In Jeff Hawkes’ column “Canada care, through eyes of its citizens,” LaMar Weaver compares the healthcare he had received in the USA with his experience in Canada:  “There are some (Canadians) who would complain, for sure.   But for the most part, I think they would be well satisfied when they look down to the States and hear about the hassles and those who aren’t covered.”

WATCHDOG: A poisonous combination of ‘American Exceptionalism’ (defined as whatever we do here must be better per se than what others nations do) and hundreds of millions spent by the health care lobby has resulted in the spurious notion that our dysfunctional medical system is superior to the single payer systems found elsewhere in the world.

Those of us with family and friends in Canada know better. Canada provides superior health care at two-thirds the cost.

Two shakes of the tail for Hawkes’ brave report!

A viewer wrote “LGH is not a ‘Public Foundation.’ ”

NewsLanc inquired of Lancaster General Hospital and was advised “Lancaster General Hospital is not a foundation. It is a public charity.”

We appreciate being corrected, but the difference, if any, is largely semantic and therefore does not change anything.

Below is an official definition of “Public Charities” by the Internal Revenue Service:

“Public Charities”

A private foundation is any domestic or foreign organization described in section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code except for an organization referred to in section 509(a)(1), (2), (3), or (4). In effect, the definition divides section 501(c)(3) organizations into two classes: private foundations and public charities.

Generally, organizations that are classified as public charities are those that (i) are churches, hospitals, qualified medical research organizations affiliated with hospitals, schools, colleges and universities, (ii) have an active program of fundraising and receive contributions from many sources, including the general public, governmental agencies, corporations, private foundations or other public charities, (iii) receive income from the conduct of activities in furtherance of the organization’s exempt purposes, or (iv) actively function in a supporting relationship to one or more existing public charities. Private foundations, in contrast, typically have a single major source of funding (usually gifts from one family or corporation rather than funding from many sources) and most have as their primary activity the making of grants to other charitable organizations and to individuals, rather than the direct operation of charitable programs.

An article headed “Schumer: Public Option Near Votes Needed to Pass” goes on to quote the senator as stating:

“A proposal for the public option that is gaining wide support would allow states to choose not to participate in a government-run insurance program, said New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat. The “opt out” proposal is drawing support from many liberal and moderate senators and less opposition from lawmakers wary of government insurance.”

WATCHDOG: A vigorous wag of the tail!

The real way to save malpractice costs is to reduce malpractice itself, not limiting malpractice awards.  Limits on awards simply shift the costs from those who commit malpractice to the victims because the severely injured or killed can’t get full compensation and the less injured find it uneconomical to bring a claim at all.

National Practitioner Data Bank data show that in most states only about 2 percent of physicians have been responsible for over half of all the money paid out for malpractice since 1990.  Quite often these few physicians have multiple payments in their records but no action ever taken against their license or clinical privileges.  If the licensing boards revoked or restricted the licenses of the repeat offenders or if the hospital peer reviewers took action to restrict or revoke their clinical privileges, we could not only save money on malpractice, we’d save lives and prevent injuries, too.

We’d save far more than limits on malpractice awards would save.  There are fewer than 20,000 malpractice payments each year.  Yet the Institute of Medicine says there are about 100,000 deaths a year from malpractice.  Other sources double that number.  And those are just deaths; injuries not resulting in death are not included in their estimates.  So it is obvious that by reducing malpractice itself, we’d save much more money than we would be limiting malpractice awards.  Not only that, we’d save lives and prevent injuries.  We’d be treating the disease—malpractice itself—not just the symptoms — malpractice payments.

All the radio and television stations in that market are rejoicing, at the fact that their competition is kneecapping themselves.

In the 1950s, newspapers got 25% of their revenue from circulation, and the cost of a subscription covered the actual paper, ink, and distribution costs. These days, newspapers get less than 10% of their revenue from circulation, and it doesn’t even cover the cost of getting a newspaper to the subscriber.  They’re paying the subscriber to read the paper.

But that’s all right. Radio and television stations deliver the news to their audience at the station’s expense – and increasingly, local broadcasters are finding that news is the key to high ratings and profitability.

If I were WGAL’s owners, I’d be hoping and praying that Steinman decides to charge for access to LancasterOnline.com, and fearful that Steinman would draw on the expertise of their Delmarva broadcasting unit to turn LancasterOnline.com into an online television station.

Some news, such as obits, doesn’t work well in a broadcast format, at least at present. WGAL can’t afford to use hours of broadcast time to broadcast 50 or 100 complete obituaries every day. Other news, such as local athletic events, works well as a broadcast event, but WGAL can’t handle 20 simultaneous football games. A website, on the other hand, could stream live coverage of every high school football, basketball and baseball game in Lancaster County – and there’d be no shortage of companies interested in reaching such an audience.

Steinman – or Newslanc! – could hire away one of WGAL’s well-known and trusted anchors. Janelle Stelson is the obvious choice, but it’d be pricey to get in a bidding war for her. Anne Shannon, though, is a local girl, having come from CV, and she’s increasingly professional in her delivery. Release a half-hour package of local news at 5 PM, updated at 7PM, 9 PM, and 11 PM, using Shannon as a newsreader, and let users can start watching at the time that’s convenient for them. Hire some lesser stars, and release more updates every 2 hours around the clock. I doubt there’d be much difference between the 2 AM and 4 AM news, except for the weather. You might even want to update the shows hourly, with only the weather changing most hours.

The thing is, you market your news as the “Lancaster” internet television news station, as opposed to Lancaster, York, Harrisburg, Lebanon. There are more people commuting towards Philadelphia suburbs than towards Harrisburg. And the fact that you can start watching at 9:14 PM, instead of having to wait until 10 or 11 PM (or waiting for an 11 PM broadcast that’s been delayed to 11:47 because of a ball game) better suits many people’s lifestyles.

Because the Steinmans have that wonderful LNP sales staff to sell advertising, and the LNP to promote the internet station, and the Delmarva people to provide broadcasting expertise, they have a leg up on someone like NewsLanc – but if they don’t do it, that leaves the field open to anyone who wants to. No hassles getting a license from the FCC. No need to build an expensive tower and staff it with broadcast engineers around the clock. Just set yourself up a small studio in a warehouse somewhere, and get yourself a team of news gatherers and producers, armed with increasingly inexpensive video cameras.  You could even become competitive with a local internet news station for less money than it would cost to buy and operate one of the minor radio stations in the area that hasn’t made a nickel in the last twenty years.

But this is a limited time opportunity. Once someone gets established, it’ll be as hard to displace them as it has been to start up a new newspaper to compete with an existing daily.

NewsLanc’s response:

Although NewsLanc.com is basically an altruistic and totally donor subsidized venture reacting to the consolidation of influence and power which has resulted in poor leadership and, at times, exploitation of the public, we had pondered whether it should either seek to become a money-making venture or transform into a public foundation.

The foundation proved impractical due to a requirement for a diversity of  funding sources that would be unlikely.

The money making model conceptualized both separate and combined service to Harrisburg, York, Reading as well as Lancaster. Not only would this greatly expand viewership, but it also would attract national advertisers because we would be delivering a market not covered by the daily print media and only partially serviced by radio and television.

At such time as someone two generations younger turns up with the brains and the fire in the stomach to seek such a goal and younger investors are attracted to such a venture, NewsLanc will entertain market expansion and major transformation. Until then, we are honored to serve the 5,000 to 7,000 Lancastrians who read our articles and exchange thoughts each week,  and to continue to promote transparency, competence and fair dealings within our governments, public foundations, and businesses.

From the New York Times Service:  “Hospitals get help to fight the flu”, “Henry V’s greatest victory besieged by academia”, “Pakistan says it captured Taliban stronghold”, “Rising small-business health costs press on reform efforts.” From the Washington Post, “A news Fox among hens.” From the Chicago Tribune: “Savvy students can save a bundle on airfare.”

WATCHDOG: A wag of the tail for the Lancaster Newspapers, Inc. for providing outstanding reports from the national media to supplement its own local news coverage.

Readers were treated to Gil Smart’s “Just a different flavor of spin” across the  Perspective section from Charles Krauthammer’s “A news Fox among hens.” Smart rose to the occasion.

WATCHDOG: The more things change….

From Ron Chernow’s “Alexander Hamilton”, Pages 395 and 396:

“How could Jefferson hound Hamilton from office without tipping his hand?  A proficient political ventriloquist, Jefferson was skilled at using proxies while keeping his own lips tightly sealed.  The mouthpiece he chose to broadcast his views was the poet Phillip Freneau.  The Republicans had been bedeviled by the Gazette of the United States, a paper edited by a former Boston schoolmaster, John Fenno, who was adoring in his treatment of Hamilton.  Hamilton had urged Fenno to start the paper in 1789 and later raised money to rescue it from financial distress …

“Like other newspapers of the 1790s, Freneau’s National Gazette did not feign neutrality.  With the population widely dispersed, newspapers were unabashedly partisan organs that supplied much of the adhesive power binding the incipient parties together.  Americans were a literate people, and dozens of newspapers flourished….They more closely resembled journals of opinion than daily newspapers.  Often scurrilous and inaccurate, they had few qualms about hinting that a certain nameless official was embezzling money or colluding with a foreign power.  ‘Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper,’ Jefferson later said. ‘Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put in that polluted vehicle.”’ No code of conduct circumscribed responsible press behavior.’”

Considering that James Madison was Jefferson’s ‘cat’s paw’ during the Washington and Adam administrations, it is rather amusing to have Krauthammer state “We have norms, Madisonian norms.” Perhaps this is true in Madison’s public positions, but hopefully not in his and Jefferson’s backstage practices.

In response to a note that the New York  Times’ critic also didn’t like “Amelia”  (http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/movies/23amelia.html?8dpc), our Santa Monica Reporter, Dan Cohen, responded:

“It was an easy movie not to like, but what I tried to do is to show how it represents a certain type of Hollywood thinking.

I’m never much interested in thumbs up or down; your readers can easily get that elsewhere.

I’m interested in talking about a movie and its place in the culture, without being too pretentious about it.  I’m also glad to point out the gems most people wouldn’t see,  so if they’re thinking of a little trip to Philly,  where the Ritz plays almost everything interesting, or finding a good DVD,  I’m alerting them.

BTW, make it a point to seek out ‘Baader Meinhoff Complex.’  Probably out of theaters now, but soon to be in DVD.”

1) In the interest of transparency, improved performance and since it is a Public Foundation, LGH should open its board and committee meetings at least once every three month to the public and media so that proceedings can be observed, questions posed and issues discussed.

2) Three members of the Board of Trustees should be elected by the public to four year terms.

3) In recognition that LGH’s huge profits (well over a hundred million dollars each year) are in large part a result of its market dominance, at least 20% of earnings should be spent each year towards public health and for education. An extra $25 million would make a huge difference in the quality of health and life in our community.

4)  LGH should hold three public forums over the next year to explain and hear comments about its proposal to build a hospital within three miles of Ephrata Community Hospital in West Earl Township. We have not encountered a single person who doesn’t consider the notion bizarre.  Minimally, explanations and public discussions are in order.

An editorial “Health reform and higher taxes starts” states

“U. S. Rep. Joe Pitts has a message for Pennsylvania and other states that have gone through protracted budget fights: Get used to it…Health care reform bills being discussed now call for a substantial boost in spending on Medicaid, the government health insurance program for the poor…Since Medicaid is funded by both the federal and state governments, both would be required to pick up the additional cost.”

WATCHDOG: Not only does the dog wag his tail, but he opposes any health care reform that does not minimally include a “public option” provision.

We can’t get something for nothing. Either we pay more to cover the uninsured or we reduce costs sufficiently to offset the added costs. It’s a simple as that.

Studies show that health care for the typical American is mediocre compared to other developed nations, yet the system costs at least half again as much. The huge profits earned by insurance companies and Lancaster General are coming from everybody’s salary at a rate of an extra dollar an hour. (LGH thrives due to market dominance which enables it to determine what insurers and the public will pay.)

Only by injecting real competition through an expanded, pay-as-you-go, Medicare type program and taking other important steps, such as limiting malpractice awards, can we free ourselves from a system so devastating to our economy and ultimately to our national security.