Memorial Donations

Our good friend and Democrat Rudi Neumann passed away the end of May. He was unique, an individual unto himself -- one of a kind. We will remember his generosity and his congenial nature. We will remember how eager he was to help. Rudi was married to Pauline, the wonderful quilter who has donated so many beautiful, handmade quilts to our club.

We have purchased Berrien County Youth Fair memorial benches and tables for a couple of our members who have passed away. We would like to do the same for Rudi. In the past, we requested donations from our membership for the specific purpose of purchasing these memorials.
Please, if you would like to contribute to a memorial for Rudi, contact Jess at 269-362-4964. The cost of a memorial is around $400.00.

1990 South 11th Street,
Niles, Michigan 49120
269-684-6030

Office Hours:

Monday: 9:00 AM -- 5:00 PM

(Monday "Coffee with Jess" -- help with contacting gov't representatives)

Tuesday 12:01 PM -- 5:00 PM

Wednesday 1:00 PM -- 7:00 PM

Thursday - 12:01 PM -- 5:00 PM

(EVENINGS: John Klimek)

Friday 9:00 AM -- 5:00 PM

("Friday coffee w/Edie," Chair)

posted 9/14/09

From Mike:

I have been doing the "South County" web site for approximately three years. Now, I find that personal time restraints preclude continuing the maintenance of the site and still do it justice. I wish whoever succeeds me as the custodian good luck. I know that the membership of "South County" will be behind this person.

I have been weighing this decision for some time and considering how I should leave the web site for the next caretaker. There were approximately twenty departments that I maintained -- at least half were updated each week. By most standards, it was a large site requiring many hours of work each week and I just don't think it proper to leave such a cumbersome "monster" to the next custodian. Most of the departments reflected my personal opinion as to what was important for a political web site and to leave it as it was, with twenty departments, would be in effect trying to impose my conception, or creation, upon the new custodian. I don't think that imposition is correct. Thus, I have reduced the web site to a lean web site of four or five departments and the next administrator can add or delete as they envision what a political web site should be.

Also, the web site is like a child. It would hurt my sense of former ownership to see web pages not updated and to languish unattended. To me it would be like my work was in a state of decay. It is better to reduce the size of the web site and then allow the new owner the opportunity of creating an outstanding political web site of their own design.

I have enjoyed maintaining the web site -- it has been a learning experience. Not having any formal education about the technical aspects of programming and keeping a web site meant that I was always looking up information about the "how to" do this or that. The book "Web Sites for Dummies" was a great help (joking, but also truthful).

Thanks for everyone's support.

--Mike Walker

POSTED 9/13/09

No matter what station we have in life; our health can change our path.

All of us have heard the debate raging on about the health care issue. So I decided to get some facts for myself and found that the issue is as the elected officials say “very complicated.” I went to the Senate Committee On Finance web site at the suggestion one of our Senators, Sen. Debbie
Stabenow. I was referred there because of questions I had about the issue of QUALITY health care not just health care. The reason for my questioning a difference was the experience our family had with my mother in the last years she was with us. My mother had Parkinson’s and I watched her slowly leave us as this illness got worse and was followed by dementia.  As this happened the family realized health care was needed beyond what we were capable of providing. My wife and I went to find care for her. This is when QUALITY care became an issue to us. We found the QUALITY care we wanted, only after doing personal unannounced visits to see the actual care given patients. We did not realize it was Quality health care we were seeking until I did this research; I was calling it the kind of health care that we preferred.  Preferring QUALITY  health care that provided proper staffing and many other issues. This convinced me to investigate what my wife and children could be facing in years to come for me or we for her, if the nation does not reform health care.

I started reading one testimony given by an expert on the issue of financing QUALITY health care in the debate going on. Then I read twelve other offerings to the committee. I would like to share some of the good, bad and ugly facts I found that stood out to me

The first testimony I would like to present is from Katherine Baicke, Professor of Health Economics Harvard Scholl of Public Health. “Misunderstandings about the general principles of health insurance have the potential to impede the development of a much-needed consensus on how to engineer reform. Uncovering the kernels of truth that underlie these misconceptions can help focus on reform efforts on the critical challenges facing our health care system. A key distinction should be made between health care and health insurance. Insurance works by pooling risks: many pay premiums up front, and then those who face a bad out come get paid out of those collected premiums. Uncertainty about when we will fall sick and need more health care is the reason we purchase insurance – not just because health care is expensive (which it is). Many other things are expensive, including housing and college tuition, but we do not have insurance to help us purchase them because they are not uncertain in the way that potentially needing very expensive medical care is. THE MORE UNCERTAINTY THERE IS, THE MORE VALUABLE INSURANCE IS”.

INSURED SICK PEOPLE vs UNINSURED SICK PEOPLE

 “Insured sick people and uninsured sick people present very different issues of public policy. People who have already purchased insurance and then fall sick pose a particular policy challenge: insurance is not just about protecting against unexpected high expenses this year, but also about protecting against the risk of persistently higher expenses in the case of chronic illness. This kind of protection means that once insured, enrollees’ premiums would not rise just because they got sick, but this is not always the case today. In fact, insurers have an incentive to shed their sickest enrollees, suggesting a strong role for regulation protecting them. Nor are insurers held responsible when inadequate coverage raises the costs of a future insurer, such as Medicare for those over 65. These problems highlight the limited availability of true long-run insurance offerings, a reform issue that is often glossed over in the combining together of health care and health insurance.

Uninsured Americans who are sick pose a very different set of problems. They need health care more than health insurance. Insurance is about reducing uncertainty in spending. It is impossible to “insure” against an adverse event that has already happened, for there is no longer any uncertainty. If you were to try to purchase auto insurance that covered replacement of a car that had already been totaled in an accident, the premium would equal the cost of a new car. You would not be buying car insurance – you would be buying a car. Similarly, uninsured people with known high health costs do not need health insurance – they need health care. Private health insurers can no more charge uninsured sick people a premium lower than their expected costs. The policy problem posed by this group is how to ensure that low income uninsured sick people have the resources they need to obtain what society deems an acceptable level of care and ideally, as discussed below, to minimize the number of people in this situation.

SOCIAL INSURANCE

This highlights one of the many reasons that health insurance is different from car insurance: the underlying good, health care, is viewed by many as a right. Furthermore, we may want to redistribute money from the healthy to the sick, in the same way that we redistribute money from the rich to the poor. This kind of redistribution is fundamentally different from private insurance: it is social insurance, and it is hard to achieve through private markets alone. Medicare, which insures the aged and disabled, is an example of a social insurance program. Private markets can pool risk among people starting out with similar health risks, and regulations can ensure that when some members of those risk pools fall ill, insurers cannot deny them care or raise their premiums, but transferring resources to people who are already sick and uninsured or transferring resources from lower health risk groups to higher health risk groups requires social insurance.

How then do we provide the sick and uninsured with socially acceptable care? Private health insurance alone is unlikely to achieve this goal: no insurer will be willing to charge a premium less than enrollees’ likely health costs. Instead, they could be provided with health care directly or a premium subsidy equal to their expected health care costs. Alternatively, we could force sick people and healthy people to pool their risks, such as through community rating coupled with insurance mandates (to preclude healthy people from opting out of subsidizing sick ones). These kinds of transfers are based on social choices about redistribution.

The advantage of social insurance programs, including a nationalized health care system, is that they can achieve redistribution that private markets alone cannot. They may also provide benefits with lower administration costs although, in the case of moving to a single payer system, the size of administration savings relative to overall health care cost growth is likely to be small.

Spending more to attain universal insurance is not a problem if it generates more value than it costs, and the view that health care is a right is not inconsistent with this framework. First, and sometimes over looked, is the security that insurance provides against the uncertainty of unknown health care expenses. The value of this financial smoothing alone is estimated to be almost as the cost of providing people with insurance. Second, much of the additional health care that the newly insured would receive is likely to improve health. (But this is by no means automatic, for being insured is not enough to guarantee GOOD HEALTH CARE. Extending health insurance coverage is worth it for these reasons – but not because it would save money.

Thus, while health insurance increases the quantity of care patients receive, being insured alone is not sufficient to ensure high quality care.  Insuring the uninsured will give them access to the sort of health care the rest of us receive: a combination of valuable care, overuse of some costly interventions with little proven benefits, and underuse of some vitally important therapies, care that is sometimes coordinated but often fragmented. This is better than no care, but it highlights the problem of collapsing the entire debate about U.S. health care reform down to the issue of uninsurance: health insurance does not guarantee good health”.

FINANCING HIHG QUALITY HEALTH CARE

The issue of financing a reformed health care system brings many different ideas and some passionate views as to how to pay for reform. This also brings out the true knowledge of some who speak about the issue at all levels. The following examples of options suggested for reforming the heath insurance system and also many that say how the health care system should be restructured as well. Some you and I have heard discussion on, others are different than the thirty-second sound bites and the pundits give us on a daily basis.

One option before the Senate Committee on Finance was presented by Stuart H. Altman Ph.D. of the Heller Graduate School of Social Policy and Management Brandies University. He stated the following “I understand there is a strong wish by many to pay for any expansion in health care coverage to the millions of Americans who lack any third party health care coverage with savings generated by either reducing what is now paid for care or by limiting the amount and types of care currently being provided. I share the view that there is substantial waste and excess in our current health care system. But to attempt significant provider payment cuts before we provide adequate financial coverage for all Americans or in conjunction with expanding coverage, I believe, be a serious mistake. Moreover, to make the uninsured, who are mostly the working poor, be the victims of our nation’s inability to curb health care costs is clearly unfair.

Unless we change the way we provide services, any serious reductions in the payment levels for services will, I fear, lead to a reduction in access to care and/or the quality of care provided. To change the delivery system we must move away from our current fee-for-service system to a payment system that rewards not more services, but appropriate services. Appropriate services often involve individuals who coordinate care as opposed to deliver services. Such care is most often found in what have been called “integrated delivery systems”. By developing integrated delivery systems we have the potential to reduce payment levels for services over time without negatively affecting access and quality”.

Dr. Altman also addressed the high cost of re-insurance and the role our doctors are playing in this debate 

“Hospitals play a key role in our health care system and must b a core component of any integrated delivery system. As we transition to more bundled or global payments any future hospital update amounts paid through Medicare PPS system should recognize that as hospitals develop more comprehensive health information technology systems, ………… they should use these systems to develop more efficient and lower cost care.

 It is well known that 80 percent of US health care expenditures are for the sickest 20 percent of the patients. Some private insurers try to protect themselves against the possibility that they could be responsible for the cost of such patients by developing techniques to limit coverage for individuals that might be in this group. Most insurers also limit their financial exposure by purchasing high cost reinsurance. Clearly the former activities should be outlawed and the purchase of re-insurance is expensive and is ultimately passed on in the form of higher premiums. I would suggest that the US could both reduce the overall cost of treating such high cost patients and reduce the cost of reinsurance by establishing a governmental reinsurance system. Such a system could be established through a state all-payer structure or through local or state health insurance exchanges. Each payer group would be asked to pay for a portion of the expenses in relationship to an actuarial estimate of their likely high cost cases. This new reinsurance entity would be responsible for a proportion of the high cost case expenses, e.g., 75%. So as to reduce the overall costs of treating such patients over time each appropriate state or local entity would be required to develop a high cost disease management system in consultation with the federal government. The federal government would evaluate the success of the different disease management systems and help incorporate those that work the best throughout the country”.

In his summarizing for his testimony he states some very important facts. “Most importantly we need to develop a system for providing health care coverage for all Americans. And, yes over time we should and can pay for the added costs of such expansion with efficiencies from our current health care delivery system. But such cost savings can not occur over night and will require some fundamental changes in the way we pay for and deliver care. It would be unfair to ask millions of uninsured Americans to wait for those of us who are well insured or who provide health care services to change our system.  Instead we should follow the lead of Massachusetts and expand coverage immediately while we set in place mechanisms that over a 10 year period will both improve the quality of care and lower its costs”.

Next to address the financing issue is Robert Greenstein, Executive Director, Center on Budget and Policy.

Financing is Critical

“Some 46 million Americans are uninsured, a problem that other western industrialized nations
have been able to address. In addition, rising health care costs threaten the nation’s long-term fiscal and economic health. If health costs per beneficiary simply rose at the same rate as per capita economic growth, rather than growing considerably faster, nearly three-fourths of the massive long-term fiscal gap we face would be closed.

There is a strong argument that national health care reform should be our highest domestic
priority. And, if it is this important, then it is worth paying for. Moreover, given the deeply
problematic fiscal outlook, we should pay for the upfront costs of health reform.

NO EASY OR PAONLESS ANSWERS

I wish there were a number of painless options. There aren’t. As you well know, some types of
improvements in health care hold promise as ways to slow health care cost growth, but either we
don’t have firm knowledge about the savings they would produce or the savings would be unlikely
to materialize on a substantial scale for a number of years. In other words, these initiatives don’t
“score.”

To finance badly needed health care reform, all sides will need to make sacrifices. Tough
measures will be needed — on both the spending and the revenue sides of the budget.
Moreover, the number of spending and revenue offsets that will be needed is likely to be
substantial. There appears to be no single option that is politically viable and that can, by itself,
produce most or all of the savings needed.

Spending offsets

The President’s budget proposes a series of reforms in health care programs, primarily in
Medicare, that CBO estimates would save $295 billion over ten years. Many of these reforms are
consistent with the findings and recommendations of Congress’ Medicare Payment Advisory
Commission (MedPAC). These proposals merit serious consideration.

• They would produce substantial savings to help finance health care reform.
• A number of these measures also could lead to cost-saving reforms in the private sector, as
private insurers followed Medicare’s lead in such areas as the bundling of payments, reducing
hospital readmissions, and basing provider payments on quality of care.
• In addition, these reforms would help strengthen Medicare’s finances, which badly need shoring
up for the long term.

These proposals thus would yield a triple benefit.

A newly released survey of health care leaders conducted by the Commonwealth Fund found
strong support for these proposals. Large majorities of the health care leaders surveyed voiced
approval of eight of the nine Administration Medicare proposals they were asked about.
In its March 2009 report to Congress, MedPAC issued several additional Medicare
recommendations related to other provider payment rates that would generate savings. These
should be considered as well.

ADDITIONAL MEDICARE ND MEDICAID PROPOSALS THAT WOULD PRODUSE SAVINGS

The Finance Committee explored a number of Medicare proposals in its roundtable on health
care delivery reform and discussed some of these in the paper it produced following that roundtable.

Let me suggest consideration of three additional savings proposals — two in Medicaid and one in
Medicare.

1. Delivery system reforms in Medicaid
As noted, the Administration and MedPAC have proposed various Medicare delivery system
reforms. Congress could consider applying these similar delivery system reforms in Medicaid as
well, where that is appropriate.

State Medicaid programs could be encouraged to establish bundled payments and to structure
their Medicaid payments to reduce hospital readmission rates. The federal government also could
facilitate the further use of pay-for-performance both in Medicaid fee-for-service and in Medicaid
managed care. In addition, states could be encouraged to institute promising care-management
programs for certain high-risk populations, including high risk pregnant women (to reduce the
number of neonatal intensive care unit admissions), children with asthma, and people with chronic illnesses.  Finally, more state Medicaid programs could be encouraged to limit Medicaid payment for medical conditions acquired during stays in a hospital; this is already required under Medicare and in some state Medicaid programs.

2. Lowering the Cost of Medicaid Drug Coverage

Congress could take steps to lower federal costs for drugs prescribed under Medicaid. This could
be done through several measures.

First, the minimum Medicaid drug rebate could be increased.

Second, the rebate could be applied to drugs dispensed by Medicaid managed care plans. Drug
manufacturers currently are not required to pay rebates on drugs dispensed to beneficiaries enrolled in Medicaid managed care plans.  This exception was based on the assumption that managed care plans could negotiate discounted drug prices as favorable as those required under the Medicaid drug rebate.  However, recent evidence shows this likely is not the case.  Applying the Medicaid drug rebate to drugs dispensed through managed care plans would ensure that  these plans get the best prices available, and it would allow the federal government and the states to achieve savings in their managed care capitation rates.

Both of these proposals to secure savings in Medicaid were passed by the Senate in 2005. Both
also are included in President Obama’s budget (and are reflected in the $295 billion in savings
referred to above that CBO estimates the President’s proposals would produce).

Several other steps also could be taken that would yield additional savings. Manufacturers of
brand-name drugs are required to pay additional rebates under Medicaid if prices for those drugs rise faster than the Consumer Price Index. The Office of Inspector General at the Department of
Health and Human Services has recommended applying a similar rebate adjustment to generic drugs.

The federal government could also encourage states to adopt Medicaid best practices in managing their prescription drug costs. Some states conduct periodic reviews of prescription drug usage, particularly among high users, to ensure that the drugs prescribed are medically necessary and thereby to limit fraud and abuse and improve patient safety. These states also monitor prescribing patterns by physicians and initiate general provider education efforts known as “counter-detailing” or “academic detailing,” which have been shown to reduce costs that stem from inappropriate prescribing. Some states intervene with specific providers who prescribe an unusually high number of prescriptions.

3. Reducing Costs for Drugs Prescribed through Medicare to “Dual Eligible”
Beneficiaries

Prior to the establishment of the Medicare Part D drug benefit, Medicaid provided prescription
drug coverage to more than 6 million “dual eligibles” (low-income Medicare beneficiaries who also are enrolled in Medicaid). In 2006, drug coverage for these dual eligibles was shifted to Medicare.

When Congress enacted the drug benefit, it assumed that the private insurers participating in Part D would be able to negotiate greater rebates from drug manufacturers than the rebates the
manufacturers had been required to pay, under Medicaid, for drugs dispensed to the dual eligibles.
An increasing body of research demonstrates, however, that the rebates negotiated by Medicare
Part D plans actually are well below the rebates that would have been required under Medicaid. As a result, the federal government is now incurring higher drug costs for the dual eligibles than it
previously incurred under Medicaid.

Harvard health economists Richard Frank and Joseph Newhouse examined SEC filings among
manufacturers of drugs used heavily by dual eligibles, such as anti-psychotic medications. They
found that that Medicare Part D plans were not obtaining prices that approximated the prices for
these drugs net of the Medicaid rebates. As a result, they found “manufacturers have realized
significant gains simply from the change in responsibility for purchasing from Medicaid to
Medicare.”

Similarly, Stephen Schondelmeyer, a University of Minnesota expert on prescription-drug pricing,
has estimated that most of the publicly released Medicare Part D prescription drug prices are 20 to 30 percent higher than the estimated prices in Medicaid net of the manufacturers’ rebates. In addition, in a July 2008 report, the majority staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found that had the dual eligible beneficiaries remained in Medicaid in 2006 and 2007, the federal government would have saved $3.7 billion on the 100 drugs most often used by this population. This figure was derived from the Committee’s review of confidential pricing documents provided by insurers and drug manufacturers at the Committee’s request.
To help finance health reform and lower Medicare costs, Congress could require drug
manufacturers to provide, at a minimum, the same level of rebates for prescription drugs provided to dual eligibles under Medicare Part D as would have been required under the Medicaid program.
There is no Congressional Budget Office estimate for this policy option, but the House Oversight
and Government Reform Committee staff estimated it would produce savings of as much as $86
billion over ten years”.

SUMMING UP THE IDEAS PRESENTED.

This is a presentation of facts gathered from presenters to the Senate Finance Committee. There are six more experts that testified and have ideas on improving our failing health care system. Those will be presented in another article later this week. These are not the complete statements give by these experts, only the facts I felt would inform those reading the article about the problem and some of the ideas to fix the problem. The facts prove there are serious problems facing the nation today and in the future. The discussion is how to fix the problem before it consumes the economy and the people of this great nation. The time devoted to this article was done in hopes the reader would think about the facts presented.

-- Jess Minks                    

POSTED 7/14/09

"Sir" Glen

Our good friend and fellow Democrat Glen Edquist about to be "knighted" by France. Glen and his wife often attend our meetings and tend to sit in the back by the kitchen.

Buchanan's Robert Jackson, others await France's highest civilian honor.

By LOU MUMFORD
Tribune Staff Writer

(From the South Bend Tribune) NILES — Darlene Jackson asked the question without it being asked. Should Jackson, the children's librarian at the Niles District Library, refer to her husband, Robert, or Bob, as "Sir Robert'' or "Sir Bob'' after July 30?

To be technically correct, perhaps she should.

On that date, Jean-Baptiste Main de Boissiere, the consul general of France posted in Chicago, will be at the library to bestow on Jackson and three other area men France's highest civilian honor. The award? "Chevalier,'' or knight, of the Legion of Honor.

Robert Jackson, 84, of Buchanan, will receive the award along with Glen Edquist of Niles, Vaughn Rebbeck of Michigan City and Sherman Strasser of St. Joseph. All are World War II veterans, and they'll be recognized for their efforts to liberate France from its German occupants during World War II.

It's not an honor dispensed lightly. The Legion of Honor was created by Napoleon in 1802, to acknowledge services rendered to France by people of great merit. It's an acknowledgment that's been a long time coming.

"It's a wonderful award. I'm glad France has recognized us,'' Jackson said.

His wife concurred.

"As these soldiers get older, it's more important, this recognition,'' she said.

Some already are aware of Jackson's story through his self-published book "Kriegie: Prisoner of War.'' The title stems from Kriegsgefangen, the German word for prisoner of war.

Jackson wrote the manuscript in 1949 and 1950, while memories of his harrowing experiences as a POW were still fresh. But it was only in 1995, after Jackson determined that he needed to preserve those experiences for history, that the book was published.

In it, the Crystal Falls, Mich., native wrote that he was called up as a replacement in 1944. Trained as a message center chief and bugler, he found himself in the Ardennes Forest firing a Browning Automatic Rifle after the previous BAR man in his unit was killed.

Jackson said he "got pretty good'' with the weapon until he was captured just three days into the Battle of the Bulge. He spent a total of 101 days as a POW and was marched hundreds of miles into Germany as the Allied advance continued.

Not only was food scarce — Jackson recalled he received one slice of bread a day after 12 to 14 hours of gathering wood from a German forest — but the cruelty of German soldiers was difficult to fathom.

"We were beaten on our legs with clubs, rifle butts. ... I think the guards got a kick out of being able to do that,'' he said.

Eventually, Jackson's group was marched to a railroad yard where they were loaded into boxcars for a trip deeper into Germany. But the locked boxcars weren't marked with POW signs, exposing the prisoners to strafing and bombing by Allied planes.

One such attack left many of the 72 prisoners in Jackson's boxcar dead or dying. The men had no toilet facilities, water, food or fresh air, yet it was a week before a German guard arrived to unlock the boxcar.

Unable to walk, Jackson said he fell after crawling from the car, eliciting laughter from the German soldiers. He was one of just five men in the boxcar to survive.

Liberated two days after his 20th birthday, he managed to keep his nearly frozen feet after seven months of rehabilitation at a hospital in Des Plains, Ill.

Jackson moved to Buchanan in the 1950s, commuting between there and LaPorte in the 30 years he worked for the old Levine's Boston Store in LaPorte. He retired in 1987, allowing him to put the finishing touches on his book that might seem to have the makings of a movie.

One problem? Few likely would believe it.

(From the South Bend Tribune) SOURCE ARTICLE HERE

POSTED 6/22/09 -- tip-of-the-hat to jess minks -- moved 7/2/09

City honors Holmes

By KATHIE HEMPEL / Niles Daily Star

BUCHANAN - As a life-long resident of Buchanan, Don Holmes was recognized at Monday's Buchanan City Commission meeting for his contributions in "Making Life Better" in Buchanan.

Holmes worked in the Data Processing Department of Clark Equipment for 18 years before becoming owner and publisher of the Berrien County Record for 21 years. He retired in 1999.

He has always been very active in the community as was evident by the Commission's highlighting some of his contributions.

Holmes started the Labor Day Festival which became the Buchanan Fest, and is now known as the Old Mill Fest. He served on the Buchanan Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors for six years (during which time he chaired the Pancake Festival and the Redbud Jazz Festival). He was the Chairman of the Common committee for five years and was the Chairman of the Buchanan Zoning Board of Appeals for eight years. He served as the Chairman of CUBB (Citizens United for a Better Buchanan) and when that group disbanded, they presented a $1,300 check to the Senior Center.

Holmes has been a member of the Buchanan American Legion for 50 years and is also a member of the Buchanan Moose Lodge. He has provided Public Relations for the Papason/Mamason Korean Veterans Association, Pears Mill, the Clark Salaried Retirees Association and for the arts in Buchanan.

His vocal renderings of classic songs are often heard at places such as the Moose Lodge, the American Legion, and the Acorn Theatre.

Holmes is the consummate volunteer, who enjoys working "behind the scenes" on many Buchanan activities. He has two daughters.

From the Niles Daily Star