Healthcare & Hysterical Comments

A blogger whom I will not name, since he prefers not to name me when he takes me to task, has this:

Zyklon-B, the gas, has undergone extensive tests on humans, has been found to end all ailments and pathologies, and has the added virtue of killing lice. What goes around comes around, and here it comes again. Although gas ovens have not been proposed as yet, neither has any plan by the opponents of reform for offering health care to those who can't afford it. All the arguments against health care reform are the same arguments used in support of gas ovens as a medical option.

Now this comment strikes me as so morally irresponsible, not to mention stupid and patently false, that I can scarcely believe that an education person made it. The blogger complains frequently about the nastiness of the blogosphere and the viciousness of comments on blogs, but I have seen nothing anywhere that is nastier than this.

I am not quite sure who is arguing against healthcare reform (since the blogger's MO is not to provide links or any other kind of evidence), though a lot of people are certainly arguing against the plans currently before committees in both houses. But it seems as if the blogger has in mind all Republicans, at least.

The Democrats believe that health care is something that should be available to everybody. The Republicans believe you should get health care only if you can afford it.

I think that means, taken together, that all Republicans are Nazis. If I am reading out of context, I beg forgiveness. Readers can examine the link above to see if I am right. Today, much the same comment was made by said blogger.

Some people think that every person should have access to health care, because such thinkers are part of that conspiracy started by a Jew from Nazareth who instructed his followers to feed the poor and heal the sick. Others think that the problems of poverty and illness can be solved if those so afflicted just damned well die.

Of course, logic was never one of said blogger's strengths, so let me help. To be opposed to a particular plan of healthcare reform is not to be opposed to healthcare reform. There are alternatives. One might argue that the current system shouldn't be reformed on the grounds that an incompetent Congress is likely to make it worse. I would not say so, but only an idiot would fail to see the distinction between that argument and an argument "in support of gas ovens."

Likewise, to be opposed to the expansion of government supplied health insurance is not the same as being opposed to universal health insurance. There are other conceivable plans, such as healthcare vouchers and general reform of private insurance. Nor is universal health insurance the same thing as universal healthcare.

If healthcare reform costs a lot of money, and it will, it is no evidence of Nazi tendencies to ask how it is going to be paid for. Maybe this is one of those things worth running a deficit for. But it might occur to someone who is doing genuine thinking that if we are going to borrow, someone has to lend the money. With the Chinese about to shut down the market on American securities, that might not leave anyone else. If you want to extend health insurance coverage or the level of healthcare provided to all Americans, you might want to take such facts into account. That is the sort of thing that sober and civilized people argue about.

Comments

[PP at the SDWC]

You know, it's kind of scary that anyone put anyone put Newquist into the classroom.

[hsr0601]

Let's put aside some distractions caused by the health industry-sponsored Democrats, and the controversial analysis of CBO on the economic effect of the proposed independent advisory council and how to empower it substantively, get back to focus on how to meet the goal of deficit-neutral.

The House leaders reached a deal on Medicare payments: A "Pay for Value" reimbursement system that rewards doctors and hospitals that achieve the best outcomes at the lowest cost.

As a result, The House gained a lot of votes, a lot of people who were withholding support.

The federal Medicare program insures some 44 million elderly and disabled Americans at an annual cost of $450 billion, almost one-fifth of total U.S. health care spending.

Supporters of the agreement say it could save the Medicare System more than $100 billion a year and improve care, that means $1trillian over a decade. (Please visit http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=820455&catid=391 for detailed infos)
The Times in a July 7 editorial argued “As much as 30 percent of all health-care spending in the U.S. -some $700 billion a year- may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not improve the health of the recipients,” Thus the remaining $239 billions over a decade do not matter.
No one can disagree with this best outcome / evidence-based system, and private insurance, too, will be greatly influenced by this change with the focus on value over volume. !

Dr. Armadio at Mayo clinic says, "If we got rid of that stuff, we save a third of all that we spend and that is 2.5 trillion dollars on health care. A third of that and that is 700 billion dollars a year. That covers a lot of uninsured people."

THANK YOU !

[hsr0601]

A pay for outcome / value payment system, key to the deficit-neutral, might be capable of bringing all groups together.

Supporters of the agreement say it could save the Medicare System more than $100 billion a year and 'improve' care, that means more than $1trillian over a decade, and virtually needs no other resources including tax on the wealthiest. (Please visit http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=820455&catid=391 for detailed infos).

As much as 30 percent of all health-care spending in the U.S. -some $700 billion a year- may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not improve the health of the recipients,” Thus the remaining $239 billions over a decade do not matter.
Dr. Armadio at Mayo clinic says, "If we got rid of that stuff, we save a third of all that we spend and that is 2.5 trillion dollars on health care. A third of that and that is 700 billion dollars a year. That covers a lot of uninsured people."

1. There is no need for infighting and class conflict.

2. It can satisfy revenue-neutral raised by the Republicans.

3. It is able to resolve the regional disparity.

4. It may bring the private insurers to competition, innovation.

5. The focus on 'outcome' over volume can make the practitioners more accurate and creative based on IT SYSTEM and evidence, while eliminating the additional, unnecessary care that is increasing patients' pains, frustrations, and possible side-effects.

6. The desperate people will get back American dream.

THANK YOU !

[Ivan Goetz]

You say nothing about tort reform hsr0601. Why do you think there is a thirty
percent waste on tests and unnecessary procedures?

THANK YOU!

[A.I.]

Ivan, are you saying none of those wasted tests/procedures have to do with the clinic/hospital profiting from conducting them because they own the lab, imaging facility, operating room, or whatever? Have you never had a provider try to sell you on a procedure that wasn't necessary? I have and I recently "stupidly" said yes to an x-ray on a wrist that already was diagnosed with tendinitis. The PA wanted to be sure it wasn't cracked even though I said I had not done anything that would have cracked it.

Tort reform very well might reduce some unnecessary expenditures. But it isn't the panacea some on the right would have us believe it is. And in instances where the lawsuits are justified, tort reform done wrong would leave victims of malpractice with little or no recourse.

[KB]

I agree with A.I. that tort reform is no cure all for health care. But when some doctors are paying two hundred grand a year just in malpractice insurance, it has got to help. There is no way on God's green earth that Democrats will allow tort reform.

[A.I.]

Something else to keep in mind when considering rising costs of malpractice and health insurance is that premiums are only one source of revenue for providers. And, claims are only one source of expense.

The money insurance companies have on hand, their capital, is invested. When investments do well, they may make far more from them than the difference between premium income and claims. Or they may loose a bunch. In either case, those with insurance company stock want a return on their investment and Wall Street demands it. So premiums are sometimes increased because the investment side of the business does poorly regardless of losses or profits from the premiums vs. claims side of the business. And if one considers the full implications of investor demands for profit--some would say excessive profit, one might also conclude the old saying "We have met the enemy and he is us." to be true and applicable.

[A.I.]

One other note sure to ruffle a few feathers: I see little merit to the argument that Republicans support universal health care and simply favor alternative approaches to achieving it. Were they for it and if they have workable alternatives to Democratic proposals, where were Republicans from 1994 to 2006 when they controlled both houses of congress--and especially for the last six of those years when they also controlled the White House? Did they expend political capital on health care issues? No, the party could not have cared less about universal access, escalating costs, denial of coverage for preexisting conditions, portability, etc. Instead, they pushed for tax cuts for the wealthy, privatizing Social Security and war--not necessarily in that order. Health care was not on the back burner, it wasn't even on the stove.

[Erik]

KB:
Why give a such a silly, anonymous poster more of a spotlight? I'd just ignore the loons and concentrate on your serious correspondence.
Erik

[KB]

Erik: the anonymous blogger is a retired colleague of mine, and we have something of a history he and I. He is also an established voice in the local blogosphere. His blog is co-hosted by the Keloland News Online, as mine is. I have mostly tried to ignore his colorful posts of late, but the comments above drove me to break my resolve. Besides, he makes yours truly, as well as my friends and frequent interlocutors (A.I., Mac, and yourself) look very reasonable by comparison. Cross list that one under "ulterior motives."

[Ivan Goetz]

A.I: Tort reform should at least be on the table for discussing. But as KB
mentions, you will not hear it come from the lips of any Dem. This deal with
the Blue Dogs will not end well, as the elderly will exact a pound of flesh
from them during the recess.