It is impossible to know all of the effects this bill will have on the health of American people. What we do know is that the health care system is quite broken and much of the system needs to be changed to result in a positive outcome. Patchwork will no longer work for everyone it's intended to help. Everyone from patients to insurance companies to government rely on each other in this system and each deserves their own share in benefits and sacrifices.
I am surprised to find myself hopeful in the outcome of this bill. There would be no progress without the passing of a sweeping overhaul at this point because the production of smaller bills would never find their way through the politics of Washington. The health care system and the economy are not too fragile to withstand these changes. Though this bill may be imperfect, the bill will be under the scrutiny of repeals, representative elections, public opinion and all the pliability our great system of government and our economy allow.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Thursday, November 5, 2009
What are we reforming here?
I stole this off of Nick's facebook page. It's a quick overview of why malpractice reform hasn't been an issue in our health care debate. An argument I have heard is that this type of reform needs to be done on the state level.
Why medical malpractice is off limits.
It appears to me that the cost of medical care is skyrocketing and needs to be reduced by all measures leading to the increasing cost of care. The three factors as I see it leading to the immense cost of health care are malpractice insurance, compensation for low pay to doctors from government plans, and compensation caused by uninsured individuals not paying a dime. (by compensation I mean if one person doesn't pay anything or very little, people who do pay, pay more)
The health care bills as they stand will decrease the cost of care compensating for uninsured individuals by insuring more people, but government plans including medicare and medicaid and future government options do not and will not pay out enough to adjust for this compensation. These programs pay doctors next to nothing for their efforts which alone increase the cost of health care for those with private insurance. Adding on the additional cost of malpractice insurance, private insurance companies will not be able to afford to handle this burden.
A bill in congress, the medicare physician fairness act of 2009 bill 1776, which would have increased the amount paid to physicians as standardized payment from levels set in 1996(thats right 1996, everyone knows that health care costs much more now than it did in 1996), was shot down last month.
So of the three things in my mind leading to the insurmountable cost of health care, the only one addressed in these bills is insuring the uninsured, but this will not bring down the cost of health care alone.
Why medical malpractice is off limits.
It appears to me that the cost of medical care is skyrocketing and needs to be reduced by all measures leading to the increasing cost of care. The three factors as I see it leading to the immense cost of health care are malpractice insurance, compensation for low pay to doctors from government plans, and compensation caused by uninsured individuals not paying a dime. (by compensation I mean if one person doesn't pay anything or very little, people who do pay, pay more)
The health care bills as they stand will decrease the cost of care compensating for uninsured individuals by insuring more people, but government plans including medicare and medicaid and future government options do not and will not pay out enough to adjust for this compensation. These programs pay doctors next to nothing for their efforts which alone increase the cost of health care for those with private insurance. Adding on the additional cost of malpractice insurance, private insurance companies will not be able to afford to handle this burden.
A bill in congress, the medicare physician fairness act of 2009 bill 1776, which would have increased the amount paid to physicians as standardized payment from levels set in 1996(thats right 1996, everyone knows that health care costs much more now than it did in 1996), was shot down last month.
So of the three things in my mind leading to the insurmountable cost of health care, the only one addressed in these bills is insuring the uninsured, but this will not bring down the cost of health care alone.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Best news this week
the public option was actually the american medical association's baby in health care reform, which is why the AMA actually agreed to support this. the american medical association's idea behind giving everyone baseline crappy insurance would be that doctors receive less money per person, but more people would be able to pay something for their care and gradually the cost of health care would go down because hospitals will no longer be eating so much of the unpaid medical bills. the missouri state medical association has chosen not to support the public option plan probably for the sake of rural medicine not getting enough support.
white house ready to drop public option
white house ready to drop public option
Sunday, May 3, 2009
The Secret Socialist
Last Friday, Obama condemned investors in Chrysler for not making sacrifices in order to allow Chrysler to have more money to recover with after filing chapter 11. The sacrifices the Obama administration wanted the group of hedge fund investors to make were accepting a fraction of the money owed to them from their investment. Obama was quick to point out the sacrifices the United Auto Workers association and company owners have made to help the Chrysler, A.K.A. those responsible for running the company into the ground, but has decided to point the finger at investors for wanting what their investment has due to them.
The investors already made sacrifices by maintaining a stake in Chrysler in hopes that the company would rebound as their stakes dropped in value. Furthermore, the hedge funds do not have a responsibility to the company they have given money to, they have a responsibility to the American people who put their pensions into those hedge funds. If anything, Chrysler, who has misused investors' money, has a responsibility to the investors to give them the return owed to them. The hedge funds tried to make deals in the best interests of their investors only to be rejected by the white house administration.
Obama wants to make investing U.S. tax dollars in a failing company look like a good idea by taking money from those who already have taken the risk of investing their own money in it. He outrageously believes capitalism and investment banking should curve to his demand. Despite what Obama thinks, people who have money do contribute immensely to society and his beloved auto companies. They should not be condemned for not getting wrapped up in his politics of helping the UAW association, a largely democratic contributor, maintain their cushy jobs producing a less than valued product. It appears that the Obama administration is attempting to manipulate the facets of capitalism which make this a free country, but the investors and the consumers have spoken and this ship is not worth saving. The government needs to get out of the private sector.
Oh yeah...and the new investors in Chrysler besides the government and the UAW: GM's lending company. Didn't we learn our lesson about lenders making bad investments and becoming large and insolvent less than half a year ago?
The investors already made sacrifices by maintaining a stake in Chrysler in hopes that the company would rebound as their stakes dropped in value. Furthermore, the hedge funds do not have a responsibility to the company they have given money to, they have a responsibility to the American people who put their pensions into those hedge funds. If anything, Chrysler, who has misused investors' money, has a responsibility to the investors to give them the return owed to them. The hedge funds tried to make deals in the best interests of their investors only to be rejected by the white house administration.
Obama wants to make investing U.S. tax dollars in a failing company look like a good idea by taking money from those who already have taken the risk of investing their own money in it. He outrageously believes capitalism and investment banking should curve to his demand. Despite what Obama thinks, people who have money do contribute immensely to society and his beloved auto companies. They should not be condemned for not getting wrapped up in his politics of helping the UAW association, a largely democratic contributor, maintain their cushy jobs producing a less than valued product. It appears that the Obama administration is attempting to manipulate the facets of capitalism which make this a free country, but the investors and the consumers have spoken and this ship is not worth saving. The government needs to get out of the private sector.
Oh yeah...and the new investors in Chrysler besides the government and the UAW: GM's lending company. Didn't we learn our lesson about lenders making bad investments and becoming large and insolvent less than half a year ago?
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Who is responsible for the polar bears?
Matt asked me a couple weeks back why Republicans hate the environment. Republicans don't hate the environment; they just hate democrats. Moreover, republicans don't like democrats spending money in order for the democrats to secure their seats in congress. How could republicans like spending money on the environment if their wealthy donors don't want their taxes to go up? In lieu of looking cynical, lets just say republican and democrat ideologies, which their donors reflect and support, attack the issue at different angles.
Friday, Al Gore and some old guy, claiming to be republican, spoke before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in support of a climate change bill concluding a week of hearings involving supporters and those in opposition. Gore spoke poetically over the issue with attempts to strike fear into members of the House that inaction will be looked down upon by future generations. This coming a day or so after republican Newt Gingrich threatened the further economic downturn this bill would cause and, in typical Newt fashion, the financial effect this would have on the elderly.
It reminded me of the debate over tobacco. Tobacco obviously is bad for people, but we can't prove that tobacco killed the Marlboro man. We are having drastic effects on our environment, but we can't prove that me driving a car is killing polar bears. So, why should we do anything about it? The stakes now are much higher and it looks like both sides want to save the planet, but their rhetoric makes them look like pro and anti polar bear because of how they want to go about helping the environment. Republicans want to conservatively use tax breaks and special incentives to change our energy behavior, and democrats want to actively spend money on changes like smart electric grids, wind and solar energy, research and development, etc. (Albeit some republicans probably don't give a shit about the environment, but I'm sure the same goes for some democrats.)
Their banter looks like this:
-When Gore says this threat is imminent, he means that there will be no imminent threat on the American people to change their lifestyles and capitalism will not support the expensive changes needed to curb the greenhouse gas effects on the environment.
-When Newt says he stopped reading the bill on the page that regulates jacuzzi energy usage he means that the government shouldn't regulate energy because American people have the right to choose how they help the environment as they see fit.
-When Gore says spending money to re-insulate houses will create jobs, he means that spending will help the economy by creating an infrastructure in the energy sector.
-When a house republican says that this is going to cost Americans at least 30 cents a day he means that we spent a ton of the Americans' money on environmental spending in the stimulus bill last February and Americans can't afford to spend more money.
and the debate goes on...
Personally, I hope the government gets a little more aggressive than past years in its attempts to fix the harmful effects we are having on our environment. We need to make it economically sexy to go green, which is a long way off since petroleum grows on trees. My prediction: people will change their lifestyles and a move toward carbon emission reduction will take place after polar bears are determined to be extinct. Research and development will be key to conserving and creating more available energy ... less dependence on oil (go Obama) ... nuclear energy ... most of which the government will have to take money from people to make happen whether we like it or not. A bill like this needs to happen; maybe one not as deep as this and not during a recession and not after all that spending in the stimulus bill.
Friday, Al Gore and some old guy, claiming to be republican, spoke before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in support of a climate change bill concluding a week of hearings involving supporters and those in opposition. Gore spoke poetically over the issue with attempts to strike fear into members of the House that inaction will be looked down upon by future generations. This coming a day or so after republican Newt Gingrich threatened the further economic downturn this bill would cause and, in typical Newt fashion, the financial effect this would have on the elderly.
It reminded me of the debate over tobacco. Tobacco obviously is bad for people, but we can't prove that tobacco killed the Marlboro man. We are having drastic effects on our environment, but we can't prove that me driving a car is killing polar bears. So, why should we do anything about it? The stakes now are much higher and it looks like both sides want to save the planet, but their rhetoric makes them look like pro and anti polar bear because of how they want to go about helping the environment. Republicans want to conservatively use tax breaks and special incentives to change our energy behavior, and democrats want to actively spend money on changes like smart electric grids, wind and solar energy, research and development, etc. (Albeit some republicans probably don't give a shit about the environment, but I'm sure the same goes for some democrats.)
Their banter looks like this:
-When Gore says this threat is imminent, he means that there will be no imminent threat on the American people to change their lifestyles and capitalism will not support the expensive changes needed to curb the greenhouse gas effects on the environment.
-When Newt says he stopped reading the bill on the page that regulates jacuzzi energy usage he means that the government shouldn't regulate energy because American people have the right to choose how they help the environment as they see fit.
-When Gore says spending money to re-insulate houses will create jobs, he means that spending will help the economy by creating an infrastructure in the energy sector.
-When a house republican says that this is going to cost Americans at least 30 cents a day he means that we spent a ton of the Americans' money on environmental spending in the stimulus bill last February and Americans can't afford to spend more money.
and the debate goes on...
Personally, I hope the government gets a little more aggressive than past years in its attempts to fix the harmful effects we are having on our environment. We need to make it economically sexy to go green, which is a long way off since petroleum grows on trees. My prediction: people will change their lifestyles and a move toward carbon emission reduction will take place after polar bears are determined to be extinct. Research and development will be key to conserving and creating more available energy ... less dependence on oil (go Obama) ... nuclear energy ... most of which the government will have to take money from people to make happen whether we like it or not. A bill like this needs to happen; maybe one not as deep as this and not during a recession and not after all that spending in the stimulus bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
