Re: Changing of Federal Agency Directors.

[Guest guest]

This is great news!  I'm thrilled that Obama is " cleaning house " and getting rid

of some of these ineffective leaders.  I have been sending information to

Obama's team for several months, and I plan to keep doing it.

________________________________

From: " snk1955@... " <snk1955@...>

; iequality

Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 4:37:32 PM

Subject: [] Changing of Federal Agency Directors.

" Leaders of these agencies have in the past often straddled administrations,

but the Obama administration is expected to make a clean sweep in part

because of repeated claims that the Bush administration allowed politics to play

an unusually forceful role in science policy. "

Sent by a friend. Not the entire article and do not have the link. But

worthy to share.

Sharon

New York Times By GARDINER HARRIS

Published: December 16, 2008

Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. C. von Eschenbach said

that he would resign on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, part of a parade of

expected departures at the nation’s crucial public health agencies.

Leaders of these agencies have in the past often straddled administrations,

but the Obama administration is expected to make a clean sweep in part

because of repeated claims that the Bush administration allowed politics to play

an

unusually forceful role in science policy.

The administration’s choices for each slot will signal how it plans to deal

with such controversial issues as stem cell policy, the safety of imported

drugs and foods, and whether huge investments in bioterrorism prevention will

continue.

Dr. Elias A. Zerhouni, the director of the National Institutes of Health,

has already left his post. Dr. Gerberding, director of the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention, wrote in a November e-mail that she expects to

leave “after the administration changes.” And Dr. E. Niederhuber,

director of the National Cancer Institute, is also expected to surrender his

leadership job, although he may remain at the institute.

By far the most difficult of these transitions will be at the F.D..A.

************ **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy

steps!

(http://pr.atwola. com/promoclk/ 100000075x121519 5222x1200993641/ aol?redir=

http://www. freecreditreport .com/pm/default. aspx?sc=668072% 26hmpgID=

82%26bcd= De

cemailfooterNO82)

[Guest guest]

scary! makes you still want to leave the country

Sharon Noonan Kramer

**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy

steps!

(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215195222x1200993641/aol?redir=http://\

www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=82%26bcd=De

cemailfooterNO82)

[Guest guest]

I'm glad they are leaving but sorry they were in the pockets of

private industry from the start. They have done so much damage I'm

not sure how we will recover from this.

Incidentally I read about the Doctor Obama is considering and he has

been a vocal critic of big pharma. One thing I don't like about him

is his stance on vaccinations. He is pro vaccination and I am not

happy with the schedule of vaccinations that they give our children.

I remember getting the flu shot four years into my disease and I took

a serious turn for the worse. I know my immune system was not working

right and the vaccination made my chronic illness a lot worse.

I think we all need to stand together and stop these big companies

from taking away our rights as consumers. We are forced to eat GM

food and some are forced to take vaccinations. In addition we can't

get adequate treatment for our diseases because of greed and

politics. I look at Lyme disease, mold illness and autism as

political diseases. We have to hold these politicians feet to the

fire and make sure we get competent honest people to run these

organizations.

Here's the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/health/17FDA.html?r=1

>

>

> " Leaders of these agencies have in the past often straddled

administrations,

> but the Obama administration is expected to make a clean sweep in

part

> because of repeated claims that the Bush administration allowed

politics to play

> an unusually forceful role in science policy. "

> Sent by a friend. Not the entire article and do not have the

link. But

> worthy to share.

> Sharon

> New York Times By GARDINER HARRIS

> Published: December 16, 2008

> Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. C. von

Eschenbach said

[Guest guest]

Obama in his campaign said that he wants to require insurance

companies to quote all sick people seeking insurance a fair price.

That means that already sick people who are not already in a medical

group will still be unable to afford insurance, unless they are rich.

The government cannot legally and would not want to ask corporations

to operate at a loss, and a sick person is a known risk.

His economic advisor Austan Goolsbee was far more honest, admitting

that the cost of insuring 20% of all Americans would be too high to

address in any meaningful way, and so the incoming administration was

going to concentrate on making some form of insurance affordable for

normal working families, even if it increased costs for the

chronically ill in the long run.

This means prioritizing lowering the cost for a normal family by an

average of $1000 annually, or about 10% in today's dollars, from what

it would be without his changes. That means that the cost may well

continue to rise. (Currently, the average US employer and employee

combined spend around $10,000 a year on health insurance. The insured

subsidize the growing numbers of uninsured, who only receive crisis

care. When a sick person loses their job, they may be offered

insurance through Cobra if their company plan still exists. If their

company disappears, their health coverage can disappear overnight.

Health insurance for those with chronic illnesses can cost several

times the average. People with a wide range of conditions are

considered to be uninsurable and they cannot get insurance unless

there is a state subsidy, which in may states are unavailable. In

others, lotteries are held for a tiny number of available slots.

Chronically ill people who manage to find insurance often find

themselves dumped if they incur any significant claims. State

legislation to end this practice, called rescission, was recently

vetoed in California, the governor stated that the ability to dump

patients who they claim misprepresented their health status in order

to get insurance - or insurance they could afford, (even if they

turned out to have diseases that their doctors never diagnosed them

with, " but should have " !) was necessary to having private insurance

and contract law. (That apparently as things stand now, will not

change under Obama)

There is a lot of pressure on healthcare providers to avoid certain

kinds of testing and certain kinds of diagnoses. There is also

pressure to underdiagnose. Many doctors who have decided to opt out of

the rapidly imploding system allege that in-network doctors are

quietly but strongly being urged to shunt sick patients into junk

diagnoses. That is de-facto rationing of health care.

Obama's endorsement of the big lies behind consumer driven healthcare

offers a false " choice " in that it lowers the entry cost for consumers

by reducing coverage, leaving many people sick, and without any way to

get care, and leaving many more people who think they are covered with

a dangerous false sense of security which can lead to disaster if a

family member gets ill. Rather than trying to get a better job, or

saving more money, people are lulled into complacency, not realizing

that the continued rising cost of healthcare and declining QUALITY of

American health care relative to the rest of the developed world means

much more risk than they can handle.

To keep paying the insurance companies their 33% cut, we all need to

be saving every penny in case we get sick. And even then, we

increasingly get substandard care.

[Guest guest]

Here's a real life twist on this:

> Obama in his campaign said that he wants to require insurance

> companies to quote all sick people seeking insurance a fair >price.

The State of Colorado went one better when they passed

legislation that for group plans the insurance companies can no

longer even ask about conditions or prescriptions. So mine

increased my premium 47% to cover the unknown risk. I can't

afford it and am looking elsewhere.

I'd like to take comfort in saying they lost a long time customer

but they don't care. It's not about me. It's all about the profit

margin and executive bonuses.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

[Guest guest]

LiveSimply, thanks for the info.  What do you know about Obama's relationship

with the big property casualty insurance companies like Farmers, State Farm,

Allstate, etc.?

________________________________

From: LiveSimply <quackadillian@...>

; Sharon <snk1955@...>;

quackadillian@...; Carl <grimes@...>

Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 7:11:08 PM

Subject: Re: [] Re: Changing of Federal Agency Directors.

Obama in his campaign said that he wants to require insurance

companies to quote all sick people seeking insurance a fair price.

That means that already sick people who are not already in a medical

group will still be unable to afford insurance, unless they are rich.

[Guest guest]

I think it is becoming glaringly obvious that people are going to have to

make due with natural remedies, more and more. Sadly, the same entities that

work to deny illness for fear of liability from causation, are the same

entities that work to harass the physicians who provide natural remedies. A sick

situation indeed!

Sharon K

In a message dated 12/17/2008 10:08:43 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

grimes@... writes:

Here's a real life twist on this:

> Obama in his campaign said that he wants to require insurance

> companies to quote all sick people seeking insurance a fair >price.

The State of Colorado went one better when they passed

legislation that for group plans the insurance companies can no

longer even ask about conditions or prescriptions. So mine

increased my premium 47% to cover the unknown risk. I can't

afford it and am looking elsewhere.

I'd like to take comfort in saying they lost a long time customer

but they don't care. It's not about me. It's all about the profit

margin and executive bonuses.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sharon Noonan Kramer

**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy

steps!

(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215195222x1200993641/aol?redir=http://\

www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=82%26bcd=De

cemailfooterNO82)

[Guest guest]

Nothing, I'm sorry.

But he IS clearly much more of an insider than he has been marketed as.

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:30 AM, <brianc8452@...> wrote:

> LiveSimply, thanks for the info. What do you know about Obama's

> relationship with the big property casualty insurance companies like

> Farmers, State Farm, Allstate, etc.?

[Guest guest]

What the hell is a fair price! That is the question, isn't it. And

fair to who, when, why?

Carl, that law is probably a feeble attempt by your state to give employees more

privacy on health matters and reduce health cost related layoffs.

Employers are being hit with big price increases based on the numbers of

their employee claims - so, in essence, the cost for each employer

group is based on the aggregate heath status of their employees.

If they require all companies with employees of x age (regardless of

sex, health status,

family history, etc.) to be charged the same then the prices will go

up across the board, but

its a good thing..

These kinds of problems are inherent to the way we pay for medical

care. There are only a very

limited number of ways to slice the pie. Each has its advantages and drawbacks.

The current way we do it is very good for some people (the very rich)

and bad for many other

people (those who are not very rich)

We pay more than anyone else, though.

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:08 AM, Carl E. Grimes <grimes@...> wrote:

> Here's a real life twist on this:

>

The State of Colorado went one better when they passed

> legislation that for group plans the insurance companies can no

> longer even ask about conditions or prescriptions. So mine

> increased my premium 47% to cover the unknown risk. I can't

> afford it and am looking elsewhere.

[Guest guest]

Ya know Live, I am being very hopefull. I was not in support of him but he is my

president now so I will support him for now. I do believe you are correct

though, much more than we know. Although this election I dont think it mattered

which side you were on or what you felt. I think the results would have turned

out the same so for that I can only hope he does a good job. I dont know what it

means for the future but thus far at least he is focused on healthcare. The link

Sharran put up (I think) to put our opinions on. Go read some of that, indeed

put your opinion in but this is the first time I have seen such a thing. Maybe

he really is listening to us???

 

Chris...

[Guest guest]

I don't buy this song and dance and I will give you a real life

example to prove my point.

In 2002 I found out I carried the gene mutation that makes me high

risk for all sorts of cancer with the highest risks being for breast

cancer (82%) and ovarian cancer (30%). When I read about a new

diagnostic technology called proteomics (the study of protein

patterns in the blood) I quickly joined the study for detecting

ovarian cancer. That was in 2002. The original study showed that the

technology detected 100% of all the cases of ovarian cancer with only

two false positives which they believed could have been reader error.

Although the study was small it never-the-less was a revolutionary

discovery and one that could be used to diagnose many if not all

known diseases including exposures to biowarfare pathogens including

mold.

The test was jointly developed by a doctor at the NIH and Correlogic,

the company that has the patent on it. As Correlogic is proceeding

through the approval process some strange things start to happen and

the company president eventually discovers that two of the doctors

who worked on the technology have left the NIH to form their own

company that just happens to be in competition to proteomics

technology only theirs is targeted drug therapy for cancer tumors. In

other words you get the tumor and we can cure it with expensive

targeted cancer drugs. What happens if you find the tumor early and

you cut it out like with ovarian cancer. Oops, 95% cure rate, you

don't need those toxic drugs. Now in steps the FDA and decides for

the first time in its history to regulate this non-invasive test

which only requires a drop of blood, as a medical device. It will be

years before I can get this test unless I want to fly to Japan.

Imagine American taxpayers have paid to develop this technology and

Japan is using it.

Due to my illness and years of research on mold illness, I now

consider myself an expert researcher so I decide to take a peek and

see what is happening to Ovacheck. I discover all this information on

conflicts of interests and congressional testimony regarding

Correlogic and the NIH and I solemnly realize that in our country

toxic drugs are fast tracked while a non-invasive test that could

potentially cure many diseases before they become chronic will not

get approved and I ask myself why.

You wouldn't need radiologists for diagnosing disease

Chemotherapy drugs would only be used when cancer wasn't detected

early or reoccurred.

The need for oncologists and other doctors would diminish.

I honestly believe we have something like a medical industrial

complex going on in our country where profits are the motivating

factor in our healthcare and it rarely benefits the patient.

These are my opinions and based on my research. If you are interested

in this technology go to this website.

http://www.correlogic.com/newsandevents/index.php

--- In , LiveSimply <quackadillian@...>

wrote:

>

> Obama in his campaign said that he wants to require insurance

> companies to

[Guest guest]

Give Obama the chance to get into office and have people he selected to

review these things. There is alot of evil going on the medical field

and pharmaceutical industry and he wants doing things for monied

interest to be out of government, so lets see what he comes up with.

His proposal during campaign, was without the aid of cabinet officer

and team to look into solutions. I've heard there is alot of computer

programs in White House to put in figures of this and that scenerio

that comes up with impact in figures, etc. He's had to do this in his

head up until now.

--- In , LiveSimply <quackadillian@...>

wrote:

>

> Obama in his campaign said that he wants to require insurance

> companies to quote all sick people seeking insurance a fair price.

> That means that already sick people who are not already in a medical

> group will still be unable to afford insurance, unless they are rich.

>

[Guest guest]

....besides, the alternative to Obama's proposal, that of having

government program cover everyone would be impossible now, since the

Bush administration has successfully gotten ALL THE MONEY OUT OF

WASHINGTON, by errors or by purpose; something Reagan said was

a necessity in order to get rid of social programs, RR said you have

to 'starve the beast', the beast being government, something Bush Sr

continued and Bush Jr did twice as well and twice as fast as either

of the two before him, so Obama is left with a government broken is

so many ways and biggest deficit ever, still handing out billions

weeks before new administration takes over, that we must be borrowing

from China, so government paid program is not an option anyway.

--- In , LiveSimply <quackadillian@...>

wrote:

>

> Obama in his campaign said that he wants to require insurance

> companies to quote all sick people seeking insurance a fair price.

> That means that already sick people who are not already in a medical

> group will still be unable to afford insurance, unless they are

rich.

>

[Guest guest]

Maybe!

But hey, I felt good voting for Obama. He is very smart.

There was really no comparison for me between him and that other guy.

He is a class act.

He also is inheriting a hell of a mess. The challenges that he faces are the

largest ever faced by an American president in peacetime in a VERY long time.

Honestly, I think that he is making pragmatic choices.

Its obvious to me that he is trying to build a unified

country that is also sustainable.

Here's hoping that we make it to Jan 20 smoothly and safely and TOGETHER!

Time will tell.

Yes we can!

There, I said it..

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Taz <unitedstatesvet@...> wrote:

> Ya know Live, I am being very hopefull.