Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Orszag/WaPo; Healthcare Gaming and Non-Reform

1 view

Skip to first unread message

Mort Zuckerman

unread,

Nov 20, 2009, 6:32:37 AM11/20/09

To: por...@omb.eop.gov, Durlan...@yale.edu, Aa...@columbia.edu,
gary_w...@nymc.edu, scientifi...@ostp.gov,
pkru...@princeton.edu, Stanle...@fiu.edu,
emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, dpr...@stmartin.edu
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, sidney_b...@yahoo.com,
criminal...@usdoj.gov, karla.d...@usdoj.gov,
christophe...@usdoj.gov, richar...@yale.edu,
harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu, inq...@aldf.com,
ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com

Subject: Orszag/WaPo; Healthcare Gaming and Non-Reform

Date: Nov 20, 2009 6:28 AM

ARTICLE BELOW

=========================

Dear Mr. Orszag,

I see you mention that you will try to engage
some smart people ("Nobel winners") in the
discovery of ways to reduce healthcare costs,
while at the same time behaving and thinking as
if Healthcare is something that MUST engage the
market-players.

This is your main error in your argument.

We cannot have the market-players calling
the plays.

"Scientists are fiercely independent," NIAID's
Chief, Anthony Fauci, says is the reason he is
so retarded when it comes to infectious
diseases and their outcomes, like Chronic Lyme
(previously known as Relapsing Fever, wherein
the very name of the disease implied the disease,
RELAPSING borreliosis), HIV, Tuberculosis, Multiple
Sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's disease, and Cancer.

Allow me to explain:
WHEREIN the Bayh-Dole Act made diseases profitable
to He Who Owns the Patent, and therefore restricted
the access of the regular humans to disease prevention
or disease treatment (Eg., Lyme and its outcomes)
information, that restriction of access to scientific
facts was because of the competition, or as Fauci
says, Scientists are fiercely independent - they
keep their data/cards close to their chests. The
discovery and the royalties are at stake.

Not only that, BigPharma spies on each other:
http://www.actionlyme.org/070518.htm
and trashes, stalks and harasses whistleblowers.

Okay?

Follow so far?

The insurance companies, as previously mentioned
to *you,* have involved themselves in writing
diagnostic and treatment guidelines (Lyme and
its outcomes, which are nearly all diseases),
and of course, BigPharma educates MDs about
what's a drug (and therefore what's a disease),
wherever the likes of Kaiser does not get to them first.

So, you have the Bayh-Dole Act, BigPharma,
and insurance companies all involved in disease
spin, and Scientists are fiercely independent.

If you took the time to study the patent
databases, you (personally, I mean you, Orszag),
you would learn more there in a week, than if
you camped out at the National Library of Medicine
for five years. And certainly more than if
you went to "medical school."

Additionally, there is this huge, huge dot
guv entity called the Department of Human
Services (FDA, CDC, NIH and all its
"institutes"), which, for all intents
and purposes, accomplishes nothing. Anthony
Fauci himself will tell you that. He has
no clue what his scientists are doing, and
he has no clue what a disease is, despite
himself owning a patent for the treatment
of immune suppression outcomes of infectious
diseases:
http://www.actionlyme.org/MKLEMPNER.htm
US Patent 5,696,079
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,696,079.PN.&OS=PN/5,696,079&RS=PN/5,696,079

And despite the fact that there was one
entire division of the National Institute
of Neurological Diseases and Stroke, which
supported a one, Roland Martin, who endeavored
to discover why Lyme Disease results in
Multiple Sclerosis:
http://www.actionlyme.org/MARTIN_NINDS_MS_CHRONIC_LYME.htm

Lyme does not cause autoreactive T cells
that eat myelin. Lyme produces immunosuppression
and bad B cells as a result of TLR2 tolerization
due to spirochetal Osp blebbing. After the
TLR2 downregulation comes the immortalized
B cells and the MS, and the ALS, and the
mycoplasmal infections in the blood, and the
Tuberculosis Marys, and the Chronic Fatigue,
and the Cancer...
http://www.actionlyme.org/Pam3Cys_Version15.htm
I don't expect you to take my ^^^ word for it.
The links to Medline and the journals are
included in that page/PowerPoint presentation.

AND, you can always go to the patent database
and look up what mycoplasma do. AND you can even
find out that mice have dementia from Lyme,
if you spent 2 minutes on MedLine.

Where are you going to find any "experts"
whatsoever, to advise you on how to rein in
medical costs?

Who is going to tell you a single uncompromised,
unpolluted fact? Do you plan on kidnapping
and torturing the Fiercely Independent scientists?

Now let's talk about vaccines and autism:
http://www.actionlyme.org/ANTHRAX_SWEEG_KNOWS.htm
"Last November, the American Association of Insurance Services
(aais.org) filed a new virus and bacteria exclusion designed to
prevent insurance company losses that may arise from claims related to
infectious diseases and bioterrorism. "Coverage is excluded for loss,
cost, or expense caused by, resulting from, or relating to any virus,
bacterium, or other microorganism that causes or is capable of causing
disease, illness, or physical distress. In addition, the exclusion
explicitly applies to any loss, cost or expense arising from denial of
access to property because of any...microorganisms." The exclusion is
designed for commercial and farm insurance policies, but there is no
reason to think it will not eventually trickle down to homeowners and
small businesses."

What are the facts?

A) Kids with immunosuppression from congenital
HIV (hint, Lyme/OspA/Pam3Cys immunosuppression)
are given fully heat killed and not attenuated
viral infections.
http://www.actionlyme.org/HOWE_BBC_SCIENCE_EVIDENCE.htm

AND

B) Moldy homes cause immunosuppression or asthma
and insurance companies are not paying for it
(Sweeg, above).

C) Global Warming and such mycos or airborne
(or tick borne or LYMErix/Tb-borne) fungi are
taking over earth.

D) The politicians (Newt Gingrich) are plopping
their fat bleeps into the likes of the "Agency
for Healthcare Research and Quality dot guv," and
who else sits on the boards of advisors?

You guessed it:
BigInsurance and BigPharma:
http://www.ahrq.gov/about/council.htm

People with masters degrees in public
health are trained by the likes of the
Bigs and the CDC, who are profiteering
liars and participants in the Lyme crymes:
http://www.actionlyme.org/CDCS_PARTICIPATION_IN_LYME_CRIMES.htm

The CDC knows Steere's current testing
schema for Lyme is bogus:
http://www.relapsingfever.org
Their own EUROPEAN PATENTS say MHC or
genetic background parses the immune
response (detectability of Lyme), and that
there are 2 kinds of Lyme:
The hypersensitivity response, which means
people have a bad knee and that's it:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/432733
and then there's the people with the
New Great Imitator outcomes:
http://www.actionlyme.org/Pam3Cys_Version15.htm
whose disease is not allowed to be detected
because... then this ALDF/Yale gang would
go to jail for mass homicide.

Can't have that, can we?
Can't have law enforcement involved in
the prosecution of crime or a "Fraud on
the Government," can we?
http://www.actionlyme.org/USDOJ_COMPLAINT_RICO.htm

I see that such a proposal is not in
your formulary, here, Mr. Orszag. So, pardon
my getting all hypothetical onya, but I would
propose crime be stopped. Arrested.

Want me to talk about why I think so,
or can you "call someone in Europe," like
the International Criminal Court, or the
UN Commission on Human Rights and have
them explain it to you?

KMDickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
http://www.relapsingfever.org
=======================================

By Peter R. Orszag
Friday, November 20, 2009

The nation stands on the verge of achieving fundamental health-care
reform. For the first time in history, the House of Representatives
has enacted comprehensive health-reform legislation, and the Senate
has begun its own debate. These bills will provide a bedrock sense of
security and stability for Americans who have health insurance, and
quality, affordable options for Americans without it.

But health reform has an economic and fiscal dimension, too. For more
than 30 years, health-care costs have risen much more rapidly than
either inflation or the growth of the economy -- yet these higher
costs are not delivering higher-quality care for Americans.

Looking forward, if we do nothing to slow the skyrocketing cost of
health care, the federal government will eventually be spending more
on Medicare and Medicaid than all other government programs combined.
It's time to move toward the high-quality, lower-cost health system of
the future, and the reforms under discussion in the House and Senate
will put us firmly on that path.

Recently, some have raised questions about the feasibility of
undertaking health reform that delivers quality care in a fiscally
responsible way. Interestingly, these doubts have been raised just as
the House was passing a health-reform bill that -- according to the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) -- would reduce the
deficit by $109 billion over the first decade and potentially by more
than that over the second.

Nevertheless, as the debate moves to the Senate and we move closer to
a final bill, there is lingering anxiety about the fiscal impact of
health reform. Two events this week should help allay these fears.

On Wednesday, the CBO returned its analysis of the Senate bill. Like
the House legislation, the Senate bill is not only deficit-neutral but
also reduces the deficit: by $130 billion in the first decade and by
more than half a trillion dollars in the next decade. This assessment
is based on hard, tangible savings -- not on the harder-to-quantify,
yet very real steps that hold the most promise of transforming health
care and bringing down the rate of cost growth over time.

Earlier this week, the Office of Management and Budget reached out to
23 of the nation's most prominent economists -- a group that included
Republicans, Democrats, former Bush administration officials and Nobel
laureates -- to get views on the four elements critical to reducing
long-term health-care costs while improving the quality of care for
all Americans. Each of the steps endorsed by this bipartisan group is
embodied in the legislation under consideration.

The first is deficit neutrality, which -- according to the CBO -- is
achieved in both the House and Senate bills.

The second is an excise tax on the highest-cost insurance plans. The
Senate's proposed tax on "Cadillac" health insurance plans will do
more than help pay for reform. It also will curtail the growth of
private health insurance premiums -- by providing employers with an
incentive to seek higher-quality and lower-cost health benefits that
will generate higher take-home pay for American workers and their
families. In other words, this reform would slow health-care cost
growth and give Americans a pay raise.

Third, a bill must include a way for the health system to keep pace
with innovation and the dynamic health-care marketplace. An
independent Medicare commission of medical experts would be able to
give the system that flexibility. It will ensure that reforming the
health-care system is not a one-time event but an ongoing process that
implements the most recent progress in medical science with the goal
of improving care and lowering costs.

Finally, reform needs to create incentives to improve the way health
care is delivered to patients throughout the country. We need to put
in place incentives that reward higher quality for patients rather
than more quantity in health care. Already, in the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act, we made historic investments in health-
information technology and research into which medical treatments work
best so that doctors have the most recent, science-based information
to help them and their patients make the best medical decisions.
Health reform must build on this by providing the tools and incentives
for physicians, hospitals and other providers to improve the quality
of care for all Americans.

For example, bundled payments and accountable-care organizations, as
well as incentives to prevent harmful and avoidable readmissions and
health-facility-acquired infections, will induce physicians and
hospitals to innovate and redesign the way they deliver care through
better coordination that will keep people healthy and avoid
unnecessary complications.

In addition, laying out a clear and rapid pathway for biogeneric drugs
to come to market -- such as was proposed in our budget -- will lower
prices and help contain future health-care costs.

With well-designed pilot projects, we also can test what works to put
these programs in place, rapidly evaluate them and quickly adopt the
best strategies throughout the health-care system -- and the Medicare
commission could help to facilitate the movement from pilot programs
to full practice as we learn more.

As we enter the homestretch, the greatest risk we run is not
completing health reform and letting this chance to lay a new
foundation for our economy and our country pass us by. We have the
building blocks to construct a health-care system that provides the
highest quality of care while embodying a process of continuous
improvement -- a leap forward for the health of Americans and the
fiscal health of the entire nation.

The writer is director of the Office of Management and Budget.