(![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mckitterick Nov. 24th, 2008 10:35 am)
mckitterick Nov. 24th, 2008 10:35 am)This article dispels the five big myths about US health-care system. Here's a sobering thought:
"The average family of four is coughing up $29,000 a year for health care through taxes, lower wages, and out-of-pocket medical expenses."
I personally know several people who probably spend that much, all told, per person.
I wonder what it means that Hillary Clinton is soon to be announced as his nominee for Secretary of State rather than, say, Health & Human Services. (By the way, didn't I call this even before she dropped out of the race?) Does Obama not want her making as big of health reforms as she would likely push? Or does it mean he respects her opinions in all areas enough to give her what is perhaps the top spot in his cabinet?
With Obama soon to start working from the Oval Office, let's make sure he delivers on his promise to reform health care. We can't afford to maintain the status-quo of the "world's best" (Myth #1, by the way) health-care system.
Best,
Chris
"The average family of four is coughing up $29,000 a year for health care through taxes, lower wages, and out-of-pocket medical expenses."
I personally know several people who probably spend that much, all told, per person.
I wonder what it means that Hillary Clinton is soon to be announced as his nominee for Secretary of State rather than, say, Health & Human Services. (By the way, didn't I call this even before she dropped out of the race?) Does Obama not want her making as big of health reforms as she would likely push? Or does it mean he respects her opinions in all areas enough to give her what is perhaps the top spot in his cabinet?
With Obama soon to start working from the Oval Office, let's make sure he delivers on his promise to reform health care. We can't afford to maintain the status-quo of the "world's best" (Myth #1, by the way) health-care system.
Best,
Chris
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Something just has to be done. This for profit healthcare has to go...
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
As SofS, she'll instead be going out of the country where criticism of her by others can be turned a bit by saying that it's going against the interests of the US, instead of her personally.
From:
no subject
!!!
Something is seriously wrong with the right wing in this country.
From:
no subject
I was amused post election as several old pols lobbied to become Sec HHS. Daschle and Howard Dean both wanted it - because they both want to see reform.
Daschle is an interesting choice. He probably will never run again for office (was voted out of his SoDak senate seat while head of party, and South Dakota usually chooses senators by who can bring home the bacon). He is stealth - the average American probably only remembers his ouster (I don't, but he was my senator for years, and I'm addicted to South Dakota politics) But he knows everyone (been in Washington since 1978).
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Now as SecState -- she's got the visibility on the world scene and it gives her a powerful, high-profile position (which nevertheless doesn't get in the way of the Obama administration like VP would have) and is a good way of enhancing her for a later presidential run. Frankly, it's a win-win situation for both Hilary and Obama, as far as I can see.
From:
no subject
Ergo, right choice!
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Either it's too bad that politics is like this, or too bad the Dems don't stoop to the same level as their rivals.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I really think he better understands our healthcare needs than she does.
From:
no subject
She'll be a great Sec of State.
From:
no subject
A different approach to universal health care: "Medicare for Babies"
I applaud efforts to expand health care to children, such as SCHIP. But they seem like a quick fix, rather than a path to a true solution. I have a plan that I think could be a road to true universal health care.
The first step is to add babies and toddlers to Medicare, up to a certain age limit that keeps the budget small, but allows parents enough time to experience Medicare and see how much better it works than private medical insurance.
Medicare is politically untouchable, almost to the degree that Social Security is. Once babies are covered, their medical care will come under the same blanket of political protection that senior citizens enjoy.
Once parents experience Medicare for their children, all but those lucky few with exceptional private insurance will demand that the age limit be raised, so their children will not be dumped out of the system. Even if the age limit rises only fast enough to keep existing children in the system, it will be a 60-year road to universal care. Given the strength of opposition to other universal care proposals, 60 years could be sooner than an endless series of plans that are killed before they ever start.
This approach seems to be politically practical. How many people in Congress dare vote against babies? It could even be sold as cost-neutral, by using the current SCHIP budget to pay for expenses added to the Medicare budget.
One major problem with most universal care proposals – other than not really being universal – is that they require creation of a new health care bureaucracy. New bureaucracies have at least two problems. One, they suffer start-up pains, including inefficiency, blunders, and new civil-service employees who aren't necessarily competent. Two, they don't have the weight of organizational history that protects them from being dismantled by the next change in political winds.
Medicare has a solid, efficient organization. Expanding it to cover babies would require only a small percentage increase in its size, well within its ability to expand through its normal hiring and promotion procedures. The only real new thing for the organization would be the need to learn how to manage care that's specific to babies.
Medicare is one of the federal government's most efficient bureaucracies. I've read that its administrative overhead is 2% to 3% of the medical expenses it processes, as compared with 30% to 35% for private insurance. Just phasing out that overhead waste is more than enough to pay for universal health care, at reduced cost or with improved quality.
I hope this idea is useful. I haven't seen anything like it discussed in the media.
Thank you.
As a slightly off-topic post-script, I offer this message-framing sound bite:
Opponents of universal health care ask, "Do you want to trust your medical care to a government bureaucracy?"
My counter-question is, "Do you want to trust your medical care to a private-industry bureaucracy that makes more money when it denies claims?"
From:
no subject
I should have read myth #3 in your link before I wrote my article, but that article wasn't written in August when I wrote mine.
Something I didn't mention in my article was the fact that our current system includes a whole lot of emergency room visits by people who have nowhere else to go. Cutting that with a universal system would save a lot of money, and it's definitely not a myth.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Unless there's a financial incentive for people to remain in general practice, they'll keep moving toward more lucrative specialties. It takes a buttload of time to get a medical degree, and you end up in debt to your eyeballs.
From:
no subject
I hope this gets around to our other reps and to our new Prez.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I recently had bronchitis. Not the first, or even fourth, time I've had it. It goes with asthma like peanut butter goes with jelly. Anyway, Appt. at Walk-in Clinic, $65. Antibiotics, well if I wasn't allergic to everything, about $10.
Contrast with ER visit, anywhere from $300 on up. It is those darned procedure codes, yes. At work, I am only allowed to use one procedure code, even though I am a QHP, because the other two people doing the same job don't have the license. Since *they* can't use the other procedure codes, I can't.
It's quite a complex problem. And then you get into things like imaging, where the Imaging Tech takes the pic, but isn't allowed to interpret it (even though they generally do know what's wrong from seeing it) and the radiologist, who *is* allowed to interpret it, and then whichever specialist is called for (above-mentioned podiatrist, OB/GYN, etc.) And don't forget the PCP who sent you there in the first place, and the surgeon, and the anesthesiologist....
From:
no subject