noveds, (9/10/2009 10:59:29 PM)

"Sponsored by the University of Chicago". Well...
Did Dr. Clancy address tort reform as one solution to reigning in health expense?
"We know we are not competing on a global scale"
Well thank heaven for that. We have the best health care on the planet. People come to this country when they want to survive.

Webmeister, Tulsa (9/11/2009 5:38:34 AM)

Dr. Clancy is a government executive. Why wouldn't he advocate more government intrusion into our lives?

And, I don't need any lectures about "morally offensive" from creatures of this ilk.

Speaking at a panel sponsored by the University of Chicago, was he?

The self-same university gave BHObama a part-time sinecure as a adjunct professor of law for years. It was his only job besides running for elective office.

Then, hired wife Michelle at a $100K per year job.

But, surprisingly, when BHObama became a U.S. Senator, she suddenly got promoted into a $300K per year job as "Community Outreach" director. So nice to have friends in high places.

Did I mention this self-same university employs domestic terrorist Bill Ayers?

GARFIELD, TULSA (9/11/2009 7:29:31 AM)

Dr. Clancy speaks the truth. OU-all of Tulsa--is blessed to have such a sharp and caring leader for health issues!!

Angry Citizen!, Bluejacket (9/11/2009 8:41:27 AM)

He's right, because so many are uninsured and refuse to pay their medical bills, health care is too expensive. Perhaps he can take a pay cut to help out a little bit, it's the moral thing to do.

no1special, (9/11/2009 9:04:53 AM)

Dr. Clancy is a well educated, well spoken and respected member of our community and the educational and medical fields I appreciate his dedication to medicine. Webmeister- that is the "ilk" he hangs with. He works everyday to help his community, what do you do?
We are not competing on a global scale. Noveds, for every person entering the country for medical care, there are two leaving it. You need to do some research. We have fine medical care in America, when you can get it, but they have fine medical care in many other countries as well, cutting edge technology and research. It is just ignorant to think that the US who has a declining life expectancy rate is getting superior care than every other industrialized country who happen to have have higher life expectancy rates and lower infant mortality rates. We are not a healthy country and one of the main reasons is our healthcare system. For those of us who are fortunate enough to have health insurance, myself included, we are getting ripped off. For those who can not afford any, well that is morally offensive.
Angry Citizen you should be angry,I assume you have healthcare and you are getting ripped off by your private insurance company. Most people do not pay their medical bills because they can not afford to. Most people have insurance and still can not afford there medical bills. They are hard working law abiding responsible citizens. If you think nonpayment of bills is the only reason healthcare is so costly you are ignorant as well.
We, Americans are better than this.

justiceawaits, Claremore (9/11/2009 9:35:18 AM)

Allowing people to die because of a "preexisting condition" in the name of corporate profits is not only wrong it should have been made illegal a long time ago.
Politicians take in millions of dollars in contributions from insurance companies to protect insurance companies profits instead of the people they are supposed to represent.
Spreading fears through lies and trying to block healthcare reform to protect the insurance agencies and let people die should be grounds for impeachment.

my view, Sand Springs (9/11/2009 10:05:28 AM)

I agree with him [Clancy] on providing insurance for those that don't have it. Just leave the majority alone they have coverage.

Ignatz, Broken Bow (9/11/2009 10:42:16 AM)

noveds...no need for "tort reform" since that concept is a myth perpetuated by insurance companies to avoid paying claims. Doctors/hospitals make mistakes all the time that require additional treatments, hospital stays, loss of man hours at work, hardships on employers and families, etc. and the patient gets billed for the extra health care! We need "negligence reform" to weed out bad doctors and require hospitals to conform to good practices and hire good people to assure it. my view, if an alternate, public program such as Medicare were available I would choose it in a heartbeat over the private carriers. That is what they are afraid of and it has nothing to do with "health care".

not your friend 2,,,, missy, no thanks (9/11/2009 10:47:01 AM)

Who does not have coverage in America?Who you ask?I'll tell ya,its the immigrants and the homeless.Now I know alot of po folks,yep thats right,some are on govt.health care and others provided by the state.I dont know anyone with out health care that does not have the opportunity to apply for it.

Angry Citizen!, Bluejacket (9/11/2009 11:39:44 AM)

no1special, (9/11/2009 9:04:53 AM)

I don't think were as ignorant as Pelosi and Reid want us to be. You see, the WHO (World Health Organization), lists the United States as #1 in the treatment of Cancer and Heart Disease. Cancer and Heart Disease are the two leading causes of death in the U.S., according the the Surgeon General. Your argument that our declining life expectancies are a result of health care access is false. The WHO further explains that the U.S. has such an unhealthy population because 50% of us are obese. Please explain to me why I should hand the keys to our healthcare over to our troubled and corrupt congress, I'm ignorant. I watched Geitner on CSPAN report that Medicare/Medicaid will be defunct by 2015, and Social Security beyond repair by sometime in 2020- Not a very good record, but them I'm ignorant about these sort of things and have a "moral obligation" to give more power and wealth to Washington.

TheLastWord, (9/11/2009 2:31:58 PM)

Angry Citizen,

Nice spin but you forgot to explain why our infant mortality rate is higher than so many countries.
oh - and could you provide a link as to your source that WHO ranks us as #1 in treating cancer and heart disease?

Angry Citizen!, Bluejacket (9/11/2009 6:07:26 PM)

TheLastWord- Go to that site called Google and type in "cancer survival rates and globally"... Can't do the research for you, don't be a sucker~!

Here's an excerpt from the first hit:
"Cancer survival varies widely between countries according to a worldwide study published online today in "Lancet Oncology".* More than 100 investigators contributed to the study.

And while the USA has the highest 5-year survival rate for prostate and breast cancer than any of the 31 countries studied....Bla bla

Angry Citizen!, Bluejacket (9/11/2009 6:14:13 PM)

Oh and this should shed some light on your infant mortality rate, you should read up!

"Premature Births Increase in U.S.

According to health care experts, there is no simple explanation for the increase in U.S. infant mortality.

"But there are a number of factors that could contribute," said Dr. William A. Engle, neonatologist with the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis.

"The number of babies born pre-term has increased in general, and pre-term populations are at a higher risk for morbidity and mortality," Engle said.

BIRTHS OF TWO OR MORE babies are often associated with prematurity, and, Engle said, "the number of multiple births has increased." Some of these multiple births are the result of fertility drugs and in-vitro fertilization procedures.

Engle explained that while a normal, healthy gestation period is 40 weeks, because of the increased number of pre-term deliveries, the gestation period in the United States now averages just 39 weeks. "The 34- to 37-week gestation group has increased over the last 10 years," he said. "There are fewer births after 40 weeks than there were even a few years ago."

You must be pretending that there are no resources for indigent pregnant women and prenatal care- Shame on your spin..... or just plain lies?

DirtyWhiteHouse, (9/11/2009 6:23:27 PM)

Brad Henry is NOT LISTENING! What say you Bradly about the following? Did you vote YES???

-------------------

State dumps premium increases on teachers, state workers
More Info




September 8, 2009



Regular office visit copays will double from $25 to $50. Instead of the state absorbing a scheduled 13 percent increase in insurance premiums set in July, the insurance board and insurance commissioner Kim Holland decided to save the state $27 million by shifting the expense to your pocket books. In August, the premium increase was reduced to 7 percent while your doctor visit and prescription drug copays increased. Prescription drug copays were $25-$50 now increased to $30-$60. All changes are effective January 2010.

You pay, they save

$50 copays for office visits
$5 increase on prescription drug copays
Teachers and state employees shoulder nearly half the burden of increased insurance costs.
Teachers still don't receive benefits equal to legislators

While teachers get $442 monthly for individual coverage, legislators get $608 monthly for individual coverage.
While teachers get $0 monthly for family coverage, legislators get $1596 monthly for family coverage.
Contact The Oklahoma State and Education Employees Group Insurance Board to voice your opinion. Please mail postcards or letters to 3545 NW 58th, Suite 110, Oklahoma City, OK 73112. Address your letters to the Chairman of the Board Richard N. Womack of Bristow and Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner Kim Holland of Tulsa.

The next Oklahoma State and Education Employees Group Insurance Board meeting will be this Friday, September 11 at 10:00 a.m. The meeting will be held at Landmark Towers, Fifth Floor, Gene C. Howard Board Room, 3545 N.W. 58th Street Oklahoma City, OK

DirtyWhiteHouse, (9/11/2009 6:32:16 PM)

The Lancet:

Cancer survival varies widely across the developed world and within the United States. However, in almost every category Americans survive cancer at higher rates than patients in other developed countries. American cancer patients have a higher survival rate for every major form of cancer than patients in Canada and Britain-two English-speaking countries with which the U.S. is often compared.

DirtyWhiteHouse, (9/11/2009 6:33:00 PM)

from Patient Power Now dot org:
----------------------------

Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, noted that the United States invests more on health care than any country, but that its health care system ranks 37th.” - Denver Post, April 29 2008
A Google search reveals that many people quote this World Health Organization figure on Denver Post blogs. But do any of them know what the rankings mean? John Stossel dissects the criteria:

In the WHO rankings, the United States finished 37th, behind nations like Morocco, Cyprus and Costa Rica. Finishing first and second were France and Italy. Michael Moore makes much of this in his movie “Sicko.” …

But there’s less to these studies than meets the eye. They measure something other than quality of medical care. So saying that the U.S. finished behind those other countries is misleading. …

The WHO judged a country’s quality of health on life expectancy. But that’s a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That’s not a health-care problem. …

When you adjust for these “fatal injury” rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.

Diet and lack of exercise also bring down average life expectancy.

Another reason the U.S. didn’t score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations. What has that got to do with the quality of health care? For the authors of the study, it’s crucial. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how “fairly” health care of any quality is “distributed.” The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but “unequal distribution” would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.

Other good critiques of the WHO study include Glen Whitman, who blogs about it here and published a summary here, which also links a more detailed Cato policy analysis here.

DirtyWhiteHouse, (9/11/2009 6:39:01 PM)

i don't think ANY employer should be required to provide health insurance!

seriously - what IS THE CONNECTION? NONE!

that's like FORCING an employer to pay for car insurance!

no1special, (9/11/2009 7:33:31 PM)

not your friend- your name is fitting because if you do not know someone who does not have healthcare because they have no access, you either have few friends, or you hang with people who only work for companies that provide it or you just don't know about it. There are millions of people without health insurance, because they CAN NOT get it.

no1special, (9/11/2009 7:36:55 PM)

Angry I checked out the who and found the opposite of what you are stating, are web both talking about the World Health organization?

Aggie, (9/15/2009 2:21:25 AM)

Forcing one person to labor for another's benefit is morally offensive, too. It's called slavery. Where is there a right to make someone else pay for your food, health care, education, or anything else? As Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."