Beware of dishonest doctors who encourage hypochondria. If you become hypochondriac, your life will be miserable. Throw away 95% of your medicines, except a few vital ones, such as the high pressure pills! The side effects of most medicines will eventually deteriorate your health. The total effect of medicines on your health is negative.
The individual mandate is a truly disturbing decision. The idea that government can require an individual to buy something simply because that individual exists and breathes in America is an incredible blow to the bedrock principles of freedom and liberty. It must be repealed, and Congress needs to get about doing so today.
There is one thing we know about health care. Government cannot create a system that will reduce costs while increasing access. Only competition and the price transparency that competition will bring can accomplish the imperatives of affordability and availability. The idea that anyone in Washington can somehow manage one of the most essential and substantial parts of both our quality of life and the economy is, and always has been, fundamentally wrong.
Virtually everything government does is a mandate. The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don’t. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of Obamacare without paying a government tribute.
Those of us who believe in individual liberty must work tirelessly to repeal this national healthcare law and reduce federal involvement in healthcare generally. Obamacare can only increase third party interference in the doctor-patient relationship, increase costs, and reduce the quality of care.
Only free market medicine can restore the critical independence of doctors, reduce costs through real competition and price sensitivity, and eliminate enormous paperwork burdens. Americans will opt out of Obamacare with or without Congress, but we can seize the opportunity by crafting the legal framework to allow them to do so.
Empowering patients as key decision makers must be the foundation of any health system. The current trend of rapidly rising health care costs is unsustainable. Many proposed reforms to curb spending rely on some type of rationing imposed by an unaccountable government body. A better alternative would be to allow individual consumers to make their own decisions about care, including the self-rationing of medical services, based on cost and their own desires. Such a policy is compatible with libertarian values of limited government and individual liberty and responsibility. State and federal policymakers should adopt measures to facilitate personal control of health care decisions.
The Role of Europe in Global Health
By José Manuel Durão Barroso
At first glance, the emphasis on health at European level may be somewhat surprising, at least for those who follow the European debate.
After all, it is still mainly Member States' responsibility to define their health policies and to organise and manage health services and medical care. That's what in Europe we call the principle of subsidiarity. So it's mainly, I insist, a national responsibility. But the European Union complements national policies to prevent diseases, address cross-border health threats and ensure a high level of public health overall. There is a lot we can do to support innovation and research in health, in education and leadership for sustainable health systems and in developing synergies with other sectors. This is more than a specific policy area, but a point of attention across a wide range of European policies from social affairs to education, from research to taxation, from consumer rights to public services reform. That's why in the European Commission we try to deal with health issues in what some call horizontal or transversal way because in fact it is, I repeat, more than just one policy area. That is why we try to make what we call the mainstream of health objectives also through other policies. For instance: climate and environmental policies or consumer policy.
I will give you a few examples. There is European legislation on health products and cross-border care, for instance on clinical trials and medical devices, on fees for pharmaceuticals and a directive on patients' rights in cross-border healthcare. We deal with the determining causes of health problems such as tobacco products, which are still the biggest cause of avoidable illness in Europe. We are, with different programmes and actions, helping Member States to improve health in the European Union for the European Union citizens. Through our third Health Programme for the next European financial period from 2014 to 2020, we are directly financing projects strengthening the links between economic growth and a healthy population.
And we assist on a daily basis in tackling cross-border health threats, in particular in the case of communicable diseases like avian flu and pandemic influenza that very easily spread from country to country.
In the field of animal health, and notably on diseases transmissible to humans, I am proud to say that we have achieved considerable results. Diseases like avian flu have not finally had major impact on human health in the European Union, and the human cases of Salmonellosis in Europe, for instance, have decreased from around 200.000 in 2004 to less than 100.000 in 2011 and this trend is still continuing, thanks to the intensive control of programmes applied on the poultry and the pig sectors in all Member States, with the European Commission’s financial support.
A considerable number of human lives were saved and hospitalization costs were reduced, while at the same time this made our meat products more competitive on the international markets, as the European Union products are more and more perceived as the safest in the world.
To sum up: the organisation and the funding of health care systems in our member states is and will remain a national responsibility. The European Union, however, can positively improve the context in which Europe's member states operate their health systems and support them in their actions. And the impact of this is profound in terms of the rights of patients, the role of researchers, and the very structures of health care.
Certainly one of the most important contributions is our effort towards the effectiveness and the financial 'health' of health systems themselves. The healthcare sector accounts for 11% of the total European workforce, or around 25 million jobs, and for 10% of the European Union’s GDP. That in itself, plus the large and increasing share of healthcare costs in the European Union, makes the case for improving cost-effectiveness and the financial sustainability of health systems all the more relevant.
Making our healthcare sector more resilient is one of the great challenges of today, especially in light of competitive pressures which our economies face globally. And we need to find responses to the structural changes in demography and the increasing burden of chronic diseases in Europe, while the pace of technology is increasing and the limits of public finances are more stringent than before.
One figure says it all: treating just brain disorders annually costs Europe around 798 billion euro!
And in this particular sector we are financing the Human Brain Project, at 1 billion € over the next 10 years. Progress in this field is already significant; just think about deep brain stimulation that alleviates the symptoms of Parkinson disease.
As I said in the beginning, health systems are the cornerstones of Europe's welfare. We must cherish their success and guarantee their future.
For this to happen we must accept that the time has come for structural reforms in health systems. That is the case around the world, and especially so in Europe, where they are highly developed and effective, but for that reason also elaborate and sometimes expensive. If we don’t reform, we will compromise the universality and quality of care which form the cornerstone of Europe's welfare state. If a health system is not performing well, it will not be able to provide the highest-quality healthcare to all in the future. And we must not allow that to happen.
The European Union and notably the European Commission is an important factor for translating this analysis into concrete action. As part of our economic governance in the European Union, healthcare-related issues form part of the country-specific recommendations, which the Commission has been addressing to 11 of our Member States. That is one of the innovations of the new system of governance we have today in Europe. We usually call it the European Semester, where the European Commission is asked to give concrete, country-specific recommendations to all the members of the European Union. And the focus has been on the need to increase cost-effectiveness and financial sustainability of the health systems in these countries. Apart from the "programme countries", we have given country-recommendations to countries such as Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, Finland, France, Malta, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. A Reflection process on modern and sustainable health systems has been launched within the European Council. So, among Heads of State and Government of the European Union.
We know, of course, that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for all countries alike, there are different traditions, different models, even if there are some points in common, namely the idea, the important idea, that health is a fundamental right and that the state has an obligation to provide this kind of protection to that right This is the European model at its best. But even if the models are very different in concrete terms, I believe that all national health systems can benefit from an efficiency check, from greater use of health technology and from a greater focus on smart investments. The question is not so much whether we spend more or less, but how to spend better. We need a smarter Europe and for this we need also a smarter approach to health.
We must also look to the benefits that greater patient choice and empowerment can play in driving change in health systems. The European Union's Directive on cross-border healthcare enables EU patients to seek care in any other Member State. I mean, this is, I can say, a real revolution. Can you imagine that in other parts of the world? It is simply not thinkable. In Europe, we have now this right. One person receives healthcare in another Member State, as if he could do it in his or her own country. And this directive also sets out their rights, particularly to information on quality and safety.
Choice will help improve the efficiency of the systems. Empowerment will help to improve the quality of care offered. These must go hand in hand. That's why, as was already stated, the role of civil society is also extremely important, beyond scientists, policy makers, political leaders, academia. Civil society has also a role to play in the way we address collectively these health values and these health challenges.
Health, I repeat, is a value in itself, but it is also a crucial component towards economic success. The importance of this sector and Europe's long tradition and wide experience in this field provides plenty of opportunities for future growth. I personally am convinced that this is one of the sectors that will grow more in a near future and that will bring more value for growth in Europe. Good health, of course, is first of all good for people. Good health can also be very good for business, whereas poor health is notably bad for business. Today, absenteeism represents 3 to 6% of working time lost, leading to a yearly cost of about 2.5% of GDP in Europe.
In order to reap both the health benefits and the economic potential of the health sector, we need to foster innovation and keep Europe at the forefront of scientific progress.
Currently, the health sector already employs 15% of university graduates in the European Union – and the demand is growing. It is precisely one of the sectors where we have a mismatch between the jobs people seek and the jobs that are on offer. Health sector, not only medical doctors but also nurses and many other professions related to health can indeed be developed in the future. The European Commission is keen to encourage the potential of this sector also for jobs. For example, we have brought together at European level around one thousand public and private stakeholders in an Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing.
This partnership aims to translate innovation into concrete solutions that assist elderly people in living healthy and independent lives, support the provision of high-quality care and help our industry to remain competitive. We also support cooperation between large-scale industry, small and medium-sized enterprises and research organisations in the field of new treatments and diagnostics tools. We have a Public-Private Partnership, the Joint Undertaking on Innovative Medicines Initiative, IMI as it is better known, to which we have dedicated important resources: no less than 1.7 billion euro.
Overall, the Commission is the world's third largest funder of research on poverty-related and neglected infectious diseases, thereby contributing significantly to the long-term improvement of global health. Since 2007, we have invested an annual average of almost 170 million euro in global health research. We are intent on keeping that leading role in the promotion and financing of research and innovation.
The next EU programme for research and innovation, called Horizon 2020, is the way to do this. Several societal challenges will be addressed, considered priorities under the new programme, including health, demographic change and well-being, for which a budget of 7 billion euro has been earmarked.
Such research will improve our understanding of the causes and mechanisms underlying health, healthy ageing and disease, improve our ability to monitor health and to prevent, detect and treat diseases, and test and demonstrate new models and tools for healthcare delivery.
We are optimistic that European Union-funded research in the area of health will continue to deliver innovative solutions in the area of bio diagnostics, biotechnologies, and surgical and regenerative medicine building on the success of the living heart valve replacements, the use of spider silk to repair joint damage and the development of simple breath tests to diagnose cancer. These are concrete examples of projects funded by the European Union.
For innovation to succeed, we not only need the funding but also need the right regulatory framework. In the past few years, the European Union has revised European legislation on pharmaceuticals, for example, and the Commission has introduced incentives for the development of orphan medicines, for the benefit of patients with rare diseases. A revision of the European Union legislation on clinical trials is also in the pipeline; it is aimed at supporting the conduct of clinical trials in Europe, while ensuring the safety of patients participating in a trial.
In the field of research and innovation good progress has been made to achieve a single market, but there is still a lot of work to do. Investment in R&D is vital, but we need fully functional research and innovation systems to use that money best. We now need all Member States and all those involved in research and research funding to make a major push towards a true European research area.
We also need to grasp the opportunities offered by digital technology. eHealth solutions, such as tele-consultations and tele-monitoring, are very promising. They can improve access to healthcare, increase the quality and efficiency of care and empower patients. This is why the Commission has a European eHealth Action Plan to increase the uptake of eHealth and an eHealth Network, so that Member States can align their efforts and create common policies.
If we put so much emphasis on health issues and so much faith in research and innovation within Europe, it is only natural that these form a large and increasing part of our efforts world-wide as well.
Health is one of the main strands of the European Union's development agenda, and we have a huge role to play. Contributing around 50 billion euro a year, the European Union is by far the biggest donor in the world, representing 56% of global public aid. Despite the crisis, Europe's track record has remained unchanged and only recently Member States have reconfirmed their commitment to dedicate 0.7% of their GNP on development aid by 2015.
I think we should be proud of that effort, and confident of the fact that with this investment we can make a difference.
In the context of the Millennium Development Goals campaign, for instance, over the last ten years we have helped 70 million more households to have access to drinking water, and 7.5 million births were attended by skilled health personnel thanks to direct aid from the European Union.
We must keep pursuing all MDGs right to the end, and for that reason we have made available an extra billion euros to helping those countries and MDGs who are most off track, in fact I announced this last year in the margin of the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York. Some of the more problematic issues are indeed health issues: notably child mortality, sanitation and women's health.
The current MDG initiative funds 11 countries in the health sector for accelerated progress towards the achievement of MDG 4 on child health and objective 5 on maternal health, for a total amount of 280 million euro.
We must build on that for the development goals beyond 2015. Our aim on the post-2015 global development agenda is to provide a balanced approach to poverty eradication and sustainable development, ensuring basic living standards, including health for all.
The European Union is also committed to allocate at least 20% of its aid budget for 2014 to 2020, the next 7 year period, to human development, including health. Even today, of the aid budget managed directly by the European Commission, which reaches some 10 billion euro annually, about 500 million is devoted specifically to health issues.
The lion's share of the EU health aid is deployed through country programmes, directly agreed with the concerned developing countries, providing comprehensive support to national health systems in 30 of the poorest countries. In some of my visits to some of these countries I could see on the ground, directly, the important contribution that this funding can give to save so many lives. I think it is an important point to make, because sometimes we hear that there are people, who have doubts about aid for development.
Look, if they go to Africa, if they see the difference, the lives that could be saved, because there was international funding, I think they will not keep that idea. Of course we can always look to more effective aid schemes and to improve also the efficiency of development aid, but let's be frank, we have to continue to make a big effort to the developing countries, because we see that that can make a real difference for so many people.
I remember the hospitals I have seen from Tanzania to Mozambique, from Cape Verde to Senegal, to Southern Africa, and the concrete contribution of the European Union in health and in other sectors, also in refugees in Jordan, Syrian refugees. Without the European Union support these people would not be alive or they would not have the access to a minimum of health care and also the right to education. So, I think we need to make a case for the need to continue some efforts in the development aid.
And these efforts, in the field of health, are complemented by our global support in particular to the World Health Organisation, the leading authority setting the agenda within the United Nations system, and with issue-specific global health initiatives like the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.
Since it was founded at the initiative of the G8 in 2001, the European Union has contributed more than 1.1 billion euro to the Global Fund, over half of the total amount.
We also strongly support the GAVI Alliance for vaccines and immunisations and the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, campaigns that over recent years have shown just how much we can achieve if we are willing to invest in the right causes and support the people of the world.
Because experience has taught us that bringing the right people together is just as important as the funding as such. We live in a world of increasingly fruitful partnerships between governments and the private sector, between universities and international organizations. They are proving to be the most effective way of combining the knowledge and creativity that often comes from the bottom up with the necessary coordination and prioritisation to be done at top decision-making levels.
Horizon 2020, our research programme, draws on that successful formula, aiming not only at supporting collaboration between researchers in Europe but fully open to international networks, building on partnerships with other funders, both public and private, since the scale, scope and ambition of the research and investments for global health cannot be achieved and delivered in isolation.
The European Commission's flagship research initiatives in this area will be the expansion of the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trial Partnership with sub-Saharan Africa, which already has projects involving 70 institutions in Europe and 185 in Africa, with half of the clinical trials led by African researchers, and the Innovative Medicines Initiative with the pharmaceutical industry, the largest Public Private Partnership in pharmaceutical research in the world.
I am sorry if I was a little bit long, but I just wanted to give you a picture of what we are doing, respecting the subsidiarity principle, in terms of action in the health sector. I think many of our citizens are not aware of the big effort that European taxpayers are doing for health in Europe and in the world. And I think we should basically be proud of it, not being complacent of course, but being proud of it, knowing that we have still a lot to do, but thanks to our political decisions, thanks to our academia, to our business, to our universities, to our scientists, to our professionals in medicines, we are indeed achieving a lot. But I hope that all the information I have given to you just now does not distract us from the more important points.
And the more important points, I think, are three: first of all, health is a fundamental right, for every human being; second, health has a value in itself, apart from the economic and other important consideration; and third, health is a global issue that requires strong international cooperation. I think these are the most important messages. And I am sure that your initiative, the World Health Summit, successfully linking academics, policy makers, civil society and businesses in a common cause is a very important contribution.
Health care costs are consuming ever larger portions of the gross domestic product (GDP). There is broad bipartisan agreement on the need to control these rising costs and to control federal entitlement spending in general, including spending on the giant health care entitlements Medicare and Medicaid.
However, the standard approach to limiting federal health care spending is to limit federal payments for medical goods and services. This limitation, in itself, is a form of health care rationing. In fact, rationing of one form or another is already a routine feature of public and private health insurance arrangements, although it is often covert, opaque, or subtle in its implementation.
For policymakers and the public, the basic question is not whether there should be rationing in health care: It already exists. Economics itself is an exercise in rationing among goods and services because limited resources cannot purchase unlimited goods. The crucial question is: Who should make the rationing decisions?
Citizens value personal liberty and self-rule, libertarian values at the heart of political culture. Given these values, Americans have consistently resisted any health care proposals that threaten to undermine these principles as they understand them. Although they acknowledge the problem of health care spending, including rising government spending, Americans are unlikely to accept rationing decisions made by a European-style pseudoindependent body or an unaccountable government agency. Instead, policymakers should seek a libertarian solution that enables individual patients to make the key decisions about their care in accordance with their own preferences, beliefs, and values. This is especially important in decisions relating to end-of-life care.
To achieve this level of patient engagement, policymakers must reduce or eliminate barriers to patient decision making, including patient ignorance of and insulation from the true costs of care, the lack of information on medical prices and options, and medical malpractice and inadequate skills among doctors and nurses and other medical professionals in dealing with an engaged patient.
Policymakers need to make the health care sector far more transparent. They can do this by promoting a free market for health insurance coverage in which prices and the content of insurance are clear and transparent; creating an information-driven system of choice to enable patients to better understand the range of available benefits and services; enacting medical malpractice reform in the states where it is sorely needed; and encouraging better education of medical professionals to prepare them to communicate more effectively and clearly with all patients, including those facing a long illness or the end of life itself.
By forcing individuals to buy health insurance, a parliament has entered new territory. If a parliament can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the constitution would have been in vain for it would be difficult to perceive any limitation on government power, and we would have a constitution in name only. Surely this is not what the Founding Fathers could have intended.
Our lives will be in the hands of doctors who have been told that they don't matter and that they are employees of the State. Their incentive will no longer be to provide excellent care. Their incentive will be to simply clock in, clock out, go through the motions and retire as soon as the government pension kicks in. Not all that different from many existing government employees.
Greece has the worst health system in Fourth Reich. The Greek government does not pay its debt to pharmaceutical companies. Adding insult to injury, Graecokleptocrats accuse fifty leading pharmaceutical companies of cutting off supplies of key medications to Greece, sparking a run on pharmacies. Drug companies say the cheap medicines they supply merely get re-exported at a profit. Pfizer, Roche, GSK, and AstraZeneca are among the producers the government says have stopped providing certain medicines.
Beware of dishonest doctors who encourage hypochondria. If you become hypochondriac, your life will be miserable. Throw away 95% of your medicines, except a few vital ones, such as the high pressure pills! The side effects of most medicines will eventually deteriorate your health. The total effect of medicines on your health is negative.
The Greek presidency of EU must be annulled, because the kleptocratic alliance of Pasok mafia and Nea Democratia mafia cannot be trusted. The freakish government of Greece stole my computer, my files, and my life in cold blood! Basil Venitis, venitis@gmail.com, http://themostsearched.blogspot.com @Venitis
0 komentar:
Post a Comment