Americans like a good fight. If there ain't one there, sometimes we just make one up. That's the story of today's healthcare reform.
Some people want private insurance. Others want a public plan. Now everybody's screaming about their rights.
Are some rights right and others wrong? People seem to jump on the idea that if one group gets what they want, the other group MUST be getting screwed. Why is that?
Our healthcare system is a disaster and just about everybody knows it. We pay twice what the next industrialized country pays for a system that produces health outcomes worse than 71 other counties.1 That's right, 71! We have 50 MILLION citizens without access to primary care, so they just wait until it's a crisis and hit the overburdened hospitals. Every day 10,000 people lose their health insurance and costs for those of us that pay for our insurance go up WAY faster than inflation. My small business plan was raised 26% this year! Medicare and Medicaid are going to bankrupt our government and leave millions with nothing, and hell, about 50% of personal bankruptcies are caused by healthcare costs right now, right here in the U.S.A.
I don't know how a public plan can fairly compete with the private insurance market, and it sure as hell can't work like Medicare with reimbursements being set arbitrarily at less than providers' costs. But the private market screws people every day; dropping sick people, refusing people affordable coverage, and forcing people into making choices that are bad or worse.
We are all Americans. According to the Preamble to the Constitution, our people have a GENERAL WELFARE that is worth working towards and fighting for. So how about we put down the gloves and figure out how to let our neighbors have the freedom we are so fond of screaming about, fix a broken system, and make our great country a better place for all?
1 The World Health Report 2000, World Health Organization
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
A Note About the "Death Board"
My brother-in-law, a staunch conservative and fan of Glenn Beck recently told me that former Governor Palin "speaks her mind" when we talked about her comments obout "Obama's Death Board".
Engineering work is done according to standards of practice set by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).
Concrete is placed based on standards set by the American Concrete Institute (ACI).
Electrical work is standardized by the Unified Electrical Code.
All of these codes are based on research on best practices, and in each case you can do things differently than the code says, but you have to be able to justify it.
Actually, you can't compare these codes to the "comparative effectiveness research" funded under the House of Representatives healthcare reform bill H.R. 3200 because HR3200 DOES NOT require physicians or insurance companies to follow the guidance of the Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research. In fact, it does the opposite: H.R.3200.Subtitle A.Section 1401.Part D.Sec. 1181.(h) Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Commission or the Center to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer.' That is straight out of the actual text of the bill that I read online at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c111query.html
In almost all cases, business executives want evidence based procedures that use actual metrics, not just baseless claims, to make decisions on. But to a demagogue like Palin, since the healthcare initiative is led by Democrats, the non-binding "comparative effectiveness research" is a "death board" that decides life and death based on an individual's "level of productivity in society". This is straight up nonsense and unethical scare tactics.
As recently as 2004, Merck sold $2.5 billion worth of Vioxx. It was pulled from the market because people taking it had four times the risk of heart attack as people taking generic anti-inflammatories like ibuprofen and naproxen. It also turned out the industry studies showcasing its effectiveness were fraudulent, and despite its huge cost (as much as $3/pill) it actually worked less well than good old ibuprofen. It sure would have been nice if patients that were being prescribed Vioxx could have been advised that cheap available ibuprofen worked better.
The drug industry is absolutely huge and plies its products with attractive people that basically bribe doctors into prescribing new drugs and techniques that are sometimes less effective than cheaper generic drugs and older techniques. I've been reading about this for years. I remember in 1990 when Raiders lineman John Matuszak died from a Darvocet overdose, I found out that Darvocet had been found not to work very well on pain but was known to be habit forming and an overdose danger.
We really need the Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research. What we don't need is a bunch of crazy talk that paints good people like me as Orwellian Stalinists.
Engineering work is done according to standards of practice set by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).
Concrete is placed based on standards set by the American Concrete Institute (ACI).
Electrical work is standardized by the Unified Electrical Code.
All of these codes are based on research on best practices, and in each case you can do things differently than the code says, but you have to be able to justify it.
Actually, you can't compare these codes to the "comparative effectiveness research" funded under the House of Representatives healthcare reform bill H.R. 3200 because HR3200 DOES NOT require physicians or insurance companies to follow the guidance of the Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research. In fact, it does the opposite: H.R.3200.Subtitle A.Section 1401.Part D.Sec. 1181.(h) Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Commission or the Center to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer.' That is straight out of the actual text of the bill that I read online at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c111query.html
In almost all cases, business executives want evidence based procedures that use actual metrics, not just baseless claims, to make decisions on. But to a demagogue like Palin, since the healthcare initiative is led by Democrats, the non-binding "comparative effectiveness research" is a "death board" that decides life and death based on an individual's "level of productivity in society". This is straight up nonsense and unethical scare tactics.
As recently as 2004, Merck sold $2.5 billion worth of Vioxx. It was pulled from the market because people taking it had four times the risk of heart attack as people taking generic anti-inflammatories like ibuprofen and naproxen. It also turned out the industry studies showcasing its effectiveness were fraudulent, and despite its huge cost (as much as $3/pill) it actually worked less well than good old ibuprofen. It sure would have been nice if patients that were being prescribed Vioxx could have been advised that cheap available ibuprofen worked better.
The drug industry is absolutely huge and plies its products with attractive people that basically bribe doctors into prescribing new drugs and techniques that are sometimes less effective than cheaper generic drugs and older techniques. I've been reading about this for years. I remember in 1990 when Raiders lineman John Matuszak died from a Darvocet overdose, I found out that Darvocet had been found not to work very well on pain but was known to be habit forming and an overdose danger.
We really need the Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research. What we don't need is a bunch of crazy talk that paints good people like me as Orwellian Stalinists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
