Ramirez on health-care “reform”

AnninCA was quoting survey results posted at WebMD to support her view that America must accept nationalized health care so that her non-profit is not required to spend its funds (tax dollar funding) to provide 2 employees with health benefits (as if the non-profit has the right to make a profit, or does not have the right to deny its employees health coverage).

© 2009 WebMD, LLC. All rights reserved. The Sponsor is responsible for the accuracy and objectivity of Sponsored content. SOURCES:

Geoff Garin, president, Peter Hart Research.

The Peter Hart Research webpage did not post its findings quoted, substantiating the WebMD posting, nor Laura Carstensen’s Stanford Center for Longevity. Instead, the Peter Hart Research webpage is still posting the Obama popularity poll from April online.

America already funds Medicaid and Medicare for elderly citizens; they already enjoy tax subsidized health benefits. Yet, Dr. Carstensen determined the NEED to focus on BETTER federally subsidized via everyone/everything taxation to further the duration of human life via technology and science. Note well the premise she makes in her mission statement for her center’s existence.

Those who age well do not do so accidentally or because it was dictated by their genes. Rather, it is the achievement of deliberate actions, good planning and culture. By “culture,” I do not mean simply the languages that people speak or the attitudes they hold. Science and technology are very much part of culture. When Congress decides to allocate funds for research, it does so because citizens perceive particular needs.That has to change.

WHY? At some point, we all must die. Why should everyone be taxed in order to prolong the life span that already is longer than at any time historically (disregarding any literalism from Genesis), providing via tax dollars (or whatever the Chinese determine to be our currency in America) mechanical joint replacements, mechanisms to prevent falling, every pharmaceutical produced, organ transplants, etc.? We KNOW that such pies in the sky are never provided to everyone, regardless of promises and propaganda.

Regarding polls, the information presented by the pollster prior to the survey determines the responses, hence the results. Read on if you like.

About 40% of registered voters polled by the Center on Longevity at Stanford University said they favor one proposal: expanding government programs like the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and Medicaid to give more people access to coverage. But a roughly equal number, 37%, opposed it.

Researchers polled nearly 2,000 registered voters, roughly split between Democrats, Independents, and Republicans and also split between self-identified liberals and conservatives. [Roughly split means exactly what figures?]

Before asking their views, pollsters gave voters briefings on the pros and cons of several reform options now floating around Washington. And a pattern of ambivalence was evident throughout, researchers said. [Provide the exact briefings.]

Laura Carstensen, PhD, director of the Stanford Center on Longevity, said the results show there is no single policy that will solve the problem and that voters know it.

Carstensen said she was encouraged that voters don’t seem to swing wildly on reform options according to their political affiliation. “When voters hear about possible reforms, they’re hearing it from someone who either wants to sell them something or wants them to be afraid of it.”

Here’s how voters came down on a variety of options for reforming health care:

* Requiring everyone to have health insurance, either individually or through an employer, while delivering subsidies to help pay for coverage if people can’t afford it: 43% were in favor, 40% opposed, 17% undecided. Six in 10 said they like the fact that a so-called “individual mandate” would expand access to coverage, but four in 10 worried that it would increase taxes.
[Subsidy delivery via taxed dollars: additional cost to everyone]

* Changing how health care is paid for, so that doctors and hospitals are paid for episodes of care or for quality care, instead of being paid separately for every test and treatment they order: 38% viewed that option positively, 40% negatively, and 28% were evenly divided between advantages and disadvantages.

* Forming an independent board to compare the effectiveness of different treatments, tests and procedures, and encouraging that only the best be used widely: 36% were positive, 40% were negative, 20% were undecided. “People like the idea of identifying the most effective treatments,” Garin said. “There is some concern that once you create this body of information that insurers or Medicare will not cover treatments” that are deemed less effective.
[There's no such thing as an independent board to make independent comparisons.]

© 2009 WebMD, LLC. All rights reserved. The Sponsor is responsible for the accuracy and objectivity of Sponsored content. SOURCES:

Center on Longevity: “Politics, Scholars, and the Public, Key findings from a survey conducted among U.S. voters.”

Geoff Garin, president, Peter Hart Research.

Laura Carstensen, PhD, director, Stanford Center on Longevity.

Those who age well do not do so accidentally or because it was dictated by their genes. Rather, it is the achievement of deliberate actions, good planning and culture. By “culture,” I do not mean simply the languages that people speak or the attitudes they hold. Science and technology are very much part of culture. When Congress decides to allocate funds for research, it does so because citizens perceive particular needs.That has to change. Fortunately, many of my Stanford colleagues throughout the campus are working on research that offers hope that we can help a greater number of people age healthfully and happily. These steps include changing our health-care system, our entitlement programs, our personal behaviors and lifestyles, and our appreciation of not only the unique challenges of aging but the great value older people contribute to a society. Achieving change on a scale this big requires a wholesale shift in the culture. The center is issuing an invitation to the best minds in academia and to our business and government colleagues to target the most important challenges an older population faces, and come up with solutions.

Ambitious? Absolutely. There is nothing like the Center on Longevity anywhere. We are not a gerontology center, nor are we even focused solely on aging. We are a laboratory studying the nature and development of the entire human life span, looking for innovative ways to solve the problems of people over 50 and improve the well-being of people of all ages.

Today, we are proud to say that more than 100 Stanford faculty members have joined the center as affiliates. Their research spans a remarkable gamut, from examining strategies for developing healthy nutritional habits, to building assistive robots, to pursuing stem cell research offering insights into the healing process. Unlike most academic enterprises, the Center on Longevity also aims to speed the development of commercial solutions and rational policies to improve the lives of people worldwide. In that vein, few conversations are as important today as the need to reform health care to make it more affordable and accessible to people of all ages. We are bringing together renowned academics and political experts to talk about practical solutions in our Health Security and the Presidency Project.

Research is our most potent tool in the quest to help our culture adapt to the phenomenon of more people living longer than ever before. At the Center on Longevity, we are determined to make sure that research findings do not stay locked away in academia but reach the people who can most benefit from them.

Seed Grants

The Stanford Center on Longevity received many applications, from departments and Schools across the University, in response to our RFA for seed grant proposals. Among the applications received, 11 were selected to receive a University Research Award of up to $50,000 for one year. The purpose of a University Research Award is to fund projects that fit well with SCL’s aim to support research that can help illuminate increased well-being in the population over 50 years old, with a special focus on solutions that improve life at all ages. It is hoped that the studies supported by these awards will lead to future support from external sponsors or have tangible impacts, either in the private sector or the public sector.

Congratulations to:

Thomas Andriacchi, Biomotion Laboratory
Project: Developing and testing a device to reduce falling

Steven Artandi, Medicine/Hematology
Project: Restoring fitness and extending lifespan in a mammalian model of aging

Jay Bhattacharya, PCOR
Dena Bravata, PCOR
Project: The longevity and health impact of gardening [As if we don't already know the positive influence being in nature gardening has on everyone's mental and physical health.]

Helen Blau, Microbiology and Immunology
Juan Santiago, Mechanical Engineering
Project: Drug delivery micropump for rejuvenatioin of muscle stem cell function on old mice

Kate Bundorf, Health Research and Policy
Jay Bhattacharya, PCOR
Rui Mata, Dept. of Psychology
Michael Schoenbaum, NIH/Institute of Mental Health
Project: The financial implications of health plan choices: The case of Medicare Part D prescription drug plans

Chang-Zheng Chen, Microbiology and Immunology
Project: The role of miRNA’s in T-cell aging and thymic involution

Michael Grecius, Neurology/Neurological Sciences
Brian Wandell, Dept. of Psychology
Robert Dougherty, Dept. of Psychology
Project: Cognitive effects of disrupted structural and functional connectivity in the aging brain

Daniel Kessler, GSB/Hoover Institute
David Brady, GSB
Project: Health reform in the U.S. from the 1990s to 2009-10

Ruth O’Hara, Psychiatry/Behavioral Science
Natalie Rasgon, Psychiatry/Behavioral Science
Heather Kenna, Psychiatry/Behavioral Science
Project: Sleep apnea and insulin resistance: A Role in cognitive decline

Alan Pao, Nephrology
Sun Kim, Endocrinology/Gerontology/Metabolism
Glenn Chertow, Nephrology
Gerald Reaven, Endocrinology/Gerontology/Metabolism
Project: Pathogenesis of accelerated vascular aging: Insulin resistance and chronic kidney disease as model systems

Jessica Rose, Orthopaedic Surgery
Scott Atlas, Radiology
Gary Glover, Radiology
Catherine Chang, Electrical Engineering
Dennis Grahn, Biology
Vinh Cao, Biology
Project: An investigation of physiological mechanisms underlying health benefits of Tai Chi

EVENTS

Early Detection of Osteoarthritis-1/28- 1/30 2009
SCL hosts international joint health symposium

The Stanford Center on Longevity (SCL), which has “Joint Health” as one of its primary focus areas within its Mobility Division, is hosting an international joint health symposium: Early Detection of Osteoarthritis.

The goal of the workshop, which will include experts in various aspects of osteoarthritis (OA), is to identify research questions that will lead to improved and early detection.

SCL believes this is an important and challenging problem and the workshop should stimulate interesting new questions. It will focus on exploring interdisciplinary approaches and opportunities to develop future research partnerships. The lead SCL faculty affiliate is Dr. Thomas Andriacchi, and the workshop is presented in collaboration with the School of Mechanical Engineering. [Hence, the alignment with joint replacement pharmaceutical therapeutic industry, not prevention.]

maverick muse on June 18, 2009 at 12:25 PM