Re: [OregonDCs] Re: Kitzhaber/Archimedes

January 3, 2007

I agree with Dr. . This is the form Govs. plan. I heard him talk last February - he was scarey - darn scarey . Cut off care for pre-term babies and end of life care for others. s. fuchs dc

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of spbkchiro97132Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 8:50 AM Subject: [OregonDCs] Re: Kitzhaber/Archimedes

: You ask: Where do I get this information?I will tell you:1- For 5 years I was the Oregon Medicare r Advisory Committeemember for chiros...this experience helped to make me pretty darnknowledgeable re. the entire Medicare system. I don't know a chiro inthis state who has more knowledge of Medicare statutes/regulationsthan myself, but I may be wrong.2- I have a 'wellness' patient who is a former OHSU medical schoolprofessor and who is now on Kitzhaber's Citizen's Advisory Committeefor the Archimedes movement. He is a relative insider re. thismovement. I have have been getting the "blow-by-blow" re. this"movement" for the last 2 years, directly from him...we talk about itevery two weeks.3- I have attented the local Archimedes chapter meeting here inNewberg where an acquantance from the Chamber Of Commerce is thefacilitator.4- I have seen/heard/read "Kitz" discuss this baby. a- In person, B-On the radio and C- In his self-produced DVD. D- In his blog..I am onhis mailing list.The only sane conclusion I (or any sane person) can make afterinforming myself, is that he intends to get a federal waiver forOregon and replace Medicare and OMAP with a similar, single-payor,rationed, fee-controlled/cost-controlled system that will apply to ALLages and economic status. He says this very clearly if you just readand listen to what he says.Any other questions?My advice to the doctor/governor is that perhaps he should move toCanada:http://www.mercola.com/2006/dec/26/heartlessness-of-socialized-medicine-in-canada.htm > > >> > > Not to debate or argue the issue; I have a few as-of-yet unanswered> > > questions:> > >> > > WHERE in Medicare or elsewhere does it establish DCs MUST > > participate> > > via limited fees, limited services and 'billing AS IF the > > patient' being> > > treated under medicare rules? I'd like to see the exact> > > page-section-and-paragraph to clarify what everyone else seems to> > > understand....> > >> > > I am led to believe by the comments of a few, that the only way to> > > escape the snare of medicare regulation, is to not accept ANY > > patients> > > of medicare> > > age or status....can this be true?> > >> > > And what if the standard office rate is above the CPT code just> > > listed? What if the standard office fee for 98941 is $35? What is > > the> > > official way to handle that?> > >> > > And where is the much-touted 'same service=same fee' principle? How> > can> > > one class of patient be charged a different amount just because they> > > belong to a particular group? And for that matter, [NO RANT here] > > how> > > can one class of provider be treated differently than all OTHER> > providers???> > >> > > Please advise.> > >> > > J. Pedersen DC> > > ...struggling to understand the ways of the universe....> > >> >> >> >>

January 3, 2007

The problems we face are about us and they cannot be solved unless we do it together. Unless the people themselves can agree on a broad vision for what they want their health care system to look like; on the values they want it to reflect and the outcomes they want it to produce — the political process cannot and will not do it for them. The Archimedes Movement, by creating opportunities for community engagement, will provide a vehicle through which the growing concern over the U.S. health care system can be channeled into effective action - not only in creating the vision for a more equitable and sustainable system — but also in building the tension necessary for the realization of that vision. http://wecandobetter.org/sites/archi.trunk/files/WhatIsAM5-14-06.pdfThanks for the input, . How can we do better? Sears, DCNW PDX On Jan 3, 2007, at 8:50 AM, spbkchiro97132 wrote:: You ask: Where do I get this information?I will tell you:1- For 5 years I was the Oregon Medicare r Advisory Committeemember for chiros...this experience helped to make me pretty darnknowledgeable re. the entire Medicare system. I don't know a chiro inthis state who has more knowledge of Medicare statutes/regulationsthan myself, but I may be wrong.2- I have a 'wellness' patient who is a former OHSU medical schoolprofessor and who is now on Kitzhaber's Citizen's Advisory Committeefor the Archimedes movement. He is a relative insider re. thismovement. I have have been getting the "blow-by-blow" re. this"movement" for the last 2 years, directly from him...we talk about itevery two weeks.3- I have attented the local Archimedes chapter meeting here inNewberg where an acquantance from the Chamber Of Commerce is thefacilitator.4- I have seen/heard/read "Kitz" discuss this baby. a- In person, B-On the radio and C- In his self-produced DVD. D- In his blog..I am onhis mailing list.The only sane conclusion I (or any sane person) can make afterinforming myself, is that he intends to get a federal waiver forOregon and replace Medicare and OMAP with a similar, single-payor,rationed, fee-controlled/cost-controlled system that will apply to ALLages and economic status. He says this very clearly if you just readand listen to what he says.Any other questions?My advice to the doctor/governor is that perhaps he should move toCanada:http://www.mercola.com/2006/dec/26/heartlessness-of-socialized-medicine-in-canada.htm > > >> > > Not to debate or argue the issue; I have a few as-of-yet unanswered> > > questions:> > >> > > WHERE in Medicare or elsewhere does it establish DCs MUST > > participate> > > via limited fees, limited services and 'billing AS IF the > > patient' being> > > treated under medicare rules? I'd like to see the exact> > > page-section-and-paragraph to clarify what everyone else seems to> > > understand....> > >> > > I am led to believe by the comments of a few, that the only way to> > > escape the snare of medicare regulation, is to not accept ANY > > patients> > > of medicare> > > age or status....can this be true?> > >> > > And what if the standard office rate is above the CPT code just> > > listed? What if the standard office fee for 98941 is $35? What is > > the> > > official way to handle that?> > >> > > And where is the much-touted 'same service=same fee' principle? How> > can> > > one class of patient be charged a different amount just because they> > > belong to a particular group? And for that matter, [NO RANT here] > > how> > > can one class of provider be treated differently than all OTHER> > providers???> > >> > > Please advise.> > >> > > J. Pedersen DC> > > ...struggling to understand the ways of the universe....> > >> >> >> >>

January 3, 2007

By the numbers, ...1) We need to properly and correctly define what "Health" is. Agreed! I see health as the free expression of our innate capacity for self-organization, and the role of the physician as remover of obstacles to that free expression. Indeed, education is a BIG part of that role.2) We need to get a reality check and realize that 'Healthcare' (aspopularly defined) is not a "Right" any more than indoor plumbing is aright.... If your neighbor was using your yard for his duties, you'd be a big right to indoor plumbing. Methinks you're a smart guy!3) "Health" (once properly defined) IS indeed a 'Right' in that if you adhere to the laws of nature and physiology you (have) every "Right" to expect "health.... Agreed! 4) We have to do is "tell" the truth about what it takes to be healthy. Agreed!We're not so far apart on this, except for the obstacle of not looking out for others around you, particularly those in need of help, regardless of their circumstances. Consider, if you please, each of us as cells in a common organism. Would you be concerned for the welfare of the other cells constituting your body? Does innate act as if it's concerned for the other cells of our body? Will the community be healthier overall as the least of us becomes healthier? No force, just education and opportunity. God seems to sort out the miscreants. Sears, DCNW PDX On Jan 3, 2007, at 5:14 PM, spbkchiro97132 wrote:, did you write the copy for his website? heh heh ;-)"How can we do better?" Great question....here are a few ideas.1- We need to properly and correctly define what "Health" is. It is achallenge of course, because, in my humble opinion, even mostchiros,NDs etc, do not really understand what the correct definitionof health is. Health is not the absence of pre-defined 'medicalconditions'.For more info re. the definition of health, feel free to visit mywebsite. www.springbrookclcinic.comAny healthcare provider/entity/business that is not making educationthe cornerstone of his/her practice, is squarely part of the problem.2- We need to get a reality check and realize that 'Healthcare' (aspopularly defined) is not a "Right" any more than indoor plumbing is aright. We need to realize this: It was never a "Right", is not a"Right" and will never be a "right". Never. Sorry. You can put it inwriting in Federal or State law, but it does not make it true. You canwrite a law that says that gravity does not exist, but that does notmake it so. I am very charitable, trust me, I give away a ridiculousamount of care and donate quite a lot to various causes that I believein. But I will never allow myself to be forced to offer my charity tofolks who have no respect for me or for themselves. The universebreaks down when you try to "force" charity at the end of a gun.3- Perhaps most importantly, "Health" (once properly defined) ISindeed a 'Right' in that if you adhere to the laws of nature andphysiology you every "Right" to expect "health"...ON the other hand,if you do not adhere to the laws of physiology and nature you have no"Right" to expect "health". It is simple, it is the truth, it isscientific, it is "chiropractic"......One of the neatest things aboutbeing a chiro is that gives you the privilege to put yourself amongthe many original chiros who "got the big idea". Namely, the bodyself-heals and self-regulates and self-repairs (when the right signalsgo to the genes etc.).4- We have to do is "tell" the truth about what it takes to behealthy. It doesn't have to sold or pushed ...people do not have to becajoled or twisted. They just have to be told...it is self-evident toalmost everyone..it is totally embedded in most people's sub-consciousand they are grateful to be taught about health.Just like the old hermit in this other video right?http://www.mercola.com/LT/track.asp?l=163 > > > > >> > > > > Not to debate or argue the issue; I have a few as-of-yet > > unanswered> > > > > questions:> > > > >> > > > > WHERE in Medicare or elsewhere does it establish DCs MUST> > > > participate> > > > > via limited fees, limited services and 'billing AS IF the> > > > patient' being> > > > > treated under medicare rules? I'd like to see the exact> > > > > page-section-and-paragraph to clarify what everyone else > > seems to> > > > > understand....> > > > >> > > > > I am led to believe by the comments of a few, that the only > > way to> > > > > escape the snare of medicare regulation, is to not accept ANY> > > > patients> > > > > of medicare> > > > > age or status....can this be true?> > > > >> > > > > And what if the standard office rate is above the CPT code just> > > > > listed? What if the standard office fee for 98941 is $35? > > What is> > > > the> > > > > official way to handle that?> > > > >> > > > > And where is the much-touted 'same service=same fee' > > principle? How> > > > can> > > > > one class of patient be charged a different amount just > > because they> > > > > belong to a particular group? And for that matter, [NO RANT > > here]> > > > how> > > > > can one class of provider be treated differently than all OTHER> > > > providers???> > > > >> > > > > Please advise.> > > > >> > > > > J. Pedersen DC> > > > > ...struggling to understand the ways of the universe....> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >>

January 4, 2007

"The universebreaks down when you try to "force" charity at the end of a gun."

Isnt that medicare?

, why do you feel that health care is not a "Right"? Comparing it with plumbing or a driving license isn't quite accurate in my opinion. There is an element of compassion that goes beyond giving away care when we can. I don't believe allowing health care to become entirely a capitalistic entity is correct either and it seems the "universe" is breaking down due to this as well. Allowing this to continue will break the universe down a lot faster than charitable notions. Is there a life more valuable than another?

So, we educate on prevention and true health. Is that to say accidents, ailments, random disease etc. etc. will not occur and if they do are we and all medical providers suppose to concede to the reality that health care is not a "right"? I'd actually argue that Health is NOT a right at all. Unfortunately living healthy doesn't always equate to Health (I understand the odds, but calling it a right fails to explain away the smaller % group) All we can do is assure that if you become unhealthy you have the right to become Healthy again. We can do this for everyone. We have to. It (in my opinion) is a right. Pining that it is not simply insenuates that it is for those who can afford it which is untrue. For example, a man w/out insurance is taken to ER for gunshot wound. Let him die? No, it's his right and our obligation to save him, however his so called right to health has been taken away. He will be billed and he will not pay and our taxes go up and up an up. The system is broke. Perhaps there should be a universal "Life Saver Plan" where everyone is covered for life threatening emergency care. It would seem that that is a right.

Your ideas on how to do BETTER are splendid, but they do not address the massive problem in which we face. Your ideas no matter the system adopted should be implemented, but it's the system which is in question.

Removing big business and capitalism from the forefront of "health insurance and health care will be the first step. Free enterprise at the expense of our nation's access to proper health care isn't what i'd call compassionate or smart.

Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. These are the unalienable rights. Health is not one of them. Life is.

ph Medlin, DCSpine Tree Chiropractic1627 NE Alberta St.Portland, OR 97211

[OregonDCs] Re: Kitzhaber/Archimedes

, did you write the copy for his website? heh heh ;-)"How can we do better?" Great question....here are a few ideas.1- We need to properly and correctly define what "Health" is. It is achallenge of course, because, in my humble opinion, even mostchiros,NDs etc, do not really understand what the correct definitionof health is. Health is not the absence of pre-defined 'medicalconditions'.For more info re. the definition of health, feel free to visit mywebsite. www.springbrookclcinic.comAny healthcare provider/entity/business that is not making educationthe cornerstone of his/her practice, is squarely part of the problem.2- We need to get a reality check and realize that 'Healthcare' (aspopularly defined) is not a "Right" any more than indoor plumbing is aright. We need to realize this: It was never a "Right", is not a"Right" and will never be a "right". Never. Sorry. You can put it inwriting in Federal or State law, but it does not make it true. You canwrite a law that says that gravity does not exist, but that does notmake it so. I am very charitable, trust me, I give away a ridiculousamount of care and donate quite a lot to various causes that I believein. But I will never allow myself to be forced to offer my charity tofolks who have no respect for me or for themselves. The universebreaks down when you try to "force" charity at the end of a gun.3- Perhaps most importantly, "Health" (once properly defined) ISindeed a 'Right' in that if you adhere to the laws of nature andphysiology you every "Right" to expect "health"...ON the other hand,if you do not adhere to the laws of physiology and nature you have no"Right" to expect "health". It is simple, it is the truth, it isscientific, it is "chiropractic"......One of the neatest things aboutbeing a chiro is that gives you the privilege to put yourself amongthe many original chiros who "got the big idea". Namely, the bodyself-heals and self-regulates and self-repairs (when the right signalsgo to the genes etc.).4- We have to do is "tell" the truth about what it takes to behealthy. It doesn't have to sold or pushed ...people do not have to becajoled or twisted. They just have to be told...it is self-evident toalmost everyone..it is totally embedded in most people's sub-consciousand they are grateful to be taught about health.Just like the old hermit in this other video right?http://www.mercola.com/LT/track.asp?l=163 > > > > >> > > > > Not to debate or argue the issue; I have a few as-of-yet > > unanswered> > > > > questions:> > > > >> > > > > WHERE in Medicare or elsewhere does it establish DCs MUST> > > > participate> > > > > via limited fees, limited services and 'billing AS IF the> > > > patient' being> > > > > treated under medicare rules? I'd like to see the exact> > > > > page-section-and-paragraph to clarify what everyone else > > seems to> > > > > understand....> > > > >> > > > > I am led to believe by the comments of a few, that the only > > way to> > > > > escape the snare of medicare regulation, is to not accept ANY> > > > patients> > > > > of medicare> > > > > age or status....can this be true?> > > > >> > > > > And what if the standard office rate is above the CPT code just> > > > > listed? What if the standard office fee for 98941 is $35? > > What is> > > > the> > > > > official way to handle that?> > > > >> > > > > And where is the much-touted 'same service=same fee' > > principle? How> > > > can> > > > > one class of patient be charged a different amount just > > because they> > > > > belong to a particular group? And for that matter, [NO RANT > > here]> > > > how> > > > > can one class of provider be treated differently than all OTHER> > > > providers???> > > > >> > > > > Please advise.> > > > >> > > > > J. Pedersen DC> > > > > ...struggling to understand the ways of the universe....> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >>

January 4, 2007

Hi Joe:

I think that is attempting to explain a view of personal responsibility in assessing health care. Certainly most, if not all people would agree that emergency care to save a life is an obligation of this particular society, America.

Like , I do not feel that healthcare is a "right". Every person is responsible for their own health, for their own finances, and for their decisions regarding their life. Putting a governmental agency in "charge" of providing "healthcare rights" , "financial; rights", or "life rights"only worsen the situation and this system, (healthcare rights) has proven to be a dismal and absolute failure in all countries where it has been implemented. In all countries where the government has taken away personal responsibility the society has stagnated. There is a reason why the overwhelming amount of world patents comes from America.

While there needs to be social nets for those that are unable to meet healthcare needs because of mental or physical challenges. Anyone that is able bodied needs to accept his or her responsibility for their own welfare We all have choices and we all have consequences as the result of those choices, good OR bad.

I would argue that making it a "right" to have healthcare needs met only ENABLES people to continue to make poor choices.

But then I am a capitalist at heart, not a communist, like Kithzaber.

Are you aware that you, and every other Oregon citizen, currently subsidize methadone presciptions for thousands of people at the cost of millions? THAT is a fact and is currently a healthcare "right". Comes under the label of EXYREMELY POOR CHOICE in my book.

Always

Danno

[OregonDCs] Re: Kitzhaber/Archimedes

, did you write the copy for his website? heh heh ;-)"How can we do better?" Great question....here are a few ideas.1- We need to properly and correctly define what "Health" is. It is achallenge of course, because, in my humble opinion, even mostchiros,NDs etc, do not really understand what the correct definitionof health is. Health is not the absence of pre-defined 'medicalconditions'.For more info re. the definition of health, feel free to visit mywebsite. www.springbrookclcinic.comAny healthcare provider/entity/business that is not making educationthe cornerstone of his/her practice, is squarely part of the problem.2- We need to get a reality check and realize that 'Healthcare' (aspopularly defined) is not a "Right" any more than indoor plumbing is aright. We need to realize this: It was never a "Right", is not a"Right" and will never be a "right". Never. Sorry. You can put it inwriting in Federal or State law, but it does not make it true. You canwrite a law that says that gravity does not exist, but that does notmake it so. I am very charitable, trust me, I give away a ridiculousamount of care and donate quite a lot to various causes that I believein. But I will never allow myself to be forced to offer my charity tofolks who have no respect for me or for themselves. The universebreaks down when you try to "force" charity at the end of a gun.3- Perhaps most importantly, "Health" (once properly defined) ISindeed a 'Right' in that if you adhere to the laws of nature andphysiology you every "Right" to expect "health"...ON the other hand,if you do not adhere to the laws of physiology and nature you have no"Right" to expect "health". It is simple, it is the truth, it isscientific, it is "chiropractic"......One of the neatest things aboutbeing a chiro is that gives you the privilege to put yourself amongthe many original chiros who "got the big idea". Namely, the bodyself-heals and self-regulates and self-repairs (when the right signalsgo to the genes etc.).4- We have to do is "tell" the truth about what it takes to behealthy. It doesn't have to sold or pushed ...people do not have to becajoled or twisted. They just have to be told...it is self-evident toalmost everyone..it is totally embedded in most people's sub-consciousand they are grateful to be taught about health.Just like the old hermit in this other video right?http://www.mercola.com/LT/track.asp?l=163 > > > > >> > > > > Not to debate or argue the issue; I have a few as-of-yet > > unanswered> > > > > questions:> > > > >> > > > > WHERE in Medicare or elsewhere does it establish DCs MUST> > > > participate> > > > > via limited fees, limited services and 'billing AS IF the> > > > patient' being> > > > > treated under medicare rules? I'd like to see the exact> > > > > page-section-and-paragraph to clarify what everyone else > > seems to> > > > > understand....> > > > >> > > > > I am led to believe by the comments of a few, that the only > > way to> > > > > escape the snare of medicare regulation, is to not accept ANY> > > > patients> > > > > of medicare> > > > > age or status....can this be true?> > > > >> > > > > And what if the standard office rate is above the CPT code just> > > > > listed? What if the standard office fee for 98941 is $35? > > What is> > > > the> > > > > official way to handle that?> > > > >> > > > > And where is the much-touted 'same service=same fee' > > principle? How> > > > can> > > > > one class of patient be charged a different amount just > > because they> > > > > belong to a particular group? And for that matter, [NO RANT > > here]> > > > how> > > > > can one class of provider be treated differently than all OTHER> > > > providers???> > > > >> > > > > Please advise.> > > > >> > > > > J. Pedersen DC> > > > > ...struggling to understand the ways of the universe....> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >>

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.5/616 - Release Date: 1/4/2007

January 4, 2007

I think all the talk about " Rights " , or charity, or should we help people who

don't help themselves, or big government interfering with the free market. Are

all great topics for philosophic debates over a good bottle of wine.

But bottom line, we are all already paying for the health care of the uninsured.

As Dr. Medlin pointed out hospitals treat uninsured patients all the time. The

result is an increased cost, which is passed on to us. Either via insurance

premiums or taxes. Since we are already paying this cost, why not spread the

risk with universal health insurance. doesn't spreading the risk help to

disperse the cost.

along with the cost of the uninsured, we are also paying for the billions of

dollars in profit for the drug companies and insurance companies. If we have to

pay for the uninsured, lets at least save the other expense. Why are we letting

companies control our health care. Why shouldn't " We the people " control our

health care.

Thanks to corporate medicine we have by far the highest per capita health care

cost, in the world. Which would be fine if we had the highest quality of care.

However, all the data on health care outcomes, that I have seen, does not show

the USA has the best system. We rarely rank in the top ten, and I have even

seen some studies rank the USA with third world countries in some outcomes

measures. It sounds to me like we are paying for the Cadillac but driving away

with a Yugo!

I think all agree our current system must and will change. Opponents of a

" single payer " system always point to Medicare and say " look how bad a single

payer system is. " As a farmer once told me " That's like looking at a pile of

horse poop and saying thats all a horse is good for! "

Why can't we look at the many different systems of health care delivery around

the globe. Pick and choose the parts of those systems that work, and modify

the pieces that do not work. I may be naive but I truly believe we can pay

less per capita and get better quality care, and universal coverage if " We the

people " all work together to solve this problem. But we need to start now. And

I believe this is the goal of the Archimedes Project as well.

Glenn Sykes, DC

Newberg, OR 97132

503-538-5433

Re: [OregonDCs] Re: Kitzhaber/Archimedes

>

> " The universe

>breaks down when you try to " force " charity at the end of a gun. "

>

>Isnt that medicare?

>

>, why do you feel that health care is not a " Right " ? Comparing it with

plumbing or a driving license isn't quite accurate in my opinion. There is an

element of compassion that goes beyond giving away care when we can. I don't

believe allowing health care to become entirely a capitalistic entity is correct

either and it seems the " universe " is breaking down due to this as well.

Allowing this to continue will break the universe down a lot faster than

charitable notions. Is there a life more valuable than another?

>

>So, we educate on prevention and true health. Is that to say accidents,

ailments, random disease etc. etc. will not occur and if they do are we and all

medical providers suppose to concede to the reality that health care is not a

" right " ? I'd actually argue that Health is NOT a right at all. Unfortunately

living healthy doesn't always equate to Health (I understand the odds, but

calling it a right fails to explain away the smaller % group) All we can do is

assure that if you become unhealthy you have the right to become Healthy again.

We can do this for everyone. We have to. It (in my opinion) is a right. Pining

that it is not simply insenuates that it is for those who can afford it which is

untrue. For example, a man w/out insurance is taken to ER for gunshot wound. Let

him die? No, it's his right and our obligation to save him, however his so

called right to health has been taken away. He will be billed and he will not

pay and our taxes go up and up an up. The system is broke. Perhaps there should

be a universal " Life Saver Plan " where everyone is covered for life threatening

emergency care. It would seem that that is a right.

>

>Your ideas on how to do BETTER are splendid, but they do not address the

massive problem in which we face. Your ideas no matter the system adopted should

be implemented, but it's the system which is in question.

>

>Removing big business and capitalism from the forefront of " health insurance

and health care will be the first step. Free enterprise at the expense of our

nation's access to proper health care isn't what i'd call compassionate or

smart.

>

>Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. These are the unalienable rights.

Health is not one of them. Life is.

>

>ph Medlin, DC

>Spine Tree Chiropractic

>1627 NE Alberta St.

>Portland, OR 97211

> [OregonDCs] Re: Kitzhaber/Archimedes

>

> , did you write the copy for his website? heh heh ;-)

>

> " How can we do better? " Great question....here are a few ideas.

>

> 1- We need to properly and correctly define what " Health " is. It is a

> challenge of course, because, in my humble opinion, even most

> chiros,NDs etc, do not really understand what the correct definition

> of health is. Health is not the absence of pre-defined 'medical

> conditions'.

> For more info re. the definition of health, feel free to visit my

> website. www.springbrookclcinic.com

>

> Any healthcare provider/entity/business that is not making education

> the cornerstone of his/her practice, is squarely part of the problem.

>

> 2- We need to get a reality check and realize that 'Healthcare' (as

> popularly defined) is not a " Right " any more than indoor plumbing is a

> right. We need to realize this: It was never a " Right " , is not a

> " Right " and will never be a " right " . Never. Sorry. You can put it in

> writing in Federal or State law, but it does not make it true. You can

> write a law that says that gravity does not exist, but that does not

> make it so. I am very charitable, trust me, I give away a ridiculous

> amount of care and donate quite a lot to various causes that I believe

> in. But I will never allow myself to be forced to offer my charity to

> folks who have no respect for me or for themselves. The universe

> breaks down when you try to " force " charity at the end of a gun.

>

> 3- Perhaps most importantly, " Health " (once properly defined) IS

> indeed a 'Right' in that if you adhere to the laws of nature and

> physiology you every " Right " to expect " health " ...ON the other hand,

> if you do not adhere to the laws of physiology and nature you have no

> " Right " to expect " health " . It is simple, it is the truth, it is

> scientific, it is " chiropractic " ......One of the neatest things about

> being a chiro is that gives you the privilege to put yourself among

> the many original chiros who " got the big idea " . Namely, the body

> self-heals and self-regulates and self-repairs (when the right signals

> go to the genes etc.).

>

> 4- We have to do is " tell " the truth about what it takes to be

> healthy. It doesn't have to sold or pushed ...people do not have to be

> cajoled or twisted. They just have to be told...it is self-evident to

> almost everyone..it is totally embedded in most people's sub-conscious

> and they are grateful to be taught about health.

>

> Just like the old hermit in this other video right?

>

> http://www.mercola.com/LT/track.asp?l=163

>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Not to debate or argue the issue; I have a few as-of-yet

> > > unanswered

> > > > > > questions:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > WHERE in Medicare or elsewhere does it establish DCs MUST

> > > > > participate

> > > > > > via limited fees, limited services and 'billing AS IF the

> > > > > patient' being

> > > > > > treated under medicare rules? I'd like to see the exact

> > > > > > page-section-and-paragraph to clarify what everyone else

> > > seems to

> > > > > > understand....

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am led to believe by the comments of a few, that the only

> > > way to

> > > > > > escape the snare of medicare regulation, is to not accept ANY

> > > > > patients

> > > > > > of medicare

> > > > > > age or status....can this be true?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And what if the standard office rate is above the CPT code just

> > > > > > listed? What if the standard office fee for 98941 is $35?

> > > What is

> > > > > the

> > > > > > official way to handle that?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And where is the much-touted 'same service=same fee'

> > > principle? How

> > > > > can

> > > > > > one class of patient be charged a different amount just

> > > because they

> > > > > > belong to a particular group? And for that matter, [NO RANT

> > > here]

> > > > > how

> > > > > > can one class of provider be treated differently than all OTHER

> > > > > providers???

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Please advise.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > J. Pedersen DC

> > > > > > ...struggling to understand the ways of the universe....

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

January 4, 2007

Dr. Bedee,

I don't often get involved in debates on this site but your statement " ...has

proven to be a dismal and absolute failure in all countries where it has been

implemented. In all countries where the government has taken away personal

responsibility the society has stagnated. " I think is a gross

misrepresentation. 100s of millions of people in Europe are living with a high

standard of living, good quality health care, and universal coverage. Friends

of mine from Europe look at us as barbaric, because the richest country in the

world won't insure all its people.

Instead of my opinion on this matter I have included a link to the World Health

Org. web site. This way each of you can view the facts. instead of hearing

poliitcle talking point. But for those how don't want to slog through all the

data here is a few tidbits;

According to the WHO the USA spends $5,700 per capita on health care, France

$2,900, Sweden $3,100, Germany $3,200 Italy $2,100, Ireland $2,800. Theses are

huge differences in cost with the USA.

http://www.who.int/whosis/en/

I read this data to show our system is the failure not Europe's.

As far as the Methadone example. The research is overwhelming that these

programs save $. And possibly save lives as well as reduce crime. I will be

happen to find the link should anyone what to look at the data themselves.

I would also like to comment of the word " communist " you used. This list is

supposed to remain a professional dialog. You are well aware of the weight that

word carries. I do not believe that using it leads to constructive discourse.

But will lead to the partisan bickering we saw with the last presidential

election.

Glenn Sykes, DC

Newberg, OR

503-538-5433

Re: [OregonDCs] Re: Kitzhaber/Archimedes

>

>Hi Joe:

>

>I think that is attempting to explain a view of personal responsibility in

assessing health care. Certainly most, if not all people would agree that

emergency care to save a life is an obligation of this particular society,

America.

>

>Like , I do not feel that healthcare is a " right " . Every person is

responsible for their own health, for their own finances, and for their

decisions regarding their life. Putting a governmental agency in " charge " of

providing " healthcare rights " , " financial; rights " , or " life rights " only worsen

the situation and this system, (healthcare rights) has proven to be a dismal and

absolute failure in all countries where it has been implemented. In all

countries where the government has taken away personal responsibility the

society has stagnated. There is a reason why the overwhelming amount of world

patents comes from America.

>

>While there needs to be social nets for those that are unable to meet

healthcare needs because of mental or physical challenges. Anyone that is able

bodied needs to accept his or her responsibility for their own welfare We all

have choices and we all have consequences as the result of those choices, good

OR bad.

>

>I would argue that making it a " right " to have healthcare needs met only

ENABLES people to continue to make poor choices.

>

>But then I am a capitalist at heart, not a communist, like Kithzaber.

>

>Are you aware that you, and every other Oregon citizen, currently subsidize

methadone presciptions for thousands of people at the cost of millions? THAT is

a fact and is currently a healthcare " right " . Comes under the label of EXYREMELY

POOR CHOICE in my book.

>

>Always

>

>Danno