This was published yesterday with a different headline and slightly different text. Today I also changed the phrase “local and state” to “state and federal.”

Last week the Federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reported that health care spending was 17 percent of the U.S. economy last year. By 2012, according to the report, state and federal governments will pick up more than half the tab. The recession has increased the number of people who qualify for state-funded Medicaid. As baby boomers retire, the Medicare rolls will swell.

Most people agree that health care reform is not an option. This video includes interviews with business leaders who support as well as those who oppose the current health care bills. Please watch, listen, and contact your legislators to share your opinion.

Opponents and supporters alike seem unaware of how much modern treatments have added to that projection. Opponents are fighting to protect those treatments. Supporters champion evidence-based medicine and want to make it the standard.

Medicine since the 1970s has become more dependent upon expensive tests, machines, prescription drugs, and years of extensive research to prove their effectiveness. Research and treatment methods have not always been so complicated or so profitable with such questionable results.

French Explorer Jacques Cartier made tea from the needles of an Eastern White Cedar to save his men from scurvy in the 1500s. He learned this remedy from natives along the St. Lawrence River and immediately used it to save lives. More than 200 years later, James Lind of the British Royal Navy proved the active ingredient was vitamin C, which could also be found in citrus fruit.

In those days results were the only proof anyone needed to accept a particular treatment. Costs for research studies today range from $100 million to $800 million, according to Drug Discovery and Development. A return to simple methods is long overdue.

The treatments used by Cartier and Lind would be considered alternative medicine in our country today. Many of what we consider alternative treatments have been proven through studies conducted around the world and are listed in PubMed, a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health.

One sign that this research is accurate may be found in the life expectancy list reported by the CIA World Factbook 2009. Two countries that treat natural methods as mainstream therapies rank higher than the United States. Japan, which ranks third, has used its own variation of Traditional Chinese Medicine for many centuries. Australia, number seven, allows open practice in several natural disciplines. The United States, however, ranks 50th, yet many professionals here still claim that natural treatments don’t work.

One reason for their denial is that U.S. researchers have been unable to duplicate many positive studies conducted in other countries. Experts in alternative medicine say that poor study design is the reason. Some researchers ask the wrong questions because they don’t understand how the disciplines work. Some start with the wrong quality or form of the materials they test.

In spite of the discrepancies, an additional observation suggests that these disciplines work better than western medicine when used properly. The United States spends more than twice as much per capita on health care as Australia and more than two-and-one-half times as much as Japan.

It’s past time for the U.S. to get over it’s superiority complex and embrace treatments that work. The “Citizens in Charge” plan I mentioned in an earlier post is a good road map to guide these changes.

The plan would cover catastrophic care for all and give everyone a debit card with a pre-determined amount that could only be spent on health-related costs. These cards could be used for anything related to health, including alternative medicine services and nutritious food. The savings from this plan would allow us to provide health care for every citizen in this country.

Every plan presented in Congress so far has led to charges that a public option would increase the federal deficit, cause rationing of services, or require tax increases. “Citizens in Charge,” by Mike Adams of NaturalNews.com, would combine universal coverage with total health care freedom to slash costs for everyone.

“Citizens in Charge” would cover catastrophic, routine, and preventive care. The federal government would pay all “catastrophic” expenses, such as accidents and acute medical emergencies. Each man and woman would also receive a government-funded debit card and at least $350 each month. Parents and legal guardians would receive additional cards for each child under their care.

All health-related vendors would be required to accept the cards. Healthy food, all conventional and natural care services and products, and gym memberships would be covered.

This plan would correct several imbalances in the present health care system. It would shift the focus from “disease care” to “health care.” All consumers would be able to afford the care they need from the providers they choose. They would have equal access to healthy food and services that decrease the rate of expensive, preventable diseases. They would also be more conscious of the cost and value of services they choose.

Click here to read details of the plan.

—-
Jacqueline Laurette Jones is author of Unmasking a Diagnosis: How to get Help for a Confusing Chronic Illness Without Filing for Bankruptcy.

Anger drove my life for almost 20 years. The cause: trying to find help for a chronic illness, a disease that develops slowly and lasts a long time. Our medical system is unmatched in its treatment of acute illness, which starts suddenly and ends quickly. Until about 10 years ago, medical professionals didn’t recognize the difference.

Many providers still don’t understand chronic illness. They call patients hyperchondriacs or cyberchondriacs, terms for people excessively worried about their health.

This lack of respect from the medical profession sends medical costs through the roof. I often dream of what I could do with the money I’ve spent on doctors who wasted my time.

Through my struggles I’ve learned that “all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” (Romans 8:28) Love for my mother and for friends, who also suffer from chronic illnesses, drove me to seek solutions. Though the solutions haven’t eliminated all our problems, they’ve improved the quality of our lives in ways I never imagined.

Now I’m determined to improve the lives of others by conducting research on natural treatments for chronic illness. Thirty years ago a college biochemistry class convinced me that the health care system would move in this direction.

Though money is a temporary obstacle to achieving my goals, I’m not worried. God has helped me overcome much greater challenges. The Bible says, “All things are possible to him who believes.” (Mark 9:23)

But belief must be backed by action. The first step on my journey is to sell enough ebooks and articles to pursue a certificate in health counseling. Work in that field will pay the bills while I complete advanced degrees.

My past is a fading memory. The joy of serving other fills my life, and I am angry no more.

—-
Jacqueline Laurette Jones is author of Unmasking a Diagnosis: How to get Help for a Confusing Chronic Illness Without Filing for Bankruptcy.

Try to picture the American economy permanently stuck in the same place it is right now or in worse condition. That’s what could happen if extremists on either side of the health care debate have their way.

If the president’s enemies and defenders of the status quo win, the familiar cycle will repeat itself. Health care costs will continue to skyrocket and bankrupt individuals, businesses, and government agencies. When businesses move overseas, close their doors, or merge with others, and agencies cut their staffs because of the shrinking tax base, displaced workers will lose their health insurance.

These workers will join the millions of people who develop advanced chronic diseases because they can’t afford preventive or maintenance care. Care for advanced diseases is more expensive than prevention, and some diseases lead to disability. As you can see, the costs of doing nothing are too high.

If supporters of most bills that have passed related committees win, we could have the same result. In spite of the president’s best intentions, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says we would all pay higher taxes to fund these plans. Tax increases would further weaken the economy. Small businesses create most of the jobs in this country. High taxes leave them at a competitive disadvantage.

So, what’s the solution? Instead of wasting time trying fix the bill by Sen. Max Baucus, which has drawn bipartisan criticism, the Wyden-Bennet Bill or Healthy Americans Act is a good place to start. Though legislators have all but abandoned this bill, it’s the only one that has achieved bipartisan support. It’s also short enough for legislators and the public to understand.

Preliminary estimates from the CBO say the bill will pay for itself the first year and reduce federal health care costs afterward. It will also reduce costs for consumers. Isn’t that what we’re trying to do?

To achieve those goals, the bill features:

• a strong emphasis on preventive care with incentives for consumers and fair compensation for providers
• tax incentives for employers to create wellness programs
• premium discounts for participation in wellness programs
• health care exchanges that allow consumers with employer-based plans to choose from affordable individual plans that they can keep if they change or lose their jobs
• additional coverage for catastrophic illnesses that exhaust lifetime limits
• negotiations for fair prices on prescription drugs
• subsidies for insurance on a sliding scale that includes the middle class

The bill also:

• eliminates co-pays for chronic disease prevention and disease management services and related products
• forbids insurances premiums that are based on age, gender, industry, health status, and health history
• addresses long-term care needs
• reduces paperwork for providers
• allows patients in hospice to receive curative care instead of just comfort measures
• requires employers to increase the salaries of workers who move from employer-based coverage to a private plan
• honors existing labor contracts for seven years
• creates a Health Care Standard Deduction on federal income taxes that increases over time for everyone who files a return
• allows medical schools to report what works so new breakthroughs no longer get lost for decades
• emphasizes that only private funds can be used for abortions, a provision that brought conservatives on board
• addresses malpractice reform because the cost of malpractice insurance drives many good doctors out of the industry and increases the costs for all

The bill would be even stronger if it:

• allowed insurers to compete across state lines
• enforced or strengthened anti-trust laws
• prohibited insurers from discriminating against providers who offer alternative medicine treatments
• included an automatic trigger for a public plan in states where insurers don’t provide affordable coverage

Now that doesn’t seem so hard. Why hasn’t a sensible plan like this been accepted by the majority of legislators?

Conservatives and Progressives both dislike that the bill requires everyone to have coverage.  Conservatives believe this provision is unconstitutional. Progressives believe insurance companies are the root of all evil. The mandate may be unnecessary with the bill’s subsidies and emphasis on prevention.

Progressives also dislike the bill’s incentives to move people from public to private plans. In spite of the criticism hurled at private insurance companies, public programs have weakened both the health care system and the national economy. Capitalism drives efficiency and creates jobs in this country. It works on the law of supply and demand. Public programs decrease both. They also cause smaller insurers (and other businesses) to merge and go out of business because the pool of customers is too small. If we move more people into the private system and enforce anti-trust laws, smaller companies should be able to provide real competition.

Now that we’ve found a workable solution, can we stop calling each other names, pass something, and move on to dealing with other important issues. Our economy is going flat while we’re out here fighting like children.

—-
Jacqueline Laurette Jones is author of Unmasking a Diagnosis: How to get Help for a Confusing Chronic Illness Without Filing for Bankruptcy.

The Republicans are too busy playing mind games to effectively explain that our social obligations have played a part in destroying the economy. Europe’s economy has fared even worse than ours. A larger percentage of its gross domestic product (GDP), the measure of a country’s economic performance, goes to social programs.

On the other hand, Democrats and most independents understand that the unregulated free market pushed us to the edge of economic collapse. Skyrocketing health care expenses played a major part.

Now comes the tricky part. The government usually does a miserable job at righting wrongs. It tends to swing toward one extreme or the other. In this case, both the Democratic and Republican plans also lack serious strategies to contain medical costs, the whole reason for this debate.

The best solution is to include natural health care in both public and private plans. Some treatments have been proven to prevent or reverse chronic disease. Of course we’d need to bail out medical facilities, pharmaceutical companies, and medical device manufacturers, but that’s a subject for another day.

—-
Jacqueline Laurette Jones is author of Unmasking a Diagnosis: How to get Help for a Confusing Chronic Illness Without Filing for Bankruptcy.

Medical insurance does not open the door to quality health care. I know because I lived on the edge of disability for more than two decades.

Mainstream providers insulted me for years before they understood that I was sick. By then I was too weak to stand in the shower or put dishes in the dishwasher. My muscles ached so badly I literally wanted to die. When my doctors finally listened, they didn’t know what to do.

Such providers have limited understanding of what it takes to prevent or reverse chronic disease. They rely too heavily on making referrals to colleagues who specialize in advanced damage to a single body system.

The systems approach to health care is ineffective and too expensive because the body is a unit. Even mainstream providers have some understanding that health is the result of proper interaction between all systems of the body.

Natural care providers have a more cost-effective holistic approach. A 2004 issue of the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, for example, reported a four-year study of 21,743 patients. The study demonstrated that care directed by doctors of chiropractic yielded the following savings:

• 51.8% in pharmaceutical costs
• 43.2% in surgeries and procedures
• 43% in hospital admissions
• 58.4% in hospital days.

Functional medicine (FM) practitioners, another of many natural care providers, base their treatments on research that has appeared widely in peer-reviewed journals. Providers in my area charge just $375 for comprehensive testing that addresses the common roots of chronic illness. A nearby FM provider recently rescued a friend of mine from certain death.

Natural practices are also less invasive and, therefore, less dangerous and less expensive, which will reduce the cost of malpractice insurance. Insurance companies have begun to recognize this fact and to include natural care in their coverage.

I shudder to think what condition I’d be in without alternative providers. Their expertise has saved our family, insurance companies, and the nation from the costs of treating irreversible chronic disease and a life of dependence upon disability benefits. I feel better than I have in about 20 years, and I’ve developed a plan to support myself. Health care reform as planned could not produce those results and will not solve our health care crisis.

For more information visit the sites of The American Chiropractic Association, The Institute of Functional Medicine, and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

—-
Jacqueline Laurette Jones is author of Unmasking a Diagnosis: How to get Help for a Confusing Chronic Illness Without Filing for Bankruptcy.

In addition to the blogs that seem to multiply like gerbils, a friend forwarded an email from an unknown source. It was based on a blog post by Betsy McCaughey that appeared on Bloomberg.com. McCaughey is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a non-partisan policy research organization supposedly dedicated to innovative research and analysis.

McCaughey’s post criticizes the section of the stimulus bill that establishes a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. This council will pinpoint treatments that are most effective.

McCaughey claims the council’s work will lead to limitations on treatments for serious illnesses and shift funding toward younger patients. Her post fails to mention the $1 billion set aside for prevention and wellness programs, which should reduce the need for expensive treatments by preventing disease. The bill channels an additional $8.2 billion into research to find cures.

The Council has not been granted authority to establish guidelines for private or public plan payments or coverage. It will establish a database where professionals can easily access the latest information. McCaughey seems unaware that proven treatments often take several decades to reach the consumers who desperately need them.

Now the email I received is spreading claims that Democrats want to ration health care for the elderly and that those efforts need to be stopped. Doesn’t the author realize we’re already rationing care for everyone under the current system? The list of doctors who won’t take new Medicare patients in my area seems to grow daily, and out-of-pocket expenses are rising for everyone, including Medicare recipients. How many people do you know personally who can afford the care they need, with or without insurance?

Every health care consumer in this country, whether satisfied with the system or not, should watch the film Critical Condition, which aired on PBS last year. It highlights the struggles of four people whose lives were totally disrupted when they couldn’t afford the care they needed.

The story I will never forget followed a man who opted to have his foot amputated so he could return to work before he lost his benefits. He thought the treatment his doctor preferred would take too long. When his recovery period was longer than expected, he lost his job anyway, and the insurance company retroactively denied his claim for a prosthesis. He was forced to have his ill-fitting temporary prosthesis repaired after it broke because he couldn’t find work. He received severance pay and found a new job after a year, but was concerned that his new employer’s insurance would not cover a pre-existing condition.

Most of the people I know have experienced some nightmare in the system or know someone who has. Health professionals, insurers, advocates, business leaders, and patients agree that change is inevitable.

The fear mongers won’t succeed this time. The question is no longer if but when and how.

—-
Jacqueline Laurette Jones is author of Unmasking a Diagnosis: How to get Help for a Confusing Chronic Illness Without Filing for Bankruptcy.

The president touted today’s health care summit as a step toward creating a bipartisan consensus on workable solutions that address the concerns of everyone involved. More than 150 leaders in politics, labor, and business, joined representatives of doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and consumer organizations. Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell delivered a letter to the president that stated even Republicans are willing to consider reforms that don’t include establishing a single-payer system. Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, the president’s nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), has the skills to keep the momentum going.

Earlier this week, when the president announced Sebelius as his choice, I thought he had made another mistake in this area. His initial pick, Senator Tom Daschle, withdrew because of problems with his taxes. Sebelius was unsuccessful at attempts to provide coverage for the residents of her state.

But in spite of a Republican-dominated legislature, who feared the cost of expanding state insurance coverage and blocked her efforts, Sebelius successfully initiated major and minor changes that put the needs of consumers first. Those changes included standing up to HMOs that interfered with private medical decisions and helping senior citizens save money on prescription drugs. Prior to her election as governor, she became the first insurance commissioner in the nation to deny a takeover of her state’s Blue Cross/Blue Shield program by a for-profit health care conglomerate. The state has also expanded preventive care for several at risk populations during her tenure.

With the help of Nancy-Ann DeParle, who now heads the White House Office of Health Care Reform, Sebelius may be able to get the job done. DeParle brings experience with a wide variety of health care issues facing citizens, businesses, non-profit organizations, and government at the state and national levels. Among other positions, she served as director of the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) and as representative for health care reform in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) during the Clinton administration. Especially important is her experience with serving the poor as commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Human Services.

Earlier this week, President Obama announced plans to address the needs of the nation’s uninsured. His budget includes $155 million for 126 community health centers around the country to provide care for approximately 750,000 people and create up to 5,500 new jobs. The centers will provide mostly primary care and preventive services, which will reduce the number of taxpayer-financed emergency room visits for non-emergent conditions.

But recent reports show that 87 million Americans went uninsured in the last two years. That’s up from the widely-reported figure of 47 million because so many people have recently lost coverage along with their jobs. Some experts say the number is growing by 14,000 each day. This lack of access to care will cost the nation even more as those people become disabled by conditions that could have been prevented by early intervention.

If the health care reform train doesn’t continue to move forward, it could easily derail all other plans to get the national and world economies back on track.

—-

Jacqueline Laurette Jones is author of Unmasking a Diagnosis: How to get Help for a Confusing Chronic Illness Without Filing for Bankruptcy.

The rumor mill is circulating with possible names for the new Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). Among those names is Tennessee’s Democratic governor, Phil Bredesen. Despite what Republican opponents and MoveOn.org say about the matter, he would be an excellent choice.

Bredesen knows what it’s like to insure a large population of unhealthy people who have low incomes. He understands the needs, and he has found a way to provide coverage with little support from the federal government and much opposition from state Republicans and idealistic health advocates.

When faced with cutting scores of chronically-ill patients from the rolls of TennCare, the state plan for the poor and uninsurable, Bredesen flew to Washington more than once. The past administration denied his repeated requests for changes to the Medicaid waiver that covered the plan.

Around that time, some Republican candidates for the state legislature openly campaigned and won seats on a platform of reforming the plan. They claimed it was rife with fraud and blocked Bredesen’s efforts to change and save it. The office that investigates such matters has since found little evidence to support those claims.

Republicans and health care advocates, who didn’t understand the big picture and refused to compromise, then smeared Bredesen’s name in the press and blamed him for the cuts when voters who lost their coverage became angry. But Bredesen was faced with competing challenges. He faced those challenges as total federal contributions to the state budget decreased.

Health care costs in Tennessee were taking money that was needed for education and other priorities. Bredesen understood that a person with a good education could afford private insurance or get one of the few jobs that still offered a group plan. He used the money he saved to expand pre-kindergarten programs in the state.

He also understands that education is important because the good jobs of today require highly-skilled workers. Having more workers with good jobs expands the tax base that is needed to support vital services and lowers the tax burden for all.

Tennessee has lost many of the manufacturing jobs that supported middle class families in the last few decades. Most of those jobs have been replaced with low-paying jobs in the service and retail sectors that don’t offer health insurance.

Governor Bredesen has personally experienced the high cost of not having insurance. His own brother died because he was uninsured. Since then, Bredesen has created a plan to cover the people who were cut from TennCare with a combination of public and private funds. Additional plans cover small businesses, children, and those who have lost their jobs.

Before the current economic crisis, Bredesen did all these things with a balanced budget and without raising taxes. Like everywhere else, sales and property tax revenues have plummeted.

Tennessee also doesn’t have a state income tax. Republicans almost incited a riot the last time Democrats tried to enact one.

Republicans once again distorted these and other facts and took advantage of low information voters (LIVs) to gain control of the state Senate in the last election. They are one vote short of controlling the House. Republican Deputy Speaker of the House Steve McDaniel has openly admitted that funding services in the current situation will be the most challenging task he has faced in his entire tenure in the legislature, and he doesn’t know where to start.

Governor Bredesen deserves the nomination. He’s a big boy who knows how to get the job done in a hostile political climate like the one in Washington.

An earlier report stated that Republican Tennessee State Senator Steve McDaniel was Speaker Pro Tem. He is Deputy Speaker of the House, and soon may be named temporary speaker. The speaker, Independent Kent Williams, is away tending to his sick mother, and the Speaker Pro Tem, Democrat Lois DeBerry, is recovering from an unspecified illness.

—-

Jacqueline Laurette Jones is author of Unmasking a Diagnosis: How to get Help for a Confusing Chronic Illness Without Filing for Bankruptcy.