Hillary's Article

I like Hillary Clinton as much as the next politically quasi-liberal person, but I thought the entire first half was mundane and should have already been known by anybody willing to begin a seven page article entitled "Now Can We Talk About Health Care?" My problems with the article began somewhere on page four when she began to suggest reforms.

<<Our system rewards clinicians for providing more services but not for keeping patients healthier. The structure of the health care system should shift toward rewarding doctors and health plans that treat patients with their long-term health needs in mind and rewarding patients who make sensible decisions about maintaining their own health.>>

Exactly how would that work? Don't pay doctors for treating patients, but rather pay them five years down the line for having given lifestyle advice? Making insurance premiums lower for suburbanites who are willing to check off the "don't smoke, don't drink" box? Should we also reward women for not having children? Pregnancy, after all, could be construed as a "health risk."

<<Ten years ago, the Internet was used primarily by academics and the military. Now it is possible to imagine all of a person's health files stored securely on a computer file -- test results, lab records, X-rays -- accessible from any doctor's office. It is easy to imagine, yet our medical system is not there.>>

Even in the hands of experienced persons, Internet security leaves something to be wanted. There are people who refuse to send their credit card information online, much less their "test results." Can you imagine the fiasco if the security protocols were compromised?

<<Information technology can also be used to disseminate research. A government study recently documented that it takes 17 years from the time of a new medical discovery to the time clinicians actually incorporate that discovery into their practice at the bedside. Why not 17 seconds?>>

I'm not sure what "medical discovery" means, but if it refers to some sort of basic science research it's entirely unfeasible for this suggestion to work. Would the general public feel more comfortable knowing that FDA drug trial standards had been lowered?

<<In the post 9/11 world, there is one more reason for universal coverage. The anthrax and ricin episodes, and the continuing threat posed by biological, chemical and radiological weapons, should make us painfully aware of the shortcomings of our fragmented system of health care. Can you imagine the aftermath of a bioterrorism attack, with thousands of people flooding emergency rooms and bureaucrats demanding proof of insurance coverage from each and every one? Those without coverage might not see a doctor until after they had infected others.>>

Poor form, Hillary. Although this may be a valid concern, she hardly needs to use scare tactics in the NEW YORK Times (of all newspapers) to convince voters that she is a viable future presedential candidate.

 

bump. it didn't register my post as a new post?!

 

I would have to agree with all your points.
Mrs. Clinton seems to not be listening to her advisors in this article.

"universal coverage" sounds a wee bit like socialism (communism's lil sister) to me.

Johnny

 

I agree with all of your points... also, people presenting to the ER with an emergency - which exposure to bioterrorism certainly qualifies as - will get treated with or without proof of insurance. So her point isn't really as dramatic as she would like.