensating investors for the appraised value of their facilities. These conversion costs would be offset by reductions in payments for capital that are currently folded into Medicare and other reimbursements." (Physicians' Proposal, JAMA, August 13, 2007).

What happens to employees of insurance companies under single payer?

National health insurance would eliminate many administrative and insurance worker positions, necessitating a major effort at job placement and retraining. Many of these displaced workers might be deployed as support personnel to free up nurses for clinical tasks; other might be retrained to staff expanded programs in public health, home care, and the like. (Physicians' Proposal, JAMA, August 13, 2007).

Single-Payer Overviews

Physicians Proposal for National Health Insurance - "Proposal of the Physicians'' Working Group for Single-Payer National Health Insurance," JAMA 290(6): Aug 30, 2003

Key Features of Single-Payer - A useful handout detailing the main features of single-payer.

Statement of Dr. Marcia Angell introducing the U.S. National Health Insurance Act -A great overview of the need for and logic of a single-payer system. Perfect as an introductory handout.

Liberal Benefits, Conservative Spending - Another great introductory handout.

Public Citizen's Response to the Citizens' Health Care Working Groups Interim Recommendations - A great overview on the benefits of a single-payer system by Public Citizen.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich Tackles Health Care - Rep. Kucinich talks with Truthdig about the health care crisis in America.

A bibliography of single-payer studies and papers

ONECARE VIDEO - MUST SEE FOR EVERYONE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyWiVLdR47c

EVERYONE should see video above.

It goes into great detail about how Single Payer works in general starting 4 minutes into the video. If you want to understand how Single Payer works this is a must see, as the principles discussed also apply to HR 676.

Protesters for Single Payer thrown out of Senate Committee and Jailed. SEND EFAX NOW!

I received an email this morning on this issue. A single payer health care system would allow everyone in the states health care. This is a BIG issue and much different than what our current health insurance systems have established.

I took immediate action and sent an e-Fax. It is free and easy.

Please take a moment to send an e-Fax if you agree.

Together our voices will be heard. You are important to this issue. You are affected. You mother, father, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents and friends are affected by this.

I am posting this as I received it today:

Protesters for single payer is thrown out of the Senate Committee.
(Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKP05AyfRsI )

Senator Max Baucus says the meeting was to discuss the best options for health care reform, but still refuses to allow a single payer advocate be present.

If you haven't sent your fax to the Senate Committee SEND IT NOW

Here is the link: http://www.1payer.net/campaigns/finance-committee.html

Mad Max Baucus showed us what he means when he says ‘single payer is off the table.’ When single payer advocates politely asked for a seat at the table, where 15 insurance flunkies were waiting to testify to his Senate committee, Sen. Baucus sneered at them and told them they would get more police. That gave all of Baucus' fellow insurance flunkies (and all the other clowns in the hearing room) a big laugh. Then Baucus hypocritically told the audience how much he respected single payer, as the police were arresting eight people who just wanted to present a point of view.

I am angry about this arrogant abuse of power.

If you are angry, now is your chance to tell Baucus. Call 800-578-4171, choose option 1, and connect to his office. if no one answers, it probably is because Baucus is too chicken to even listen to the angry messages.

Alternatively, call each one of his offices in Montana. Here are the phone numbers: Billings(406) 657-6790; Bozeman (406) 586-6104; Butte (406) 782-8700; Great Falls (406) 761-1574, (406) 452-1117 (TDD); Helena (406) 449-5480; Kalispell (406) 756-1150;Missoula (406) 329-3123; Washington D.C. (202) 224-2651(Office),(202) 224-9412 (Fax)

Cures for Swine Flu?!

Yesterday, everywhere I turned someone was talking about the Swine Flu.

"Wash your hands"

"Wear surgical masks"

To be honest, I am sick and tired of hearing everybody in a panic.

Lets have a flash back together.... "The Bird Flu"

Sound familiar?

Yes, there were some people who became ill. BUT not near as many people got sick as they were predicting.

So today when I did my daily email check, I was very excited to see an email title:
Swine Flu Cure?

Inside it talked about a possible cure. In a nutshell it said, "If you don't do anything else, go to this site: http://www.betaglucan.org/ , or google Beta Glucan. "

I admit I am still researching this subject (which appears to be checking out, with research from respected schools such as Harvard).

However, my second great piece of information was discovered shortly after I made a post to my facebook page.

I read www.theweeklyweed.com every week. Which is where I went next.

Then I found the article "Cannabis: A Viable Treatment for Swine Flu." Very, very fascinating.

Briefly, here is what it said:

"Cannabis Science Inc. an emerging pharmaceutical cannabis company, reported..." "The Company’s non-toxic lozenge has properties that could alleviate many of the symptoms and harmful effects of the H5N1 bird flu and H1N1 swine flu viruses, and has offered its assistance to HSA today..."

I decided to google the subject and found many other sites. Here is one of the many articles about this subject:

Cannabis Science Inc. Reports on Prospective Life Saving Treatments for H1N1 Swine Flu and H5N1 Bird

Source: www.marketwatch.com

It really makes me feel hopeful hearing about the cures instead of focusing on the problem. I am very excited that there cures surfacing so quickly.

It is even more promising that cannabis is surfacing as a possible cure. People who have been taught that cannabis could never help our country are starting to wake up to the real truth. The truth that has been covered with false propaganda for decades.

Peace & Love ya'll,
Peace & Love :)

p.s. My mom and I eat lunch together a couple days out of the week. Yesterday at the end of lunch we decided to start meditating on peace and healing in our world and sent out messages of peace and love to the people.

If you havnt heard of it yet, I encourage you to check out Global Coherence Initiative. It is a wonderful community I have recently joined. Its completely free. They do offer products etc, but I pay nothing and have gained.

Here is some info:
The Global Coherence Initiative is a science-based initiative uniting millions of people in heart-focused care and intention, to shift global consciousness from instability and discord to balance, cooperation and enduring peace.

This project has been launched by the Institute of HeartMath®, a nonprofit 501(c)(3), a recognized global leader in researching emotional physiology, heart-brain interactions and the physiology of optimal health and performance.

The Global Coherence Initiative is designed to help individuals and groups work together, synchronistically and strategically to increase the impact of their efforts to create positive global change.

Check out this site for more info: http://www.glcoherence.org/about-us/about.html