Political
Clinton makes early bid to court black voters; Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton stopped in Liberty City, as Florida draws candidates earlier than ever before. CAMPAIGN 2008 LIBERTY CITY
Source: The Miami Herald 02/21/2007
Hillary Rodham Clinton chose Liberty City Tuesday for her first public appearance in Florida as a presidential candidate, signaling that she won't forfeit black voters to Democratic rival Barack Obama.
The senator from New York and former first lady set an informal tone at the Joseph Caleb Community Center, fielding questions from community activists seated all around her. She reminded the crowd that she had visited nearby Charles Drew Elementary School 13 years ago, calling out to the former principal, Fred Morley.
''I've been to Liberty City before, so I am happy to be back,'' she said.
Clinton's visit to Florida also generated hundreds of thousands of dollars from private campaign fundraisers in Coconut Grove, Hollywood and Tampa.
Though two South Florida members of Congress -- Alcee Hastings and Debbie Wasserman Schultz -- endorsed Clinton Tuesday, U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek, who hosted the public forum with her, did not join them. Considered a rising star, Meek said he wanted his constituents to hear Clinton first and that he would make a decision soon.
''It spoke volumes to me that someone ingrained in politics in Florida since 1991 would come here,'' Meek said. ``Usually, a stop like this in the black community is a month or two before the election.''
EARLIER PRIMARY
But the 2008 presidential campaign is far from usual. State lawmakers are poised to bump up the presidential primary from the second Tuesday in March to the last Tuesday in January. That means Florida could, for the first time, play a make-or-break role in choosing presidential nominees.
Clinton's visit follows Florida appearances in the past few days by two Republican candidates, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Florida voters preferred Clinton over her Democratic opponents in a recent Quinnipiac University poll.
''But can we ever elect a woman?'' Clinton asked the cheering crowd. ``We'll never know until we try. I am proud to be a woman . . . but I'm not running as a woman candidate. I am running because I believe I'm the best qualified and experienced candidate, who can hit the ground running.''
Clinton did not make any policy-related news Tuesday, repeating her call for universal healthcare and her opposition to President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq. She also repeated her support for immigration reform that gives illegal workers a chance to become citizens.
''Let's bring them out of the shadows,'' Clinton said. ``If they're criminals, let's deport them, but for all the others, let's give them a path to legalization. But don't let them jump the line over people who have been waiting legally.''
Clinton responded to several questions of particular concern to minorities, like the achievement gap between white and black students. When asked about helping poor people, she referred to her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who cultivated widespread support among black voters.
''We're not talking about ancient history,'' she said of his administration. ``We know what to do. We just have to look back a few years.''
Clinton recently hired Mo Elleithee, who knows Florida politics from working on Bob Graham's 2004 presidential campaign and Janet Reno's 2002 bid for governor. Reno lost to Democratic nominee Bill McBride, whose failure to inherit her popularity among black voters was partly blamed for his loss to then-Gov. Jeb Bush.
''Clearly it is an important constituency, and we're going to spend a lot of time campaigning and talking to folks in the community and in every community,'' Elleithee said.
Several black voters who attended Clinton's hourlong event said they faced a tough choice between her and Obama, campaigning to be the first black president.
`WE'RE TORN'
''We're torn, but when it comes down to it, you have to go with your heart, and I believe it will take a woman to straighten us out,'' said Beverly Bush, an AARP activist from Miami Gardens.
Miami Gardens Mayor Shirley Gibson said she hasn't made up her mind yet.
''As a black woman, at the end of the day I will make the decision of who is best for my community and my country,'' she said.
Obama supporters said they are confident he will pick up more support among black voters in Florida as the race proceeds.
''Like every other segment of America, you have to work for the vote,'' said Obama fundraiser Kirk Wagar, a Coconut Grove attorney. ``The numbers now certainly don't indicate where the race will end up.''
Clinton has the advantage of having campaigned in Florida since 1991, when Obama was just graduating from Harvard Law School.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Iraq welcomes British troop reduction
Political
Iraqi politicians welcome British troop reduction
Source: Guardian Unlimited 02/21/2007
Iraq's political leaders, who have been pressing the Bush administration to allow Iraqi forces shoulder more of the security burden in the country, today welcomed the news of an imminent British troop reduction in Basra.
Iraq's political leaders, who have been pressing the Bush administration to allow Iraqi forces shoulder more of the security burden in the country, today welcomed the news of an imminent British troop reduction in Basra.
The deputy prime minister, Barham Salih - who was praised by Mr Blair for directing a multi-million dollar reconstruction package for the oil-rich but poverty-ridden southern city, said: "British troops have helped liberate the people of Iraq from tyranny.
"We honour their sacrifices in helping Iraqis to live in freedom. The redeployment comes in the context of transferring security responsibilities to the Iraqi government, but activating the economy is the real key to stability."
Mr Salih said the new funds for Basra would be spent "on improving power and water supplies to the city as well as health and sewage and tackling unemployment".
He added that there were also plans to develop Basra's moribund port into the largest and most profitable in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, civic leaders and residents in Basra expressed relief at what they saw as the first step toward the end of the difficult British presence there.
Hakim al-Mayyahi, an influential member of the city's provincial council, said Mr Blair's statement was long overdue.
"Lately, they [the British troops] were not helping the stability of the security situation in Basra," he added. "On the contrary, their constant conflicts with the anti-British groups here was simply contributing to a negative impact among the public."
Mr al-Mayyahi said the city could do without the British presence, and would "depend on extra troops from Baghdad in case of emergencies".
The majority Shia city has largely avoided the sectarian violence and insurgency gripping Baghdad and central Iraq. But fierce rivalry for control among Shia groups and militias and oil-smuggling gangs, all of whom at times have targeted British forces, has kept it on a knife-edge.
Salam al-Maliki, a senior official in the bloc loyal to the radical young cleric Moqtada al-Sadr - which has long opposed a foreign presence in Iraq - said any violence in the city would cease once the foreign troops had left.
"The militias and militant groups in these areas only fired their weapons at the occupier and, when they go, all of the violence here will end," he said.
Jasim al-Obeidi, a Sunni resident of Basra, agreed. "This is very good news, because the British were behind the lack of security," he said. "The city will be much quieter without them."
However, some expressed trepidation at the potential negative consequences of a withdrawal of British forces before their Iraqi counterparts were fully ready to take responsibility for security.
Ali Haidar, a 43-year-old civil servant, agreed with the idea of withdrawal, "but not at the moment." He said: "Iraqi security troops were not prepared to undertake security, and they lack training and weapons.
"Besides, the police in particular are infiltrated by members loyal to special groups, not to the state."
Ahmed al-Bakr, a teacher, said: "We need more time. The British have been acting as a referee between the rival groups, and if they leave it will be like a football game without a referee - chaos."
One senior provincial official in Basra said: "If, after four years, they can't withdraw 1,600 troops without destabilizing the situation, then God help us."
Iraqi politicians welcome British troop reduction
Source: Guardian Unlimited 02/21/2007
Iraq's political leaders, who have been pressing the Bush administration to allow Iraqi forces shoulder more of the security burden in the country, today welcomed the news of an imminent British troop reduction in Basra.
Iraq's political leaders, who have been pressing the Bush administration to allow Iraqi forces shoulder more of the security burden in the country, today welcomed the news of an imminent British troop reduction in Basra.
The deputy prime minister, Barham Salih - who was praised by Mr Blair for directing a multi-million dollar reconstruction package for the oil-rich but poverty-ridden southern city, said: "British troops have helped liberate the people of Iraq from tyranny.
"We honour their sacrifices in helping Iraqis to live in freedom. The redeployment comes in the context of transferring security responsibilities to the Iraqi government, but activating the economy is the real key to stability."
Mr Salih said the new funds for Basra would be spent "on improving power and water supplies to the city as well as health and sewage and tackling unemployment".
He added that there were also plans to develop Basra's moribund port into the largest and most profitable in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, civic leaders and residents in Basra expressed relief at what they saw as the first step toward the end of the difficult British presence there.
Hakim al-Mayyahi, an influential member of the city's provincial council, said Mr Blair's statement was long overdue.
"Lately, they [the British troops] were not helping the stability of the security situation in Basra," he added. "On the contrary, their constant conflicts with the anti-British groups here was simply contributing to a negative impact among the public."
Mr al-Mayyahi said the city could do without the British presence, and would "depend on extra troops from Baghdad in case of emergencies".
The majority Shia city has largely avoided the sectarian violence and insurgency gripping Baghdad and central Iraq. But fierce rivalry for control among Shia groups and militias and oil-smuggling gangs, all of whom at times have targeted British forces, has kept it on a knife-edge.
Salam al-Maliki, a senior official in the bloc loyal to the radical young cleric Moqtada al-Sadr - which has long opposed a foreign presence in Iraq - said any violence in the city would cease once the foreign troops had left.
"The militias and militant groups in these areas only fired their weapons at the occupier and, when they go, all of the violence here will end," he said.
Jasim al-Obeidi, a Sunni resident of Basra, agreed. "This is very good news, because the British were behind the lack of security," he said. "The city will be much quieter without them."
However, some expressed trepidation at the potential negative consequences of a withdrawal of British forces before their Iraqi counterparts were fully ready to take responsibility for security.
Ali Haidar, a 43-year-old civil servant, agreed with the idea of withdrawal, "but not at the moment." He said: "Iraqi security troops were not prepared to undertake security, and they lack training and weapons.
"Besides, the police in particular are infiltrated by members loyal to special groups, not to the state."
Ahmed al-Bakr, a teacher, said: "We need more time. The British have been acting as a referee between the rival groups, and if they leave it will be like a football game without a referee - chaos."
One senior provincial official in Basra said: "If, after four years, they can't withdraw 1,600 troops without destabilizing the situation, then God help us."
Capitalism Challenged
If Capitalist and corporate America are truly being forth coming with consumers then why do I have contrary observations? I welcome its supporters to please respond to my post.
In the field of health care capitalists including President G.W. Bush have said that technology will reduce cost. Government and polticians instead of addressing the practice that corporations do in fact charge far too exorbitant prices to the public above their cost for providing such services or producing such products give business a free ticket void of regulation. Why then do healthcare cost continue to skyrocket? Why then are medical bills the leading reason for working Americans filing for bankruptcy?
I believe my observation possess merit based on the example that a majority of college economics professors use when teaching the law of supply and demand. It is Oil. Next, health care will be added to this short list of static commodities that consumers and their buying power can have little effect on their cost. Corporate greed for profits has locked the law of supply and demand out of these markets. Call that a free market economy?
Corporations’ marketing strategies are misleading and their prices are irresponsible. I pay attention to the economy and read reports where the cost of crude oil goes down but the cost of gasoline goes up then you what? Something is very wrong in this scenario that is the reality of the American economy.
In the field of health care capitalists including President G.W. Bush have said that technology will reduce cost. Government and polticians instead of addressing the practice that corporations do in fact charge far too exorbitant prices to the public above their cost for providing such services or producing such products give business a free ticket void of regulation. Why then do healthcare cost continue to skyrocket? Why then are medical bills the leading reason for working Americans filing for bankruptcy?
I believe my observation possess merit based on the example that a majority of college economics professors use when teaching the law of supply and demand. It is Oil. Next, health care will be added to this short list of static commodities that consumers and their buying power can have little effect on their cost. Corporate greed for profits has locked the law of supply and demand out of these markets. Call that a free market economy?
Corporations’ marketing strategies are misleading and their prices are irresponsible. I pay attention to the economy and read reports where the cost of crude oil goes down but the cost of gasoline goes up then you what? Something is very wrong in this scenario that is the reality of the American economy.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Weekend Update: Blackness Scale
Humor about Senator Barrack Obama.
Disclaimer: This is not serious folk.
A Road Map Out of Iraq
I just recieved an e-mail from one Democratic Senator (whose name I will not mention) entitled "A roadmap out of Iraq".
Frankly, thats bull. You get paid to vote. Vote to End the War in Iraq!
Frankly, thats bull. You get paid to vote. Vote to End the War in Iraq!
Pentagon manipulated Iraq data
Political
"Accusations of "Twisted Intelligence"; Defense Dept. Inspector General Tom Gimble told lawmakers that Pentagon officials manipulated data before the invasion of Iraq
Source: BusinessWeek Online 02/13/2007
Top Pentagon officials, authorized by then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, "inappropriately" misled the White House in asserting strong prewar ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, which turned out not to be true, and intentionally withheld data provided by outside intelligence agencies that challenged the Pentagon's conclusions, Acting Defense Dept. Inspector General Tom Gimble told lawmakers Feb. 9.
Gimble's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee and a summary report of a year-long investigation by the Inspector General's office shows the deep divide between policymakers at the Pentagon and the intelligence community, as well as stark partisan disagreements on whether the Bush Administration used false data to justify its war in Iraq.
A 52-page rebuttal by the Pentagon disputes most of the inspector general's findings, "except the finding that the activities reviewed were lawful and authorized."
Congressional Clash
Committee Chairman Carl Levin [D-Mich.] said the inspector general's report provides a "devastating condemnation" of the Defense Dept. policy that started the war with Iraq.
"The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq al Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq when the intelligence assessments of the professional analysts of the intelligence community did not provide the desired compelling case," Levin said.
Senator James Inhofe [R-Okla.] disagreed with Levin. "You can read the same report and come up with different conclusions I don't think in any way that his report could be interpreted as a devastating condemnation, as you point out Mr. Chairman."
Just Following Orders?
Shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Defense Dept. expanded the duties of its policy office, then run by former Under Secretary Douglas Feith, to find any connections between al Qaeda and the Iraqi and other governments and to develop its own intelligence assessments -- separate from the Central Intelligence Agency and other agencies. Feith's shop under then-Deputy Secretary Paul
"Accusations of "Twisted Intelligence"; Defense Dept. Inspector General Tom Gimble told lawmakers that Pentagon officials manipulated data before the invasion of Iraq
Source: BusinessWeek Online 02/13/2007
Top Pentagon officials, authorized by then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, "inappropriately" misled the White House in asserting strong prewar ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, which turned out not to be true, and intentionally withheld data provided by outside intelligence agencies that challenged the Pentagon's conclusions, Acting Defense Dept. Inspector General Tom Gimble told lawmakers Feb. 9.
Gimble's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee and a summary report of a year-long investigation by the Inspector General's office shows the deep divide between policymakers at the Pentagon and the intelligence community, as well as stark partisan disagreements on whether the Bush Administration used false data to justify its war in Iraq.
A 52-page rebuttal by the Pentagon disputes most of the inspector general's findings, "except the finding that the activities reviewed were lawful and authorized."
Congressional Clash
Committee Chairman Carl Levin [D-Mich.] said the inspector general's report provides a "devastating condemnation" of the Defense Dept. policy that started the war with Iraq.
"The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq al Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq when the intelligence assessments of the professional analysts of the intelligence community did not provide the desired compelling case," Levin said.
Senator James Inhofe [R-Okla.] disagreed with Levin. "You can read the same report and come up with different conclusions I don't think in any way that his report could be interpreted as a devastating condemnation, as you point out Mr. Chairman."
Just Following Orders?
Shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Defense Dept. expanded the duties of its policy office, then run by former Under Secretary Douglas Feith, to find any connections between al Qaeda and the Iraqi and other governments and to develop its own intelligence assessments -- separate from the Central Intelligence Agency and other agencies. Feith's shop under then-Deputy Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz disseminated "alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaeda relationship, which included conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the intelligence community and these were presented to senior decision-makers," Gimble said.
Levin said, "senior Administration officials used the twisted intelligence produced by the Feith office in making the case for the Iraq war."
Feith, who is now teaching at Georgetown University and has been criticized in the past for manipulating intelligence data, released a statement saying it is "bizarre for the Inspector General to disapprove of policy officials' doing work that they were directed to do by the secretary or deputy secretary of Defense." Feith led a group of private contractors who reviewed existing intelligence reports to find any links between al Qaeda and Iraq.
The Bush Administration has already received $503 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Pentagon recently asked Congress for another $235.1 billion to fund war operations this year and next. That's in addition to the $481.4 billion the Defense Dept. just requested from Capitol Hill to fund its regular operations in fiscal year 2008, which begins Oct. 1. "
Feith, who is now teaching at Georgetown University and has been criticized in the past for manipulating intelligence data, released a statement saying it is "bizarre for the Inspector General to disapprove of policy officials' doing work that they were directed to do by the secretary or deputy secretary of Defense." Feith led a group of private contractors who reviewed existing intelligence reports to find any links between al Qaeda and Iraq.
The Bush Administration has already received $503 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Pentagon recently asked Congress for another $235.1 billion to fund war operations this year and next. That's in addition to the $481.4 billion the Defense Dept. just requested from Capitol Hill to fund its regular operations in fiscal year 2008, which begins Oct. 1. "
Commentary: The Senate specifically must act to end the War in Iraq. It is in my analysis that the House of Representatives will pass significant measures to end the War void of pork baloney bills which on the other hand will be present in any Senate efforts. The U.S. Senate led by Harry Reid seems to be forgetting the mandate handed down by the People in November 2006. What the hell is a non-binding resolution on the desk of President & Commander-In- Chief G.W. Bush ? Let me answer that for you, poor use of a tree. Mr. Reid if it your last act as Senate Majority leader End this War in Iraq! Continued wasting time and tax payer dollars would surely spark debate of replacing you with those Senators sincerely committed to ending the War.
Here is a list of Democratic and Republican Senators that are pivotal in this matter: How shall they serve?
Here is a list of Democratic and Republican Senators that are pivotal in this matter: How shall they serve?
Majority Member State Carl Levin, Chairman Michigan Edward Kennedy Massachusetts Robert Byrd West Virginia Joe Lieberman Connecticut Jack Reed Rhode IslandDaniel Akaka Hawaii Bill Nelson Florida Ben Nelson Nebraska Evan Bayh Indiana Hillary Rodham Clinton New York Mark Pryor Arkansas Jim Webb Virginia Claire McCaskill Missouri
Minority Member StateJohn McCain, Ranking Member Arizona John Warner Virginia James Inhofe Oklahoma Jeff Sessions Alabama Susan Collins Maine John Ensign Nevada Saxby Chambliss Georgia Lindsey Graham South Carolina Elizabeth Dole North Carolina John Cornyn Texas John Thune South Dakota Mel Martinez Florida
Friday, February 09, 2007
Health Care: the wrong position
The following position on Health Care is simply idiotic. I do not have time to present my view on this matter at the time, but please feel free to search this blog for my previous comments on healthcare and discuss this the most pressing political issue to come.
'Four Cornerstones'
Will Transform Health
HealthSource: Forbes Online01 February 2007
Editor's Note: This editorial piece now appears on Forbes Online. It is co-written by Dr. Bob Galvin and Newt Gingrich. Dr. Bob Galvin is GE's Chief Medical Officer and director of global healthcare, GE. Newt Gingrich served as the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999 and is founder of the Center for Health Transformation.
By Bob Galvin and Newt Gingrich
The president's State of the Union speech last week sparked a healthy debate over what to prescribe for our ailing health care system. Mandates or markets, single-payer or private sector, generic drugs or brand names? The list of differences is endless. What everyone can agree upon is that health care must be fixed. For both government and the private sector, our current system is unsustainable, and Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt is trying to change this.
Many entrenched health care interests often claim that transformational solutions will not work because "health care is different." Health care is, indeed, different, and that is not a good thing. Innovation is slow, quality indicators are down, costs are perpetually on the rise, and tens of millions of individuals are locked out of the insurance market.
Rather than attempting to "fix" health care by himself with one magic bullet, Secretary Leavitt is putting the system on the right course to fix itself. Echoing the renowned Harvard business strategist Michael Porter, Leavitt is moving health care toward a value-based system.
Value-based health care means that providers, health plans and other health care professionals are rewarded--and procedures and products are encouraged and utilized--based upon the true value they bring to the consumer. This means critiquing every aspect of the delivery of care, divining its true value by knowing its cost and quality. This formula works in every other market, and it must be the foundation of health care.
We can bring about real change by centering the system on what Secretary Leavitt calls the "four cornerstones"--information technology, performance measures, transparency and payment reform. The largest purchasers of health care, from state and federal government to the private sector, can change health care by ingraining these four priorities into their purchasing and procurement--and then demanding accountability.
First, we must get information technology into the hands of health care providers. Compared to every other sector of society, most physicians and other providers step back in time when they enter their offices, giving up computers and the Internet for pen and paper. We simply cannot deliver better quality, eliminate waste and improve efficiency without equipping doctors with the point-of-care patient information and decision support tools. And the technology must be interconnected, or interoperable, so that every information technology system, no matter where it is, can deliver the right information on the right person at the right time.
Second, we must accelerate our efforts to create common measures to evaluate performance and cost. Today it is nearly impossible to determine, in any reliable way, who delivers the best quality care and at what cost. Government and industry are working to standardize common measures to enable us to gather and measure performance and cost in a common way, so we can compare apples to apples.
Third, we must widely distribute this information to consumers. Currently, the health care system keeps consumers in the dark about the cost and quality of the care they receive. Try finding out which doctor has the best results for treating patients with asthma or diabetes. Try finding out how much a knee replacement will cost. Sites like FloridaCompareCare.gov and MyFloridaRX.com, which contain a wealth of quality and cost data, have proved to be incredibly valuable to consumers.
Additionally, with the right privacy and security protections, the federal government should release the data it has to let the public see which doctors are delivering the best care. Wouldn't you like to know who has the best track record for delivering high-quality care? You have the right to know this information, and the federal government should release it.
Fourth, we must change the way we pay for care. In our current system, hospitals and providers that deliver better care are reimbursed, for the most part, at the exact same rate as those who provide poorer care. That is like paying the same price for a new Cadillac as you would for a used Yugo. This egregious approach must change so that better performers are rewarded.
Secretary Leavitt is trying to ingrain these "four cornerstones" into the federal government's purchasing of health care, most notably through President Bush's Executive Order No. 13410. This order instructs key federal departments, including Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Veterans Affairs, to say to its contracted hospitals, physicians and other providers, We will not do business with you if you do not agree to these principles.
With a $600 billion budget at HHS that's set to explode in the coming years, Secretary Leavitt knows that sitting idly by is not an option. It is not an option for other big purchasers of health care either, be they from the private sector or state government.
That is why GE (nyse: GE - news - people ), IBM (nyse: IBM - news - people ), Ford Motor (nyse: F - news - people ), GM (nyse: GM - news - people ), DaimlerChrysler (nyse: DCX - news - people ), Humana (nyse: HUM - news - people ), and others have pledged to instill these cornerstones into their health care purchasing. Gov. Tim Kaine recently signed his own executive order to do the same in Virginia.
If every major employer, be it a corporation or state government, would embrace these four cornerstones, we could indeed build a value-based system that delivers more choices of greater quality at lower cost to every single American. But to get there, we need continued leadership and immediate action from everyone in health care--now.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is founder of the Center for Health Transformation. Dr. Bob Galvin is the chief medical officer and director of global health care at GE. GE, IBM, Ford, GM, DaimlerChrysler and Humana are members of the Center for Health Transformation.
'Four Cornerstones'
Will Transform Health
HealthSource: Forbes Online01 February 2007
Editor's Note: This editorial piece now appears on Forbes Online. It is co-written by Dr. Bob Galvin and Newt Gingrich. Dr. Bob Galvin is GE's Chief Medical Officer and director of global healthcare, GE. Newt Gingrich served as the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999 and is founder of the Center for Health Transformation.
By Bob Galvin and Newt Gingrich
The president's State of the Union speech last week sparked a healthy debate over what to prescribe for our ailing health care system. Mandates or markets, single-payer or private sector, generic drugs or brand names? The list of differences is endless. What everyone can agree upon is that health care must be fixed. For both government and the private sector, our current system is unsustainable, and Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt is trying to change this.
Many entrenched health care interests often claim that transformational solutions will not work because "health care is different." Health care is, indeed, different, and that is not a good thing. Innovation is slow, quality indicators are down, costs are perpetually on the rise, and tens of millions of individuals are locked out of the insurance market.
Rather than attempting to "fix" health care by himself with one magic bullet, Secretary Leavitt is putting the system on the right course to fix itself. Echoing the renowned Harvard business strategist Michael Porter, Leavitt is moving health care toward a value-based system.
Value-based health care means that providers, health plans and other health care professionals are rewarded--and procedures and products are encouraged and utilized--based upon the true value they bring to the consumer. This means critiquing every aspect of the delivery of care, divining its true value by knowing its cost and quality. This formula works in every other market, and it must be the foundation of health care.
We can bring about real change by centering the system on what Secretary Leavitt calls the "four cornerstones"--information technology, performance measures, transparency and payment reform. The largest purchasers of health care, from state and federal government to the private sector, can change health care by ingraining these four priorities into their purchasing and procurement--and then demanding accountability.
First, we must get information technology into the hands of health care providers. Compared to every other sector of society, most physicians and other providers step back in time when they enter their offices, giving up computers and the Internet for pen and paper. We simply cannot deliver better quality, eliminate waste and improve efficiency without equipping doctors with the point-of-care patient information and decision support tools. And the technology must be interconnected, or interoperable, so that every information technology system, no matter where it is, can deliver the right information on the right person at the right time.
Second, we must accelerate our efforts to create common measures to evaluate performance and cost. Today it is nearly impossible to determine, in any reliable way, who delivers the best quality care and at what cost. Government and industry are working to standardize common measures to enable us to gather and measure performance and cost in a common way, so we can compare apples to apples.
Third, we must widely distribute this information to consumers. Currently, the health care system keeps consumers in the dark about the cost and quality of the care they receive. Try finding out which doctor has the best results for treating patients with asthma or diabetes. Try finding out how much a knee replacement will cost. Sites like FloridaCompareCare.gov and MyFloridaRX.com, which contain a wealth of quality and cost data, have proved to be incredibly valuable to consumers.
Additionally, with the right privacy and security protections, the federal government should release the data it has to let the public see which doctors are delivering the best care. Wouldn't you like to know who has the best track record for delivering high-quality care? You have the right to know this information, and the federal government should release it.
Fourth, we must change the way we pay for care. In our current system, hospitals and providers that deliver better care are reimbursed, for the most part, at the exact same rate as those who provide poorer care. That is like paying the same price for a new Cadillac as you would for a used Yugo. This egregious approach must change so that better performers are rewarded.
Secretary Leavitt is trying to ingrain these "four cornerstones" into the federal government's purchasing of health care, most notably through President Bush's Executive Order No. 13410. This order instructs key federal departments, including Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Veterans Affairs, to say to its contracted hospitals, physicians and other providers, We will not do business with you if you do not agree to these principles.
With a $600 billion budget at HHS that's set to explode in the coming years, Secretary Leavitt knows that sitting idly by is not an option. It is not an option for other big purchasers of health care either, be they from the private sector or state government.
That is why GE (nyse: GE - news - people ), IBM (nyse: IBM - news - people ), Ford Motor (nyse: F - news - people ), GM (nyse: GM - news - people ), DaimlerChrysler (nyse: DCX - news - people ), Humana (nyse: HUM - news - people ), and others have pledged to instill these cornerstones into their health care purchasing. Gov. Tim Kaine recently signed his own executive order to do the same in Virginia.
If every major employer, be it a corporation or state government, would embrace these four cornerstones, we could indeed build a value-based system that delivers more choices of greater quality at lower cost to every single American. But to get there, we need continued leadership and immediate action from everyone in health care--now.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is founder of the Center for Health Transformation. Dr. Bob Galvin is the chief medical officer and director of global health care at GE. GE, IBM, Ford, GM, DaimlerChrysler and Humana are members of the Center for Health Transformation.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Time to include gay troops
"(CNN) -- Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili has had a change of heart about gays in the military.
Shalikashvili, who was the top military man when President Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy became law in 1993, wrote in a recent New York Times editorial that he was convinced by gay service members that "don't tell" can disappear.
"I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces," he wrote in the January 2 edition of the Times. "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."
The "don't ask" means commanders are prohibited from questioning a service member about sexual orientation while "don't tell" refers to the stipulation that gay and lesbian troops must keep their sexual orientation a secret.
President Clinton's policy brought the highly charged issue of gays in the military to the center of public discussion. At the time, Shalikashvili, supported the policy, believing that openly gay servicemen and women would hurt the military's cohesion.
With President Bush now calling for a larger military, the issue is sure to become fodder again for political and social debate.
Shalikashvili wrote that his position change came after meeting with gay troops, including "some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew.
"These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers."
'A political issue, not a military issue'
Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen told CNN that people should not miss the retired general's point, that the war in Iraq should be the top issue with Washington, but the discussion on gays in the military needs to resume in Congress.
"I think we have to ... take into account the full article," he said. "It was almost as if St. Augustine declaring to God, "Dear God, give me chastity, but not just yet.'"
And in the Shalikashvili piece, he said it's time to start "rethinking this policy."
Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd said Shalikashvili's change of heart was a big one but that the policy is a "political issue, not a military issue."
The military doesn't consider the issue a big deal and its concern is with the conduct of its personnel, not their sexual preferences, he said. The change in the policy will reflect a change in social values, he added.
"I think society is moving on and probably Shalikashvili is moving on personally," Shepperd said.
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a gay advocacy group, applauded the editorial.
"That's a courageous thing to do," said Sharon Alexander, deputy director for policy for the group.
Shalikashvili, who served in the Army for 39 years and is the only immigrant to rise to the pinnacle of military leadership, is very knowledgeable and well-respected, Shepperd said.
World war shaped childhood
Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw, Poland, in June 1936, just three years before the Nazis invaded. His father, who was born in the country of Georgia, was an officer in the Polish army until it surrendered to the Germans then joined a unit of Georgians that fought for the Nazis. Eventually his unit fought with the Waffen-SS.
John Shalikashvili and his family lived in Poland through the occupation and destruction of Warsaw. According to a Washington Post article in 1993, the family lived in a cellar after a German bomber blew up their apartment. Near the end of World War II, the family fled to Germany.
In 1952, the family immigrated to Peoria, Illinois. Shalikashvili, a teenager who spoke no English, learned the language by watching John Wayne movies. He was drafted in 1958 into the Army, where he quickly became an officer.
During the Vietnam war, Shalikashvili served as a senior district adviser to South Vietnamese forces in 1968-69. According to the Army, he won a Bronze Star for directing a search team that was attacked from two positions.
He also served in Iraq after the Gulf War, directing relief efforts for Kurds in the northeastern mountainous area of the country.
When Colin Powell stepped down as Joint Chiefs chairman, President Clinton nominated Shalikashvili, who had been one of Powell's deputies. The nomination hit a stumbling block when his father's service with the Nazis came to light, but the general won Senate approval after convincing testimony that he had not known of his father's ties until just before his confirmation hearings.
Despite suffering a massive stroke in 2004, Shalikashvili continues to speak his mind and some say the retired chairman could be the catalyst for change.
"As a former high-ranking military official, people listen to him," Shepperd said. "The lawmakers will listen to him."'
PBS Report: Gays in the Military
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june05/gays_4-13.html
Shalikashvili, who was the top military man when President Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy became law in 1993, wrote in a recent New York Times editorial that he was convinced by gay service members that "don't tell" can disappear.
"I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces," he wrote in the January 2 edition of the Times. "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."
The "don't ask" means commanders are prohibited from questioning a service member about sexual orientation while "don't tell" refers to the stipulation that gay and lesbian troops must keep their sexual orientation a secret.
President Clinton's policy brought the highly charged issue of gays in the military to the center of public discussion. At the time, Shalikashvili, supported the policy, believing that openly gay servicemen and women would hurt the military's cohesion.
With President Bush now calling for a larger military, the issue is sure to become fodder again for political and social debate.
Shalikashvili wrote that his position change came after meeting with gay troops, including "some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew.
"These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers."
'A political issue, not a military issue'
Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen told CNN that people should not miss the retired general's point, that the war in Iraq should be the top issue with Washington, but the discussion on gays in the military needs to resume in Congress.
"I think we have to ... take into account the full article," he said. "It was almost as if St. Augustine declaring to God, "Dear God, give me chastity, but not just yet.'"
And in the Shalikashvili piece, he said it's time to start "rethinking this policy."
Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd said Shalikashvili's change of heart was a big one but that the policy is a "political issue, not a military issue."
The military doesn't consider the issue a big deal and its concern is with the conduct of its personnel, not their sexual preferences, he said. The change in the policy will reflect a change in social values, he added.
"I think society is moving on and probably Shalikashvili is moving on personally," Shepperd said.
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a gay advocacy group, applauded the editorial.
"That's a courageous thing to do," said Sharon Alexander, deputy director for policy for the group.
Shalikashvili, who served in the Army for 39 years and is the only immigrant to rise to the pinnacle of military leadership, is very knowledgeable and well-respected, Shepperd said.
World war shaped childhood
Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw, Poland, in June 1936, just three years before the Nazis invaded. His father, who was born in the country of Georgia, was an officer in the Polish army until it surrendered to the Germans then joined a unit of Georgians that fought for the Nazis. Eventually his unit fought with the Waffen-SS.
John Shalikashvili and his family lived in Poland through the occupation and destruction of Warsaw. According to a Washington Post article in 1993, the family lived in a cellar after a German bomber blew up their apartment. Near the end of World War II, the family fled to Germany.
In 1952, the family immigrated to Peoria, Illinois. Shalikashvili, a teenager who spoke no English, learned the language by watching John Wayne movies. He was drafted in 1958 into the Army, where he quickly became an officer.
During the Vietnam war, Shalikashvili served as a senior district adviser to South Vietnamese forces in 1968-69. According to the Army, he won a Bronze Star for directing a search team that was attacked from two positions.
He also served in Iraq after the Gulf War, directing relief efforts for Kurds in the northeastern mountainous area of the country.
When Colin Powell stepped down as Joint Chiefs chairman, President Clinton nominated Shalikashvili, who had been one of Powell's deputies. The nomination hit a stumbling block when his father's service with the Nazis came to light, but the general won Senate approval after convincing testimony that he had not known of his father's ties until just before his confirmation hearings.
Despite suffering a massive stroke in 2004, Shalikashvili continues to speak his mind and some say the retired chairman could be the catalyst for change.
"As a former high-ranking military official, people listen to him," Shepperd said. "The lawmakers will listen to him."'
PBS Report: Gays in the Military
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june05/gays_4-13.html
Monday, January 29, 2007
UN: Iraqi Civilian Deaths at New High
"The UN has reported that over 34,000 Iraqi civilians were killed and over 36,000 were wounded. This toll reported by the UN is almost 3 times more than that reported by the Iraqi government. Also included in the reports is that at least 470,000 people have been internally displaced with over 38,000 in Baghdad alone."
The UN Reports that approx 150,000 innocent Iraqi have died in the USA's War on Terror.
A conservative number in my opinion.
The UN Reports that approx 150,000 innocent Iraqi have died in the USA's War on Terror.
A conservative number in my opinion.
Ari Fleischer Disputes Libby's Account at Trial
"January 29, 2007 · Former White House aide Lewis Libby spoke of the wife of a prominent war critic working at the CIA in the summer of 2003 — before the date Libby told investigators he had learned about the CIA operative. That's the testimony of former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.
Testifying under an immunity deal with prosecutors, Fleischer says he didn't know at the time of his lunch talk with Libby that the information was classified.
Libby is accused of perjury in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame, wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the Bush administration of misleading the public in the run-up to the Iraq war.
Libby is the former chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney.
Libby, the vice president's former chief of staff, is accused of lying to obstruct an investigation into the leak of CIA Agent Valerie Plame's identity.
Fleischer testified that Libby told him Plame's identity over a private lunch in the White House mess hall on July 7, 2003. That contradicts Libby's account that he learned the information from reporters days later.
Fleischer quoted Libby as saying, "This is hush hush. This is on the QT. Not very many people know about this."
Fleischer told the jury, "My sense is Mr. Libby was telling me this is kind of newsy."
Their lunch conversation took place as the White House was in the thick of an effort to rebut criticism from Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Wilson had gone to Africa to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein sought uranium for nuclear weapons from the Nigerian government. When Wilson found no such evidence and the White House continued to assert otherwise, Wilson began to criticize the White House publicly.
Fleischer is the fifth government official to testify that Libby was part of a coordinated White House effort to refute Wilson's claims. Fleischer said, "I never in my wildest dreams would have thought this information (about Plame's identity) would be classified."
According to Fleischer's testimony, he told Plame's identity to reporters from Time magazine and NBC News a few days later, during a presidential trip to Africa.
Libby's lawyers have argued that the Plame/Wilson controversy was a minor issue compared to the other crises Libby had to deal with at the same time. They say if Libby made false statements to FBI agents and a grand jury months later, those statements were the result of memory lapses—not lies" (NPR).
Testifying under an immunity deal with prosecutors, Fleischer says he didn't know at the time of his lunch talk with Libby that the information was classified.
Libby is accused of perjury in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame, wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the Bush administration of misleading the public in the run-up to the Iraq war.
Libby is the former chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney.
Libby, the vice president's former chief of staff, is accused of lying to obstruct an investigation into the leak of CIA Agent Valerie Plame's identity.
Fleischer testified that Libby told him Plame's identity over a private lunch in the White House mess hall on July 7, 2003. That contradicts Libby's account that he learned the information from reporters days later.
Fleischer quoted Libby as saying, "This is hush hush. This is on the QT. Not very many people know about this."
Fleischer told the jury, "My sense is Mr. Libby was telling me this is kind of newsy."
Their lunch conversation took place as the White House was in the thick of an effort to rebut criticism from Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Wilson had gone to Africa to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein sought uranium for nuclear weapons from the Nigerian government. When Wilson found no such evidence and the White House continued to assert otherwise, Wilson began to criticize the White House publicly.
Fleischer is the fifth government official to testify that Libby was part of a coordinated White House effort to refute Wilson's claims. Fleischer said, "I never in my wildest dreams would have thought this information (about Plame's identity) would be classified."
According to Fleischer's testimony, he told Plame's identity to reporters from Time magazine and NBC News a few days later, during a presidential trip to Africa.
Libby's lawyers have argued that the Plame/Wilson controversy was a minor issue compared to the other crises Libby had to deal with at the same time. They say if Libby made false statements to FBI agents and a grand jury months later, those statements were the result of memory lapses—not lies" (NPR).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
