To N.Y. Times: The death of Michael Jackson.

I'm certain that everyone who reads my letter to the N. Y. Times already knows about Michael Jackson's death. I don't mention it in the letter to the Times, but I believe I know why he died. I've written a book, soon to be available, entitled "All Medicines Are Poison." Although the book discusses many aspects of the American health care system, the main theme is that doctors must proceed with every prescription they write after evaluating the risks. Benefits must outweigh risks.
I knew some members of the Jackson family and share their grief. A 50 year old man is a little more than middle aged. He should experience a full life. Michael had much to offer--it will never be seen.

The death of Michael Jackson had special meaning to me, not only because the world prematurely lost a great talent, but also because I knew members of his family. As a physician, I attended his grandmother until she expired. I also took care of several members of the family including his mother. She is a lovely woman and I sense her grief because of Michael’s death. I never attended Michael, but I met him once when I had hospitalized his grandmother. We had him wear a scrub suit, mask and surgical hat so that he could visit his grandmother without being recognized by his many admirers.
At this point the doctors at UCLA are unsure of what caused Michael’s death; apparently the autopsy was unrevealing. Perhaps the toxicology studies will give us an answer; he had been taking medicines and all medicines are poison. A doctor must weigh the benefits to be achieved, versus the potential risks before prescribing anything. I was fortunate to watch a TV interview of Dr. Deepak Chopra, who knew Michael well. He and I disagree on some aspects of practicing medicine, but I respect his viewpoints and I believe that he and I would agree on the cause of Michael’s death. I’m sure that he would also agree that a doctor should not only take care of patients, but also care about them.

Dr. Kirschner is a retired family physician. He continues to volunteer in community-based health related programs and is active on several biomedical ethics committees.

Melvin H Kirschner, MPH, MD

Private Health Plan vs. Public Option

People who write OP-ED pieces and present opinions on radio and TV, are certainly entitled to their opinions, but too often what they say is not the whole truth. As a senior who has Medicare coverage and has needed to use it many times in the last few years, I could not afford those illnesses without it. As a family doctor for 47 years how much sicker and more expensive to care for, than any other group. The benefits of Medicare are that no 65 or older is rejected and everyone gets the same coverage. Our entire population needs than type of coverage.

The authors of the N.Y. Times 6/25 OP-ED “The Only Public Health We Need,” speak out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand, they favor giving “private insurers the incentive to provide cheaper, better care.“ On the other hand they advocate “a public plan that will impose a stern and lasting discipline on our insurance market.“
The private health insurance companies know that they cannot compete with a public option and still be profitable. A pubic plan will put them out of business. How many seniors select a private primary health plan over the single payer Medicare?
The people who require the most health care, are already covered by Medicare. If every resident of this Country had Medicare coverage, they would be less of a financial burden than what our government spends on Medicare for our seniors only,

Melvin H Kirschner, MPH, MD

TIMES POLL

I wrote this piece to illustrate what the majority of our citizens want, but will not get. Money talks, and politicians are willing to listen even when it's not in the best interest of their constituancy. Not what our founding fathers intended when they created this Country.

The N Y Times printed an article entitled, “Poll Finds Wide Support for Idea Of Government-Run Health Plan.” The poll was conducted with 895 randomly selected adults throughout the United States. The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance. A government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers was favored. When asked which party was more likely to improve health care 57% of Democrats and one in four Republicans, said the Democrats would do better.
It’s obvious that the majority of the citizens of our Country want the single-payer or pubic option health coverage. This is a “Country of, by and for the people.” So why are we not getting our way? The answer is obvious. The health insurance and pharmaceutical industries give a lot of money to the legislators' re-election coffers. It’s time to start throwing those people out office or limiting them to two terms. We did that to the presidency, and it worked!

Melvin H Kirschner, MPH, MD

Hidden agendas regarding health care

Actions Flag Clear flag Print Message Show Message Status View Message Source --------- Move to: IMs Recently Deleted Saved Mail

control+option+pageup escape

mhkirschnermd@aol.com

Health Care America, the hidden agenda. I Wrote this Op/Ed peice in order to call attention to the fact that most people who favor single payer without an unspoken agenda are those who have no hidden hidden agenda. For most others it's profits ahead of health care. This is not how it should be. Yes, there are those who will cheat and game the system, but they are doing that now and always will. I'm delighted with the fact that most patients now want single payer, but over 50% of doctors now favor it. Read my reaction to the AMA's stance in an earlier letter. Their members (including me) represent only 25% of practicing doctors and the numbers are dropping.
From:	mhkirschnermd@aol.com
To:	letters@nytimes/opedsubmit.com
Date:	Thu, Jun 18, 2009 9:19 pm

To N Y Times Op/Ed
Over 50% of the population and caregivers of the United States are in favor of single-payer health care. They have no hidden agendas. They are aware that Medicare, a single-payer system for the seniors age 65 and older, has been successful. The senior population is the sickest segment of our population and requires the most care. Since the creation of the Medicare program our seniors are in better health and living longer.
It’s clearly evident that all those who oppose the single payer system, or even a public health care option, have a hidden agenda. This may be reduced profit and executive salaries for the for-profit private health insurance companies who are well aware that they can’t compete with a public health care option. They keep inventing and loudly publicizing reasons why single-payer is a bad choice. They point out long delays for care in Counties that have health care for all. This is only true for elective procedures and things of the kind. Urgent or emergent illnesses are treated promptly and the patient isn’t facing bankruptcy because of what it cost.
The private, for-profit insurers frighten patients by claiming that a public plan would not cover many procedures and treatments. They are careful not to mention private plan practices such as rescission, retroactive denials, the multiple differences in rules and coverage from pla
n to plan, plus the limitation of hospitals, doctors and other providers who will accept the plan as the payer. Medicare has one set of rules, almost everyone is eligible for coverage, most providers accept Medicare fees and no one is permitted to charge more than Medicare allows.
Those who oppose single-payer complain that single payer will cost trillions of dollars, especially if everyone is covered. The seniors are the sickest and most expensive patients in our Country. If the entire under age 65 people in our Country were covered, the cost of their care would probably not equal what we are spending for the seniors alone.
Taking all of these so-called facts into account, it becomes obvious which group has a hidden agenda that causes them to say almost anything to prevent a single payer or public health care option. It’s Profits ahead of health.
Melvin H Kirschner, MPH, MD

Dr. Kirschner is a retired Family physician. He still volunteers for numerous health related community programs and several biomedical ethics committees.

Re: Conyers Bill

I wrotes these letters to my local Congressmen because although Waxman is still indecisive, Sherman is a no. The incident at Sherman's Van Nuys office was the rude denial by the head of the staff to be interviewed regarding Mr. Sherman's position regarding health care for all. My letter to the Washington brought an apologetic phone call from the head of the Washington office telling me that is not their policy and it won't again. I haven't heard from Waxman and don't expect to.


June15, 2009

Dear Mr. Sherman:

I recently got a phone call from your Washington office, apologizing for the way my companions and I were treated at your Van Nuys office. I was assured that such behavior would not occur again. Now a major issue faces our Country.
I've been in practice as a family physician for 47 years. That's longer than Medicare has been around. As you know, Medicare is a single-payer system that has served patients and the health care system well. On the other hand, the private health insurance companies put their desire to earn maximum profits, ahead of patient care.
There are 46 million people in the U. S. without health insurance. Mr. Conyers health care bill is a logical solution to this problem and more than half of our people, including doctors, agree with this fact.
I realize that, at this time, you don't support single-payer, but I hope that you will support the pubic-option alternative. Senator Baucus said that it was “off the table.” Now he’s having second thoughts. Please don’t let vested interests buy Congress. Your loyalty must be in the best interest of patients as it always has been in the past.



June14, 2009

Dear Mr. Waxman:

Several years ago your office staff called me for advice on medical issues you were working on. I was delighted and flattered that your Washington office staff had decided that my opinion was valuable. Now a major issue faces our Country. I've been in practice as a family physician for 47 years. That's longer than Medicare has been around. As you know, Medicare is a single payer system that has served patients and the health care system well. On the other hand, the private health insurance companies put their desire to earn maximum profits, ahead of patient care.
There are 46 million people in the U. S. without health insurance. Mr. Conyers health care bill is a logical solution to this problem and more than half of our people, including doctors, agree with this fact. Don't let the vested interests buy Congress. Your loyalty must be in the best interest of patients as it always has been in the past.

Re: New York Times article, “Doctor’s Group Opposes Public Health Insurance Plan.”
As a family physician and member of the American Medical Association for nearly fifty years I was angry and offended by this report that the AMA opposes a public health insurance plan. The association stated that health services “should be provided through private markets, as they are currently.”
The association also said it: “does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health coverage and lower costs.”
I couldn’t disagree more. I don’t believe that I’m the only member of the AMA who feels that way. Medicare has always been good for my senior patients. Many of them would have had no health insurance if there were no Medicare, so as a doctor, I’ve also benefited from this government program.
The president of the AMA opposed, “government control of health care decisions or mandatory physician participation in any insurance plan.” Does the AMA think that 47 million Americans without health insurance is a better plan? I remind her that the private health insurance industry controls decision now, by refusing to pay for many tests, procedures and prior existing conditions.
I guess it’s time for me to resign from the AMA.

June14, 2009

Dear Mr. Waxman:

Several years ago your office staff called me for advice on medical issues you were working on. I was delighted and flattered that your Washington office staff had decided that my opinion was valuable. Now a major issue faces our Country. I've been in practice as a family physician for 47 years. That's longer than Medicare has been around. As you know, Medicare is a single payer system that has served patients and the health care system well. On the other hand, the private health insurance companies put their desire to earn maximum profits, ahead of patient care.
There are 46 million people in the U. S. without health insurance. Mr. Conyers health care bill is a logical solution to this problem and more than half of our people, including doctors, agree with this fact. Don't let the vested interests buy Congress. Your loyalty must be in the best interest of patients as it always has been in the past.



Melvin H Kirschner, MPH, MD