Views on Healthcare Reform and Psych
- Thread starter digitlnoize
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,582
- Reaction score
- 269
ah 'reputable'. That's also probably a synonym for 'unbiased' which means the point of view you take. Good to see.
I have no problems admitting that Fox News and WSJ (even before WSJ was purchased) are biased toward conservatives, that Reason/Cato/etc are biased towards libertarians, and that NYT, CNN, etc are biased towards progressives.
I'm not entirely against his ideas. In fact, he's one of the few that has argued that we need to decouple health insurance from employment. Although we want to do different things with that unbundling, he does see it as a ludicrous concealment of income (which is what it is). coupled health insurance stems directly from wage controls as a way of boosting pay without going above payroll restrictions. Should have never happened.
It's also one of the ways in which health insurance market isn't really 'free' since other people decide what to do with our money. A very few employers offer choice. Most don't. Since my health insurance is included in my residency, I am forced to use one insurance carrier, as we all are in our program. I can choose to use it, or choose to forfeit this 'income', along with the price of premiums for an altogether different insurance company. Not particularly free-looking.
In such a market, the actual players are the employer and hte health insurer. Each of whom actually have far different goals than I do. An employer wants to pay as little as possible for coverage that looks decent. They don't actually care if it is. The health insurance company wants a nice fat profit margin and to protect their consumer base, which they can do by negotiating with the company in a myriad of ways that at best don't benefit you at all, and at worst hurt you.
The other reason I want to de-couple is because I hate hate hate the idea of concealed income and taxation, but I won't get into that here.
I have no problems admitting that Fox News and WSJ (even before WSJ was purchased) are biased toward conservatives, that Reason/Cato/etc are biased towards libertarians, and that NYT, CNN, etc are biased towards progressives.
I'm not entirely against his ideas. In fact, he's one of the few that has argued that we need to decouple health insurance from employment. Although we want to do different things with that unbundling, he does see it as a ludicrous concealment of income (which is what it is). coupled health insurance stems directly from wage controls as a way of boosting pay without going above payroll restrictions. Should have never happened.
It's also one of the ways in which health insurance market isn't really 'free' since other people decide what to do with our money. A very few employers offer choice. Most don't. Since my health insurance is included in my residency, I am forced to use one insurance carrier, as we all are in our program. I can choose to use it, or choose to forfeit this 'income', along with the price of premiums for an altogether different insurance company. Not particularly free-looking.
In such a market, the actual players are the employer and hte health insurer. Each of whom actually have far different goals than I do. An employer wants to pay as little as possible for coverage that looks decent. They don't actually care if it is. The health insurance company wants a nice fat profit margin and to protect their consumer base, which they can do by negotiating with the company in a myriad of ways that at best don't benefit you at all, and at worst hurt you.
The other reason I want to de-couple is because I hate hate hate the idea of concealed income and taxation, but I won't get into that here.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,382
- Reaction score
- 4,329
While I agree with this in theory....I'm not sure there is a cost-effective way to do this. O-care is bloated, and yet I don't trust private insurances to do anything that doesn't maximize profit, which is counter to what is needed.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2004
- Messages
- 11,775
- Reaction score
- 2,027
I'm pretty sure those sentiments never passed from the administration's lips. It would be a bad strategy.
If folks think his plan is worse, it would be nice for them to have the cojones to either offer up a new detailed plan, or say that they like the status quo. But few folks have offered up an alternative plan because few have one, and no one wants to take a stand with the current system, because they realize it's unpopular and possibly broken.
Please. The opposition has had 8 YEARS to roll out any health plan they had while Bush was in office. It never came up because they didn't have one. They don't need "a few months"; they've had 8 years in which to roll one out under the banner of their own party and didn't do anything.
Alternative plans are welcome. Crossing one's arms and shuffling one's feet while saying, "I don't like it!" does not qualify. And so far, that's about as much as has been seen from the opposition.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 6,366
- Reaction score
- 4,298
Which is why we need to be looking at the working NON-profit models, like the ones I named. Systems like HealthPartners and Mayo provide great care, have happy patients and doctors, and do it BETTER for LESS. They watch outcomes, emphasize prevention, emphasize evidence-based care, use EMRs to reduce duplication and waste. It can be done, and it is not socialism.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 6,366
- Reaction score
- 4,298
I still don't like the current argument Obama's making. "It's better than what we have now. THAT can't get any worse."
1. It certainly could get worse.
2. Just because it's better than what we have now, does not mean that's the plan we should go with. Why not keep working on it for a few months until it's actually a good plan?
Rome wasn't burned in a day.
Actually Obama's argument in the news conference was that the current system WILL get worse.
Here's the quote from the news conference (emphasis mine):
"THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely it's my job. I'm the President. And I think this has to get done. Just a broader point -- if somebody told you that there is a plan out there that is guaranteed to double your health care costs over the next 10 years, that's guaranteed to result in more Americans losing their health care, and that is by far the biggest contributor to our federal deficit. I think most people would be opposed to that. Well, that's the status quo. That's what we have right now.
So if we don't change, we can't expect a different result. And that's why I think this is so important, not only for those families out there who are struggling and who need some protection from abuses in the insurance industry or need some protection from skyrocketing costs, but it's also important for our economy. "
It's a shame these things got lost in the flap over whether or not the Cambridge police behaved "stupidly" or not...
BTW--some quotes relevant to topics we've been kicing around in this thread:
"THE PRESIDENT: They're going to have to give up paying for things that don't make them healthier. And I -- speaking as an American, I think that's the kind of change you want.
Look, if right now hospitals and doctors aren't coordinating enough to have you just take one test when you come in because of an illness, but instead have you take one test; then you go to another specialist, you take a second test; then you go to another special, you take a third test -- and nobody's bothering to send the first test that you took -- same test -- to the next doctors, you're wasting money.
You may not see it because if you have health insurance right now it's just being sent to the insurance company, but that's raising your premiums, it's raising everybody's premiums, and that money one way or another is coming out of your pocket -- although we are also subsidizing some of that because there are tax breaks for health care. So not only is it costing you money in terms of higher premiums, it's also costing you as a taxpayer.
Now, I want to change that. Every American should want to change that. Why would we want to pay for things that don't work, that aren't making us healthier? And here's what I'm confident about: If doctors and patients have the best information about what works and what doesn't, then they're going to want to pay for what works. If there's a blue pill and a red pill and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that's going to make you well?
But the system right now doesn't incentivize that. Those are the changes that are going to be needed -- that we're going to need to make inside the system. It will require I think patients to -- as well as doctors, as well as hospitals -- to be more discriminating consumers. But I think that's a good thing, because ultimately we can't afford this. We just can't afford what we're doing right now. "
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,205
- Reaction score
- 253
No, I agree that the current system WILL get worse. I think the proposals on the table are a good starting point. I just feel they are missing KEY points (malpractice reform, repayment reform, primary care incentives, and patient accountability).
The current system is obviously very broken. The proposed system may (or may not) be an improvement, but including the missing items would go a long way towards making it successful.
In Obama's defense, I think that HE understands the problem. I agree with most of what the guy says. I think he's pragmatic and understands the value of hard work. We can see this in his committment to subsidize volunteerism. Unfortunately, our Congress is made of a bunch of *****s.
I believe that our recent Washington quagmire is not due to Republicans or Democrats, any more than it is due to Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, etc. It's due to the idiots in Congress who care more about perpetuating their own wealth, affairs, and power than about doing what is in the best interest of this country.
It's like the F-22's. Useless wastes of money. Everyone agrees on this. Obama, Gates, McCain, etc. Complete waste. Yet, what happens in Congress? 40 some senators vote to KEEP them. Why? To appease a small fraction of supporters in their home states where parts of the useless planes are made. It just makes no sense.
Wouldn't saving the Billions of dollars wasted on those planes help your constituents more than losing a few nuts and bolts?
*****s.
The current system is obviously very broken. The proposed system may (or may not) be an improvement, but including the missing items would go a long way towards making it successful.
In Obama's defense, I think that HE understands the problem. I agree with most of what the guy says. I think he's pragmatic and understands the value of hard work. We can see this in his committment to subsidize volunteerism. Unfortunately, our Congress is made of a bunch of *****s.
I believe that our recent Washington quagmire is not due to Republicans or Democrats, any more than it is due to Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, etc. It's due to the idiots in Congress who care more about perpetuating their own wealth, affairs, and power than about doing what is in the best interest of this country.
It's like the F-22's. Useless wastes of money. Everyone agrees on this. Obama, Gates, McCain, etc. Complete waste. Yet, what happens in Congress? 40 some senators vote to KEEP them. Why? To appease a small fraction of supporters in their home states where parts of the useless planes are made. It just makes no sense.
Wouldn't saving the Billions of dollars wasted on those planes help your constituents more than losing a few nuts and bolts?
*****s.
