Health Care Reform 2009

[mocksluzer]

Here's the topic for anyone wanting to discuss the ins and outs of Health Care Reform 2009. I'm not very familiar with all of the details of the health care system and the proposed policies, but I thought this would be a good place for people to debate some pros and cons, and share any knowledge about this disaster known as Health Care Reform 2009.

My interest was sparked by this article, which I found both informative and humorous:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Take-the-red-pill-Mr-President-51473502.html

[mocksluzer]

Charles Krauthammer is one of my favorite columnists. Here's a recent article from him concerning Health Care Reform 2009. I'm linking it because one of his big "solutions" deals with malpractice reform. I was curious what other's thoughts were on this issue...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/23/AR2009072302723.html?sub=AR

[bluedevilsadvocate]

As someone whose parents are both doctors, I agree that some sort of malpractice reform is necessary, but I don't think its the be-all-end-all that some Republicans seem to believe it is.

Evidence: Texas, which has implemented strict malpractice reform measures, has not seen a corresponding decrease in the rate of increase of health care premiums. The things you learn from watching C-SPAN all day...

[mocksluzer]

Thanks for the comments. I hope that everyone, including those who are somewhat opposed to reform, can agree that malpractice reform is not the panacea to the health care crisis. I know there has been banter about reforming malpractice standards for quite some time, but does anyone know why it's not being done?

On another note, here's an article with a somewhat novel solution to the health care problem. Ezra Klein, a WaPo columnist, has recommended creating a national health care exchange which would essentially operate like an open marketplace to employers and private citizens to purchase what coverage they desire. In this open exchange, private and public options would (theoretically) compete for business because of the very sizable (in the national version) pool of potential customers thus (once again, theoretically) driving down costs. This seems like the most viable solution I've heard espoused so far. None of the piecemeal, vague, unfinished bills in Congress has me jumping for joy when I think about the future of America's health care industry. This proposal seems to have some distinct advantages, am I missing something?

What are other's thoughts?!

Link- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/28/AR2009072802114.html?wpisrc=newsletter

[Golden Skull]

Thanks for the comments. I hope that everyone, including those who are somewhat opposed to reform, can agree that malpractice reform is not the panacea to the health care crisis. I know there has been banter about reforming malpractice standards for quite some time, but does anyone know why it's not being done?

I would guess because plaintiff's attorneys are big supporters of the Democrats, and are completely opposed to tort reform.  At least, I don't really know of any Democratic tort reform proposals, though some may be out there.

[bluedevilsadvocate]

This proposal seems to have some distinct advantages, am I missing something?

What are other's thoughts?!

Link- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/28/AR2009072802114.html?wpisrc=newsletter

I also think the Wyden (D)-Bennett (R) plan is the most promising, it's also the one with the most bi-partisan support as of now. Unfortunately, it doesn't have much support in general (it changes too much- too politically risky), and isn't likely to be passed.

But it wasn't clear from your post, sluzer, whether you realized that the Health Insurance Exchange is a major element of the Democratic proposal for Health reform??? It's actually a shame that the public option overshadows the health insurance exchange, which is a central feature of the Tri-Committee Draft. You can check out the summary of the draft here: http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090619/healthcarereform_summary.pdf

[mocksluzer]

Thoughts on this?:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/08/gop-senator-white-house-encroaching-on-first-amendment.html

Apparently the White House has asked private citizens to forward any "disinformation" about Obama's proposed health care reform to flag@whitehouse.gov. What are everyone's thoughts on this? Over the line, just right, not enough pro-action from Obama?

[Skeeter T. Douglass]

Thoughts on this?:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/08/gop-senator-white-house-encroaching-on-first-amendment.html

Apparently the White House has asked private citizens to forward any "disinformation" about Obama's proposed health care reform to flag@whitehouse.gov. What are everyone's thoughts on this? Over the line, just right, not enough pro-action from Obama?

Frankly, I don't see what the problem is. The administration isn't looking to punish the people who spread rumors about the health care program. However, if they know what some of the common misconceptions are, they can put out the correct information for people.

[1188281]

I think the issue is probably being overblown by the media. I can understand the attention being given to this issue due to its historical reputation.

This particular type of information gathering tactic has been badly misused in the past by our government. A great example would be the House of Un-American Activities Committee, which in the 1950's set up a similar program to urge people to report on their neighbors and report anyone who was spreading communist or socialist ideals. They then turned around and used this information to basically persecute individuals with different political beliefs.

While Obama may be intending to use this information gathering tactic for another purpose, (I won't speculate as to his true motives) the fact remains that this particular information gathering tactic retains a very negative connotation due to its historical misuse. As such I think the media and the American people are correct to be vigilant and watch these types of government programs very carefully.

[KShaw]

From what I've heard and read, from friends/family who work in hospitals, the biggest money-sink in healthcare is emergency medicine. The reason for that is pretty simple--the ER can't say no. However, a GP can.

People know they can get care for free at an ER. But they'd have to pay to get into a doctor's office for an appointment. So that runny nose and cough you've had all week? Why not call an ambulance and get a free ride to the hospital? They won't even make you pay for it, because that's what all the insured taxpayers are for.

It is not efficient to use emergency medical services for non-emergent care. But, how to fix it? I mean, the obvious solution to me is to allow ERs to turn away patients who don't need emergency care. If someone comes in at three in the afternoon with a sprained ankle, they can GTFO.

If any of that interests you, I found a couple blogs that talk about this intermittently...
http://scalpelorsword.blogspot.com/
http://docsontheweb.blogspot.com/
Supposedly, these guys are actual doctors, surgeons, etc.

[In forma pauperis]

Imagine the liability involved in turning away a patient who ended up actually needing medical care, though. The cost of medical malpractice insurance is already absurd.

[bluedevilsadvocate]

I mean, the obvious solution to me is to allow ERs to turn away patients who don't need emergency care. If someone comes in at three in the afternoon with a sprained ankle, they can GTFO.

So, America elects Obama by an electoral margin of 365-173, largely on the promise of healthcare reform that ensures access for all, and your solution is LESS access to care?

[mocksluzer]

Here's the link for ESPN's most recent TMQ (Tuesday Morning Quarterback). Gregg Easterbrook, the author, is obviously very knowledgeable about sports, but his TMQ column always addresses other topics, typically involving something in politics and/or science. This week's column talks about health care, and Easterbrook offers some incredibly insightful points. Here's the two paragraphs about Health Care Reform that I found most interesting (link below to whole article, because he talks about Reform a lot more than just these two paragraphs)

Think about a radically different way to attain health care -- in which most people carry only catastrophic-cost insurance, then pay other health costs themselves. No one can budget for a severe illness or injury; every family will always need insurance against catastrophic medical expense. Suppose insurance covered only catastrophes, and you paid the rest. You might think, "No way I am paying some doctor hundreds of dollars to set a broken arm." But today a typical family's health care policy that appears to cost the family $5,000 a year actually costs $15,000, it's just that much of the money is hidden as employer's costs -- and thus, as higher wages the employer can't pay. If you spent $5,000 a year for catastrophic coverage but earned an additional $10,000 a year, you could cover those strep-throat and broken-arm bills yourself, and probably come out ahead. Plus you'd have a keen incentive to comparison shop. Doctors could no longer loftily say, "We don't discuss prices."

Homeowner's insurance is catastrophe insurance. It pays if the house burns down -- the kind of thing no one can budget for. It doesn't cover all costs of maintaining a home; you pay most ownership costs and you comparison shop. If homeowner's insurance worked like American health insurance, it would not only pay for fires but also cover utility bills, replacing broken appliances, baseballs hit into the window and all the food, drink and paper towels that pass through the kitchen. Certainly, a company could offer an insurance product that covered absolutely every expense of living in a home. But such insurance would be phenomenally expensive and full of ultra-complex rules; the insurer would also acquire an incentive to dream up excuses to deny payment. Just like American health care insurance!

Link: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/091027&sportCat=nfl

[theChosenOne]

Here's the link for ESPN's most recent TMQ (Tuesday Morning Quarterback). Gregg Easterbrook, the author, is obviously very knowledgeable about sports, but his TMQ column always addresses other topics, typically involving something in politics and/or science. This week's column talks about health care, and Easterbrook offers some incredibly insightful points. Here's the two paragraphs about Health Care Reform that I found most interesting (link below to whole article, because he talks about Reform a lot more than just these two paragraphs)

Link: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/091027&sportCat=nfl

The problem that jumps out to me here is that then you have to define catastrophe. That could cause a lot of issues.

[mocksluzer]

I'd much rather have Congress spending months, millions of taxpayer dollars and come up with a 1,000 page bill attempting to define "catastrophe" rather than what's happening. If the biggest issue is simply defining what does and does not count as catastrophe, then it sounds like a plan I'd be all-for.