Economy 101: White House Over-Regulation

Many of you have heard me mention the “alphabet soup” of health care. When it comes to HMOs, MCOs, PPOs, ACOs, and HSAs, it’s an insider’s code that often determines the quality of care each of us will experience in various health care settings. As I have come to better understand politics, new acronyms have presented themselves. To compound the matter, one acronym can have several meanings in different political settings. If I say “NRA,” what is the first thing that comes to mind? More than likely, the National Rifle Association comes to mind for many of you; however, the saga of Herman Cain has ushered another NRA, the National Restaurant Association, into the political arena. Now, it appears there is yet another NRA with widespread impact on the political and economic frontiers of America.

The new “NRA” stands for Non-Resident Account. In a nutshell, the present White House administration and IRS are seeking to gather privately held bank account information for those individuals who are non-residents of the United States yet park their money in our financial institutions. It is the administration’s stance that gathering such information will be a benign process. In a recent CNBC article (http://www.cnbc.com/id/45755189), Alex Sanchez, President of the Florida Bankers Association, explained that this will be far from a benign matter:

“The Obama administration wants to collect and exchange [the NRA account holders’] information with their homeland governments. For safe democratic countries like the United Kingdom, Switzerland and others, it’s not a problem. But these account holders hail from Bolivia, Mexico, Venezuela, and other South American countries. It doesn’t make sense. Mexico alone is a huge kidnapping and extortion country. We have $60-100b in NRA accounts in Florida alone.”

In other words, the naiveté of the White House will create a perilous situation for a great many people who feed our economy by placing their wealth in our banks. Folks, this approach to over-regulating and under-stimulating our economy will not have a happy ending.

A more reasonable approach centers on enticing the creation of even more NRAs within the US banking system. To be clear, we are not talking about terrorists-based banking accounts; but rather, the accounts of people who have made a way in life and are more at ease with their money in our banks. To chase away such patrons is both short-sighted and detrimental to our struggling economy. Then again, I have come to expect such impish behavior from this administration.

2012 affords us the opportunity to turn a new page for our government. We the People can make our voices heard loudly and clearly at the voting booth. I hope you will join me as we seek to Heal America!

Sincerely,

Marion D. Thorpe, Jr. MD, MPH

Chief Medical Officer (former)
State of Florida

Reagan's 11th Commandment: The 21st Century

"Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican" ~ President Ronald Reagan

The following can be said of the recent slew of GOP debates: informative, tense, entertaining, captivating, and at times combative. Post-debate comments have ranged from "these two have a personal dislike for one another," to "they are all ganging up on one guy," to "whatever happened to Reagan's 11th commandment?"

With the understanding that moderators of each debate have reveled in the intra-party fireworks and at times poured fuel on the fire (some more than others), America benefits when the process of selecting our GOP nominee is a "full-contact sport." In addition to candidate platforms, a major indicator of presidential demeanor stems from whether a given candidate can take the heat. Can he or she exude passion for the job while simultaneously preventing a misstep, blunder, or meltdown? Can he or she be forceful without becoming angry? Can he or she withstand blistering scrutiny and not forsake core guiding principles?

I do my level best to honor Reagan's 11th commandment at all times. That being said, I find myself increasingly supportive of the candidates' desire to "duke it out" during the presidential debates.

America is undergoing tough times. In 2012, we will need a leader with thick skin who has the intestinal fortitude to stand ground and not budge an inch. After four (4) years of indecisive leadership, beer summits, and handpicked audience members at televised Potus pep rallies, I for one am most ready for a president who leads from the gut without kowtowing to the morning's poll numbers.

While Reagan categorically believed in Republican unity and spoken goodwill to (and about) fellow Republicans, it stands to reason that 21st century political debate requires setting aside the ever-present "PC-speak" and chiseling down to the truth in order to shed light on each candidate’s core beliefs. Again, America benefits when the true character of a candidate is revealed. This is especially true when the revelation occurs prior to nominee selection.

For now, enjoy the break... It all heats up again on November 9th, November 12th, and November 15th.

United We Stand: Let's Heal America!


Sincerely,

Marion D. Thorpe, Jr. MD MPH

Chief Medical Officer (former)
Agency for Health Care Administration
State of Florida

Obama: America 'Not Better Off' Today than 4 Years Ago

I vividly recall the days leading up to the 2008 presidential election. In addition to the fact that I was engaged in a "fight to the death" Congressional race against 10-term incumbent Alcee Hastings, there was also a growing sentiment that a changing of the guard was fast approaching at the White House. The Obama campaign captured this sentiment in a short but effective campaign slogan: "Hope and Change." Only time would tell whether Obama could prove to be America's knight in shining armor... or our court jester.

Wind the clock forward as we enter the 2012 election cycle, and Obama now readily admits "America [is] 'Not Better Off' Today than Four Years Ago." My first reaction is to respond with "no duh." My more measured response questions the loss of the much ballyhooed "Hope and Change" that we heard of in 2008. Could it all really be George Bush's fault as Obama has repeatedly stated? The answer is of course not.

The blame for the lack of winds propelling Obama to re-election rests squarely on Obama. At his core, he is not a consensus builder. For those who argue that Obama's efforts to build unity have been thwarted, I counter with acknowledgement that true consensus builders keep at it until consensus is built. They do not retreat at the first sign of resistance and then smugly blame their predecessor(s).

As further proof that Obama is now getting the medicine that he deserves, the constitutionality of his Health Care law is on the Supreme Court's radar. Rather than choosing to have a consensus building dialogue from the onset of Health Care reform, this administration chose to ram this bill through Congress at 3 am during the holiday season. Again, a little outreach (and bipartisan perseverance) would have gone a long way towards helping Obama keep his "Hope and Change" campaign promises.

This administration's ability to alienate people in a routine and flippant manner is both baffling and epic. From his recent run-ins with the Congressional Black Congress, to his financial support for Solyndra, to his incoherent dabbling in Israeli matters, Obama seems hell-bent on exerting the power of the Oval Office on everything except the one thing America needs at this time: A Strong Economy.

As the election field is taking shape for 2012, I "Hope" our elected leadership will "Change" for the better. America's future is at stake.

United We Stand: Let’s Heal America!

Sincerely,

Marion D. Thorpe, Jr. MD, MPH

Chief Medical Officer (former)
Agency for Health Care Administration
State of Florida

Government-Speak and Health Care: A Slippery Slope

I am dumbfounded by the Government’s insistence on penetrating the personal lives of everyday Americans. The latest effort put forth by Uncle Sam involves the US Department of Health and Human Services’ push to collect and store all Patient data. To learn more about this intrusive practice, visit http://gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-15/pdf/2011-17609.pdf.

The section entitled “Data Collection Under Risk Adjustment (§ 153.340),” reads as follows:

“HHS considered three possibilities for data collection: (1) A centralized approach in which issuers submit raw claims data sets to HHS; (2) an intermediate State-level approach in which issuers submit raw claims data sets to the State government, or the entity responsible for administering the risk adjustment process at the State level; and (3) a distributed approach in which each issuer must reformat its own data to map correctly to the risk assessment database and then pass on self-determined individual risk scores and plan averages to the entity responsible for assessing risk adjustment charges and payments.”

My friends, this approach to Health Care reform is a slippery slope that will likely result in data breaches, loss of Patient confidentiality, Medical decisions made by non-medical individuals/entities, and a general loss of privacy (not to mention liberty).

The warehousing of Patient data by the US Government is wrong on so many levels. At the core of my objection is the fact that the sacred Patient-Doctor bond flies out the window with this practice. In the broader sense, my gut feeling indicates that anything and everything that can go wrong will go wrong when you mix sensitive Patient information with the bureaucratic quagmire known as Washington, DC.

For the record, here is the Government-Speak answer I received when I inquired about this matter: “This is a good thing for Americans. The possibility that Patient information may be lost here or there is acceptable collateral damage.”

Help me fight this matter. Our combined determination to shine a light on this “Big Brother” practice will generate the necessary force to stop such efforts that threaten the founding principles of our Nation.

United We Stand: Let's Heal America!


Sincerely,

Marion D. Thorpe, Jr. MD MPH

Chief Medical Officer (former)
Agency for Health Care Administration
State of Florida

The 2012 Election: Stakes Are High

For the better part of this year, I have held my tongue regarding the Health Care changes supported by the Obama administration and adopted by both chambers of Congress. On the surface, it appears that the proposed changes to America's Health Care delivery system are benign and altogether altruistic. After all, what compassionate person could argue against Health Care for all Americans? Furthermore, who would dare challenge the President and Congress on the passage of this new legislation?


Well folks, I am "that guy"... the one who stands up to the President and Congress and firmly decries the shortcomings of this budget busting law. As a physician, I am acutely aware of the need to provide medical care for people in an emergency situation. I am also acutely aware that there are far more humane and effective ways to provide emergency and routine care for people other than the manner outlined by the President and Congress. Quite simply, the present Health Care law will create a 2-tiered Health Care delivery system in America with the "haves" receiving one type of Health Care experience and the "have-nots" receiving another type of Health Care experience.

Guess which group the middle class will be grouped with?

Also, guess which Health Care experience will be more thorough, more effective, and more pleasant?

Of further concern, the President and Congress have wagered Medicare coffers to the tune of (at least) $500 Billion as collateral to aid passage of the Health Care law. In a state like Florida where we value the input, wisdom, and health of our citizens who are 65 and older, this tampering with Medicare funds is especially deplorable. Again, I ask who will stand up to the President and Congress and boldly say that "Enough is Enough!" Again, I answer by stating categorically that I will.

The only remaining question I have is who will stand with me? The answer rests squarely on you.

United We Stand: Let's Heal America!


Sincerely,

Marion D. Thorpe, Jr. MD MPH

Chief Medical Officer (former)
Agency for Health Care Administration
State of Florida

The ABC’s of Immigration Reform

The ABC's of Immigration Reform



When I decided to enter the race for US Congress in Florida, I made a promise to my supporters that I would maintain my trademark common-sense approach to even the most difficult of problems affecting my fellow citizens. In this spirit, the following article is a primer course on "Immigration Reform 101."

A key component of my platform hinges on two fundamental tenets:

1) If it is broken, fix it;

2) If it "ain't broke," don't fix it.



My friends, Immigration Reform is clearly broken; thus, we need swift enforcement of our present immigration laws and effective legislation that will secure our borders while simultaneously allowing entry into our Nation for those who wish to pursue the American Dream in an honest and hard-working manner.



The tendency amongst today's DC politicians to alternately ignite and back-burner the Immigration Reform debate (depending on the "hot topic" polling results of the day) squarely illustrates the fact that America has yet to adopt a common-sense mentality when grappling with this issue. Partly due to worries of "Political Correctness," and partly due to the modern day complexities of discerning the "Good Guys" from the "Bad Guys," our Nation is at a loss of words (and meaningful action) for the proper reformation of Immigration laws. I humbly suggest that the time has come for a refresher course in "Immigration 101."



The Course outline is as follows:


a. Americans want our borders secure and we want our borders secure now! Let there be no doubt, we are indeed in the era of suitcase bombs and suicide commandos.


b. Americans should have first dibs on America's jobs. It is unacceptable for the citizens of Florida and America to lose jobs to those who have attained illegal entry into our Nation.


c. Those immigrants who have attained proper legal citizenship status in the United States should be afforded non-disparaging treatment during our Nation's continuing Immigration Reform debate. Categorically, there is no useful need to group all legal and illegal immigrants together when discussing this matter.


d. America's infrastructure does not have limitless resources. It is illogical to abandon the Health, Education, Welfare, and Safety of our own citizens in favor of providing for those who have gained illegal entry into our Nation (this matter has a $3.8 Billion price tag for Florida's citizens).


In closing, I ask each of you to recall the very serious ramifications of "cutting in line" for the school cafeteria when we were youngsters. If such a dastardly act occurred, it instantly seemed as though all structure and meaning in the world disappeared until our teacher corrected this "catastrophic inequity." Once order was restored to the matter, fairness and good citizenship resumed a grip-hold on our childhood reality. The very same principles are in play for Immigration Reform in the U.S.



No one should be allowed to "cut in line" to attain the American Dream. To allow such subversive action imperils the essence of American citizenship and cuts across the grain of Homeland Security and Preparedness.



Sincerely,


Marion D. Thorpe, Jr., MD MPH

United States Congress Candidate (Florida)



Chief Medical Officer (Former)

State of Florida

Stem Cell Debate Isn’t About Ideology

The polarizing ideology surrounding stem cell usage leaves very little room for thoughtful discussion. All too often the mainstream media frames this matter in such a way that either you support stem cell research to cure cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s – or you’re a Neanderthal, opposed to medical progress and dismissive of human suffering. That’s pure nonsense. It’s far more complicated.

Most agree that stem cells are wonderfully versatile, with great potential to transform themselves within the human body and advance treatments and cures for many diseases. Beyond that, there are actually three important stem cell debates going on. We need to come as close as we can to getting each one right.

The morality debate. Not all stem cells are created equal. There are embryonic stem cells taken from “discarded” human embryos, stem cells extracted from a delivered baby’s umbilical cord with no risk to the donor, and adult stem cells derived from skin, organs and other parts of the body with little risk to the donor.

The Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Director of Education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, puts the moral argument against using embryonic stem cells this way: “(Clearly) this research exploits younger humans, with lethal consequences, to address the needs of older and wealthier humans. The human embryo is being slowly transformed before our eyes into a commodity to be exploited, a kind of raw material to be utilized on the way to making a brilliant career as a scientist, or making profits as an entrepreneur, or making treatments for myself when I’m sick.”

Ruth Faden, Director of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, has a different perspective: “Those who believe that human embryos have the same moral status as the rest of us will and should continue to press their case. For most Americans, however, the president’s policy strikes the right moral balance (on) reducing human suffering and improving human health.

The medical debate. With due respect to Ms. Fadden, no one has yet significantly reduced human suffering or improved human health with any stem cell, embryonic or otherwise. That jury will be out for a long time.

In fact, the most exciting developments to date have come from adult stem cells drawn from patients themselves. Scientists have already discovered how to morph them into heart and brain cells in the laboratory, and recent reports cite patients with spinal cord injuries and multiple sclerosis benefiting from adult stem cell therapy.

Meanwhile, scientists recently reported that a new kind of stem cell called iPS (induced Pluripotent Stem cell), discovered in 2007, has been transformed into mature nerve cells. iPS stem cells are created using DNA from adult skin, with no need for embryos or eggs.

If non-embryonic stems cells become the surprise winner in the medical debate, the moral debate probably disappears.

The money debate. Questions of morality, medicine and money – specifically federal dollars –are about to collide. President Obama has given the National Institutes of Health (NIH) the authority to determine both ethical standards and funding eligibility for two kinds of embryonic stem cell research: research using stem cell lines taken from embryos remaining after in vitro fertilization (controversial because organizations such as Snowflake have been helping couples have children through embryo adoption for years), and research using stem cells from embryos created for research (much more controversial).

Most controversial of all would be altering legal prohibitions against spending federal dollars to create or destroy human embryos engineered to donate stem cells. President Clinton banned the practice by Executive Order. President Bush reaffirmed the ban, and it will stand unless present leadership overturns it (Note: though Obama overturned the ban, the Dickey Amendment prohibits federal funds to be used to create or destroy human embryos for research purposes).

As a Medical Doctor, here’s my personal bottom line. I am committed to human life, health and healing. And I took the Hippocratic oath to “first do no harm” [Hippocratic corpus]. Neither changes – whatever the future holds for stem cells.

Sincerely,

Marion D. Thorpe, Jr. MD MPH
US Senate candidate
Florida

Chief Medical Officer (former)
Agency for Health Care Administration
State of Florida

www.marionthorpe.com
doc@marionthorpe.com