May 25, 2009

Health Care Reform Is Coming The Storm Is Here Last Chance To Get On Board

There is shelter in health care reform come and I'll show you

By Melvin J. Howard

The moral majority, traditional values, conservatives for a better health care system. We want to educate the public on the importance of traditional values and ideas. Bullshit these are all code name groups and we all know what the code is. I bet if you look at their membership it will be same demographics. What these groups want to do is sabotage health care reform in the United States. I am so sick of these groups using politics and racial divide to pull apart America get a clue this is not the 1960’s.

In 1687 Sir Isaac Newton wrote an article about how the world works he called it “Principia Mathematica”. According to Newton, given any starting point we can correctly predict the outcome of any given event. Other words whatever goes up must come down this theory was called determinism. In Newton’s view the universe functions as a machine, set in motion by God. Free will was meaningless like cogs in a wheel we are merely cogs in a machine. What he was saying that since God’s great apparatus has already started that all motion and everything else in the universe is predetermined. Now who could argue with scientific facts proven with mathematical calculations? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Determinism takes away all free will forget about your dreams of the future they were already determined everything was already decided by God. Don’t laugh at the time some thought this was law and some today still think so no matter what scientific data proves otherwise. Wouldn’t life be pretty boring and depressing if this was really how life was suppose to be?

But then came alone quantum physics it blew out all previous scientific theories out of the water it rules out determinism, and instead provides us a world full of possibilities and probabilities. Whatever your beliefs are about God the idea that there is this great machine running in the sky somewhere became invalid when quantum physics was discovered. The Great Machine does not determine the outcomes of our lives we are free to choose how our lives should be. Everything in our physical world is what you make of it. Each of us is free to make our lives better; the subatomic world is filled with so many possible outcomes. Even Albert Einstein one of the fathers of quantum physics could not believe what he discovered in quantum physics. He just could not get around the fact that God could play dice with the universe. But that is exactly what is going on nothing in this world is carved in stone. Life is not static it is in continuous motion now we can choose to except this phenomenon or be like a dear caught in the head lights and get run over by change.      

This health care crisis demands fundamental change now! You have got a President with a mandate to change it and a Congress ready to act let’s do this thing! The gale winds of change are here it’s a comin. The opposing lobby has one weapon employed one basic theme in trying to stop health care reform. To scare the hell out of Americans by decrying a "government takeover" of health care! Now let me tell you if I thought the administration were talking about a mandatory single payor government run health care system. Like Canada’s or the UK believe me I’d be marching in the streets protesting with an army of supporters. I am sure by now everybody knows how I feel about a mandatory single payor government run health care system #*@^! (Translation it would suck) but its time to be a solution to the problem not become the problem.

Last week, the leading health care trade associations the insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and the union stood with the president to pledge dramatically to "do their part" to reduce the rate of soaring health care costs by 1.5 percent a year over the next decade, a promise that would save some $2 trillion from the cost of care. Now I know what you are saying a promise that and a dime can by me a cup of coffee. What’s preventing these guys from going back on their word? Well frankly nothing except this fear of a government run plan like Medicare. They say give us time to fulfill our promises, they argue. If we fail, then consider a public plan. I certainly hope this is not a stall tactic to buy time and see if people will remember this next year approach. Fact is health care costs are out of this world. Even some of my rich friends are saying dam it’s costing me too much to supply health care coverage for all of my employees.

But this is why this time around health care reform will pass because two key factions, the business lobby and the health insurance industry, are talking seriously about substantial changes that would ideally help cover the nation's 47 million uninsured, improve the quality of care, and tame the growth of healthcare spending. The nation's largest health insurance lobbying group will present its own proposal for a version of universal health insurance. The group, America's Health Insurance Plans, has put up a website featuring man-on-the-street video interviews of people complaining about the lack of affordable healthcare: "I'm disgusted, I'm frustrated, I don't know what to do about it," a blonde woman with glasses says in one of the interviews. "It's time for the government to step in."

Leading business lobbyists have also joined in regular negotiations with insurers, healthcare providers, unions and other advocacy groups on what reforms they would support - not just what they would oppose - and they are trying to reach consensus on difficult issues. They have also underwritten television ad campaigns pressing for reform, in cooperation with such unlikely partners as AARP, which represents people over 50, and the Service Employees International Union. Wow what a difference its like the McCoy’s and the Hatfield’s decided to stop shooting at each other to have tea and talk things over.

PS: Canada the day of how you breached trade rules and took our money will be coming to light shortly.


May 11, 2009

Celebrity US Health Care Apprentice Staring Canada And The UK


Government Run Mandatory Health Care I’m Sorry Your Fired


By Melvin J. Howard


Well its seems health care in the US, UK and Canada is in the news. Imagine to my surprise when watching CNN when a commercial talking about the perils of a mandatory Government run health care system in the United States. Featuring Canadians, Brits and physicians as well as administrators. Talking about their health care system i.e. not getting the care they need . It bought tears to my eyes a subject I have been talking about for the last 10 years is finally the bell of the ball. A non-profit organization called Conservatives for Patient’s Rights are running the ads I don’t know if this is political affiliation or not? In America people tend to  divide certain members of the population to gain support for an issue. It is a strategy that has been carried out since World War I. But the fact is it works because the majority of folks want do their homework on any given issue. To me this is not a black or white issue, poor or rich issue its not even a Republican or Democrat issue this is a people issue. Not one to sit on the sidelines on an issue that is so near and dear to my heart. I speak from a non-objective view or with out any hidden agenda. Bottom line mandatory government run health care systems do not work. I speak from personal and upfront experience not from second hand information or propaganda. Eventually with every government that has mandated a government run health care system they run out of money. Which in turn leads to rationing from there patient line ups bed shortages etc.  President Obama said he is not talking about implementing a system like Canada or the UK’s but something uniquely American. My hope is the administration reaches out to all stakeholders on this issue to come up with a viable plan that will include the 50 million or so that is uninsured. Contain costs, free choice, make sure competition stays in place and overall do not stifle innovation the hallmark of the US health system. According to CPR they are thinking alone these lines as stated on their web site below.              

Who is CPR?

Conservatives for Patients' Rights is a non-profit organization dedicated to educating and informing the public about the principles of patients rights and, in doing so, advancing the debate over health care reform. Those principles include choice, competition, accountability and responsibility. We believe the path to effective health care reform must be based on the patient-doctor relationship and not from a top-down, big government perspective. Anything that interferes with an individual’s freedom to consult their doctor of choice to make health care decisions defeats the purpose of meaningful health care reform.

The Pillars and Plans of Health Care Reform

Any serious discussion of health care reform that does not include choice, competition, accountability and responsibility — the four "pillars" of patients' rights — will result in our government truly becoming a "nanny-state," making decisions based on what is best for society and government rather than individuals deciding what is best for each of us. 


I hear tale Michael McBane of The National Health Coalition criticized Dr. Brian Day of the Cambie Surgical Center. For going on American television and talking about the shortcomings of Canada’s government run health system. Well I say shame on him. Dr. Day has a right to speak up or is that outlawed in Canada? It seems Mr, McBane likes to make his comments known to everybody as stated below in a Canadian news article:   


Howard and his partners want to open a private surgical centre in B.C. similar to the Cambie Clinic owned by Dr. Brian Day, past-president of the Canadian Medical Association, but are facing what they call anti-American roadblocks in several municipalities.


They are demanding Ottawa reimburse them $4 million in actual costs and another $150 million in foregone profits.


Mike McBane, co-ordinator of the pro-medicare National Health Coalition, says the Howard lawsuit is "an extremely serious warning to provinces not to privatize the delivery of the health care system. We've always known there were serious risks to (medicare) to the extent that we privatize it because it was only protected if it was delivered on a non-commercial basis."

McBane says privatizers and foreign investors are emboldened by what he calls a "perfect storm": a federal government that believes in provincial autonomy, not national standards; the 2005 Supreme Court Chaoulli decision that private medical services do not abridge medicare and are a fundamental human right; and the CMA's new support for two-tier medicine.


He cites a speech Prime Minister Stephen Harper gave in 2001 when he was president of the National Citizens Coalition in which he stated: "(W)hat we clearly need is experimentation -- with market reforms and private delivery options within the public system. And it is only logical that, in a federal state where the provinces operate the public health care systems and regulate private services, that experimentation should occur at the provincial level."

It seems Dr. Day is not the only one that has something to say about the Canadian health system as reported by The Wall Street Journal.



President Obama and Congressional Democrats are inching the U.S. toward government-run health insurance. Last week's expansion of Schip -- the State Children's Health Insurance Program -- is a first step. Before proceeding further, here's a suggestion: Look at Canada's experience.

 Health-care resources are not unlimited in any country, even rich ones like Canada and the U.S., and must be rationed either by price or time. When individuals bear no direct responsibility for paying for their care, as in Canada, that care is rationed by waiting.

Canadians often wait months or even years for necessary care. For some, the status quo has become so dire that they have turned to the courts for recourse. Several cases currently before provincial courts provide studies in what Americans could expect from government-run health insurance.

In Ontario, Lindsay McCreith was suffering from headaches and seizures yet faced a four and a half month wait for an MRI scan in January of 2006. Deciding that the wait was untenable, Mr. McCreith did what a lot of Canadians do: He went south, and paid for an MRI scan across the border in Buffalo. The MRI revealed a malignant brain tumor.

Ontario's government system still refused to provide timely treatment, offering instead a months-long wait for surgery. In the end, Mr. McCreith returned to Buffalo and paid for surgery that may have saved his life. He's challenging Ontario's government-run monopoly health-insurance system, claiming it violates the right to life and security of the person guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Shona Holmes, another Ontario court challenger, endured a similarly harrowing struggle. In March of 2005, Ms. Holmes began losing her vision and experienced headaches, anxiety attacks, extreme fatigue and weight gain. Despite an MRI scan showing a brain tumor, Ms. Holmes was told she would have to wait months to see a specialist. In June, her vision deteriorating rapidly, Ms. Holmes went to the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, where she found that immediate surgery was required to prevent permanent vision loss and potentially death. Again, the government system in Ontario required more appointments and more tests along with more wait times. Ms. Holmes returned to the Mayo Clinic and paid for her surgery.

On the other side of the country in Alberta, Bill Murray waited in pain for more than a year to see a specialist for his arthritic hip. The specialist recommended a "Birmingham" hip resurfacing surgery (a state-of-the-art procedure that gives better results than basic hip replacement) as the best medical option. But government bureaucrats determined that Mr. Murray, who was 57, was "too old" to enjoy the benefits of this procedure and said no. In the end, he was also denied the opportunity to pay for the procedure himself in Alberta. He's heading to court claiming a violation of Charter rights as well.

These constitutional challenges, along with one launched in British Columbia last month, share a common goal: to win Canadians the freedom to spend their own money to protect themselves from the inadequacies of the government health-insurance system.

The cases find their footing in a landmark ruling on Quebec health insurance in 2005. The Supreme Court of Canada found that Canadians suffer physically and psychologically while waiting for treatment in the public health-care system, and that the government monopoly on essential health services imposes a risk of death and irreparable harm. The Supreme Court ruled that Quebec's prohibition on private health insurance violates citizen rights as guaranteed by that province's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

The experiences of these Canadians -- along with the untold stories of the 750,794 citizens waiting a median of 17.3 weeks from mandatory general-practitioner referrals to treatment in 2008 -- show how miserable things can get when government is put in charge of managing health insurance.

In the wake of the 2005 ruling, Canada's federal and provincial governments have tried unsuccessfully to fix the long wait times by introducing selective benchmarks and guarantees along with large increases in funding. The benchmarks and the guarantees aren't ambitious: four to eight weeks for radiation therapy; 16 to 26 weeks for cataract surgery; 26 weeks for hip and knee replacements and lower-urgency cardiac bypass surgery.

Canada's system comes at the cost of pain and suffering for patients who find themselves stuck on waiting lists with nowhere to go. Americans can only hope that Barack Obama heeds the lessons that can be learned from Canadian hardships.

Mr. Esmail, based in Calgary, is the director of Health System Performance Studies at The Fraser Institute.





May 04, 2009

Canada And Centurion Agree On Selection Process For Arbitrators

Selection of Arbitrators


The ICSID and UNCITRAL rules encourage the parties to agree on the selection of arbitrators, and provide a method for the selection of arbitrators if the parties cannot agree. This list of arbitrators are composed of persons appointed by the various countries who are members of the Convention. If the parties to the arbitration do not want the President of the Arbitration Tribunal to be from this list, they must come up with a way to agree on the President. Typically the parties agree that each side chooses their arbitrator, and those two arbitrators then choose a President. It is accepted in international arbitration for me to talk to an arbitrator before we choose him or her. The amount of information gathering we have to do then analyze that information to determine a proper fit is very important. We could talk to 20 arbitrators before we choose one. Therefore we have selected a firm to help sift through the mounds of information on arbitrators for appointment. Below is the agreement between the Government Of Canada and The Howard Group for the selection process of the Arbitral Tribunal.  

Canada also notes that you have agreed to the procedure for the selection of the Arbitral Tribunal outlined in Article 1123 of NAFTA. In order to ensure the efficiency of the selection process, Canada suggests that the parties jointly agree to the following:

         Claimants will appoint their arbitrator;

         Canada will appoint its arbitrator no later than four weeks after the
Claimants appoint their arbitrator, or if that day falls on a weekend or a
holiday, the next business day thereafter;

         The parties will each submit, simultaneously, three candidates for the
presiding arbitrator at 5pm on the day four weeks after the appointment
by Canada of its arbitrator, or if that day falls on a weekend or a
holiday, the next business day thereafter;

         Within two weeks after the exchange of the lists of candidates for the
presiding arbitrator, the parties will hold a conference call to discuss the
matter and seek to reach an agreement. If an agreement cannot be
reached, the parties will discuss the advisability of an additional
exchange of candidates for presiding arbitrator;

         If the parties are unable to agree on a presiding arbitrator in accordance
with the above process, either party may, at the appropriate time,
request that the Secretary General of ICSID appoint the presiding arbitrator pursuant to NAFTA Article 1124.