National Organ Transplant Waiting List !

Organ Transplant Waiting List.<>USA ~ Tennessee ~ Vanderbilt
1/26/2010

National List :

Kidney ---- 83,009

Liver---- 15,770

Pancreas---1,490

Kidney/Pancreas---2,195

Heart---3,013

Lung---1,828

Heart/Lung---76

Intestine---229

Total : 105,294



Tennessee :

Kidney---1,867

Liver---208

Pancreas---14

Kidney/Pancreas---20

Heart---117

Lung---32


Heart/Lung---0


Intestine---0


Total: 2,238



Vanderbilt :

Kidney---709


Liver---127


Pancreas---7


Kidney/Pancreas---6


Heart---27


Lung---20


Heart/Lung---0


Intestine---0


Total: 890

"Give The Gift of Life, Be an Organ/Tissue Donor, It`s the Masonic thing to Do " !

Organ/Donation ~ Just The Facts !

Organ/Donation & The Media ?

Sunday's NBC Dateline broadcast the story of the trial of the California transplant surgeon who was accused in 2008 of trying to kill a patient for their organs. It was widely reported when the charge was brought, and, as usual, totally ignored when he was found innocent. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34956452 This story is highly unusual for the media. I find that it`s the story not the facts that the media enjoys. Most, but not all Transplant movies are highly exaggerated ! It sells tickets. Get the facts from a Transplanted Patient or one of the accepted Organ/Donor Awareness groups. such as, Tennessee Donor Services. The Freemasons Grand Lodge of Tennessee. Click on the web-site above ! Click on the following for Tennessee Donor Services (TDS)> http://www.donatelifetn.org/ <

You can also contact this writer at > donjones90@gmail.com <> " Give The Gift of Life, Be an Organ/Tissue Donor, it`s the Masonic Thing to Do"! Grand Lodge of Tennessee, The Freemasons > http://www.grandlodge-tn.org/

Health Care Stopped by Republican Minority !

Republican Minority ~ Kills Health Care Reform !
By Don Jones = Underdog

I have been watching this so called debate on Health Care, in the Congress and the Senate ! I`m at a loss ? I do not understand ! Then a light turns on ! The health care/insurance/lobby money is buying votes and influence. Now, the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are unfettered to spend all the money they wish, to buy up their/congressional votes ! It seems that the American middle class is doomed. I have been an optimist most of my life. I am no longer an optimist. I have been told that, Unions can now do the same thing. That`s true. However, compared to corporations, unions are mere paupers. In other words, Union money compared to corporate money is like a drop of water in the ocean. Corporations can buy and sell us and anyone else to get their laws passed, and they will ! When George W. Bush had an opportunity to pack the court with two new Justices, he did ! Both Republican ! The Court is now (5) conservative and (4) progressive. Guess what ? American middle class loses again. The Republican minority is still running the country. Not by the majority votes they once had, but by the minority votes they now have. I would not have thought this possible, I was wrong ! They just say no to any of President Obama`s plans to reform, not only health care, but anything he try`s to accomplish. Senator Mitch McConnell (R) Kentucky is the minority leader. He has kept his troops in lock step to oppose anything the Democrats offer ! McConnell could care less about the middle class ! I know this, if health care reform is not accomplished. The things that are so desperately wrong with this country will not get any better. As I see it,(1.) Health Care, (2.)Trade, (3.)Wall-Street and (4.) Manufacturing are the most important items to be reformed. What can be done ? President Obama must begin by going to the American people and telling them, like it is. He must become President Franklin D. Roosevelt and tell the lobbyist and the Republicans things they have not heard before ! America can only survive by his strength. President Obama is a great orator. Action and deeds are needed to back up the oration !

Supreme Court Rules Against America`s Middle Class !

Supreme Court Packed by "Dubya" Rules Against Middle Class Americans...

Yesterday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend freely in federal elections.It's a green light for a new stampede of special interest money in our politics, giving their lobbyists even more power in Washington. Now, every candidate who fights for change could face limitless attacks from corporate special interests like health insurance companies and Wall Street banks.While the GOP is celebrating a victory for its special interest allies, President Obama is working with leaders in Congress to craft a forceful response that protects the voices of ordinary citizens. Please add your name right away to help show that the American people support strong, urgent action to prevent a corporate takeover of our democracy. Congress: I support bold action to ensure fair elections. The Supreme Court decision overturned a 20-year precedent saying that corporations could not pay for campaign ads from their general treasuries. And it struck down a law saying corporations couldn't buy "issue ads" -- which only thinly veil support for or opposition to specific candidates -- in the closing days of campaigns.The result? Corporations can unleash multi-million-dollar ad barrages against candidates who try to curb special interest power, or devote millions to propping up elected officials who back their schemes.With no limits on their spending, big oil, Wall Street banks, and health insurance companies will try to drown out the voices of everyday Americans -- and Republicans seem ecstatic.While opponents of change in Congress are praising this victory for special interests, President Obama has tasked his administration and Congress with identifying a fix to preserve our democracy -- and we need to show that the American people stand with him.Add your name today:http://my.barackobama.com/FairElections

Health Care Reform & The Public Option = Definition

The Public Option & Health Care Reform
Definition !

By Sarah Rubenstein

April, 2010

So what is this “public” insurance plan that President Obama has been talking about, anyway ? When Obama was on the campaign trail, he pushed the idea of giving consumers the chance to choose among both private and publicly sponsored health-insurance options. The idea has caused some consternation among insurers, who worry such a public plan would have an unfair advantage with the heft of the government behind it. Another question is whether the new public plan would pay doctors at the same rates that Medicare does — rates many doctors feel are too low. In a media briefing hosted by the Kaiser Family Foundation today, Nancy-Ann DeParle, who’s running the new White House Office of Health Reform, was asked for her own definition of the term. Her response:
A public plan is something that’s sponsored by the government, and therefore has very low or almost nonexistent administrative costs, compared to others. It doesn’t have the need to have brokers out selling; it wouldn’t have the need to have a lot of costs and profits, the way private plans would. So it has that advantage. It could operate by the same rules that all the other plans do; it could have payments rates that are very similar. Or it could have payment rates that are the same as Medicare — that’s one idea that’s been used. So there are various ways of looking at it. DeParle then said one model might be the plans that are offered to state employees. They’re government-sponsored and tend to be less expensive, but they’re often operated by private companies, she said. Another model is Medicare, she added.
When it comes to differences on how to construct such a plan or how much it would pay, “there are ways of bridging that gap,” DeParle said. Some folks on the left, including Howard Dean, are trying to make sure Obama doesn’t give up the idea altogether.

Editorial : The Public Option, a Good Idea !

Trade, Trade, Trade ~ China, China, China ! U.S. Workers Shafted Again !

President Leo W. Gerard, United Steelworkers International:

January 11, 2010 10:33 AM

In Trade, Too Often, the Victim is Blamed

A screwy thing happened after the United Steelworkers and eight domestic steel producers won their trade case late in December against Chinese manufacturers of the steel pipe used for oil and gas drilling. Instead of describing it as an important victory for U.S. industry and workers, one in which they proved to the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that China violated international trade rules, the media characterized it as Americans unnecessarily picking a fight with the Chinese. What else is new ? It's exactly what happened in September when the United Steelworkers won tariffs in a trade case regarding imported Chinese tires. What's particularly disturbing about this stance from the media is that it occurs only when a trade case involves manufactured goods. The media strongly supports protections for copyrighted material - movies, music etc. The media have made clear they oppose Chinese piracy of intellectual property - you know, like the written and filmed products that media members produce.
But their reaction is completely different when the Chinese violate international rules regarding manufactured goods. Then, the media blame the victims -- the U.S. industries and workers - the same way defense attorneys accuse rape victims.
Here, for example, is the Washington Post contending that the ITC decision to impose duties of between 10.4 and 15.8 percent on Chinese pipe heightened trade hostilities between the U.S. and China:"The current tensions began in September, when the United States imposed a staggering 35 percent import fee on tires from China." The Dow Jones Newswire in a story by Henry J. Pulizzi also charged the U.S. with provoking the Chinese by imposing duties, beginning with a reference to the steel pipe decision:"The ruling adds more tension to the U.S.-China trade relationship. Ties between Washington and Beijing are already frayed by the Obama administration's imposition of duties on Chinese tire imports and China's criticism of U.S. moves as protectionist."These reporters act like the decisions themselves initiated animosity between the U.S. and China over trade. That completely disregards how the process starts - with China violating international trade rules it had agreed to obey in ways that cause U.S. businesses to collapse, factories to close, thousands of U.S. paper workers, tire workers, steelworkers and others to lose their jobs, and their communities to suffer. We could sit back and just take it and allow U.S. industries to die, one after another, while China keeps its citizens employed by providing subsidies and supports forbidden under international law to its industries and then selling the goods in the U.S. at prices below production costs. But that doesn't sit well with most Americans. They believe their country should enforce trade rules. That is what U.S. industry and unions are demanding. That is what occurred in the tire and steel cases. That is what the United Steelworkers and paper manufacturers are seeking in a trade case to be heard later this year. Demanding adherence to the rules isn't protectionism. And the media need to stop saying it is. Here's how Dan DiMicco, chief executive officer of Nucor, the nation's second largest steelmaker, explained it, "It is not protectionism when countries are held accountable for the agreements and obligations they freely entered into to have access to the USA and world's markets." In addition to falsely making this a protectionist fight, the media wrongly contend the tariffs were political. Dow Jones, for example, tried to make the unanimous ITC decision in the steel case political, writing: "The ITC is an independent federal agency tasked with investigating the impact of alleged 'dumping' of foreign products on U.S. industries. While its six commissioners are split evenly between Republicans and Democrats, the decision fits with the Obama administration's push to address U.S. manufacturers' concerns about Chinese competition." Dow Jones implies here that somehow Obama managed to strong-arm all three Republican ITC members to vote his way in this case. None of the stories suggesting politics were involved in the tariff decisions note that Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama and nine Republican Congressmen joined dozens of Democrats in signing letters to the ITC supporting the duties.
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has written that failure to enforce trade laws and compel China to stop manipulating its currency could cost the U.S. 1.4 million jobs over the next couple of years. He describes China's behavior as mercantilist - supporting industry for export of goods to maintain high employment and trade surpluses. He quoted economist Paul Samuelson:"With employment less than full. . . all the debunked mercantilist arguments" - that is, claims that nations who subsidize their exports effectively steal jobs from other countries - "turn out to be valid."That is what China is doing to the U.S. - stealing jobs. The U.S. doesn't have to let it happen. America can enforce international trade laws. It works. Shortly after President Obama imposed the tire tariffs, Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. announced plans to add capacity to its Findlay, Ohio plant and hire up to 100 workers. Other U.S. tire plants began recalling laid off workers. American manufacturers, workers and communities are the victims of unfairly traded Chinese exports. They're fed up with the media blaming them when all they're asking for is justice.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-w-gerard/in-trade-too-often-the-vi_b_418424.html?view=print

Organ/Donation & Your (PCP)Primary Care Physician

Primary Care Physicians & Organ Donation ?

By Charles Bankhead, Staff Writer, MedPage TodayPublished: January 08, 2010Reviewed by Robert Jasmer, MD; Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco andDorothy Caputo, MA, RN, BC-ADM, CDE, Nurse Planner
Earn CME/CE creditfor reading medical news

Explain to patients that a survey of primary care physicians showed that physicians rarely discuss organ donation with their patients. Primary care physicians rarely discuss organ donation with patients, even though most of the doctors believe organ donation is within the scope of their practice, a survey of primary care physicians showed. Fewer than 4% of physicians said they discussed organ donation with patients, compared with 30% who discussed end-of-life issues. Almost two-thirds of the physicians said organ donation is not outside the scope of clinical practice. Most often, discussions about organ donation occur with grieving individuals who are trying to cope with a friend or family member's imminent death, or during applications for drivers' licenses and renewals.The survey findings suggest a need for increased involvement of healthcare workers, and more specifically, primary care physicians, according to authors of an article in the January issue of the Journal of the National Medical Association. "With more than 100,000 Americans waiting for organ transplants, it is crucial that we find new ways to increase donation," J. Daryl Thornton, MD, of MetroHealth Medical Center in Cleveland, said in a statement. "New efforts should focus on improving communication on the subject between healthcare providers and their patients."Discussion of organ donation with a primary care provider might increase patients' willingness to donate, Thornton and co-authors wrote. However, the frequency of such conversations had not been reported. To examine the issue, the authors conducted a mail and Internet-based survey of a national sample of 831 primary care physicians, with oversampling of African- American and Hispanic physicians. Respondents comprised 233 non-Hispanic blacks, 194 Hispanics, and 277 non-Hispanic whites. The 41-item questionnaire elicited information about respondents' demographics and practice patterns, professional knowledge about organ donation, and personal experience with organ donation, including their own willingness to be organ donors (live or deceased). White physicians tended to be older than blacks and Hispanics (47.3 years versus 43.6 and 44.8). More than half of the black physicians were women, compared with a quarter of Hispanics and a third of whites. About 60% of whites were family physicians, whereas 55% of blacks and 57% of Hispanics were internists. Overall, 97% of respondents expressed support for organ donation, with relatively small proportions saying they would be unwilling to donate their own organs (7% of whites, 11% of Hispanics, 17% of blacks). Responses showed that 47% of blacks had signed a donor card, compared with 61% of Hispanics and 79% of whites. Overall, 4% of physicians said they had discussed organ donation with more than half of their patients. The authors found that 5% of physicians had donor cards in their offices, while 11% had information about organ donation, and 50% could cite sources of information for patients. In contrast, 29% of black physicians, 36% of Hispanics, and 23% of whites had discussed end-of-life issues with patients (P=0.01, Hispanics versus other two groups). Responses showed that 16% of physicians received training in organ donation during medical school and 17% afterward. However, 71% had provided care for a transplant recipient. Most respondents felt they had inadequate knowledge about organ donation, but only 36% thought that discussion of organ donation was outside the scope of their practice. A multivariate analysis revealed only two significant predictors of organ donation discussions: donation education during or after medical school (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.00 to 6.5, P<0.05)>