Cure worse than what sickens us

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Obama’s cure worse than what sickens us

By Jason D. Fodeman
Monday, April 20, 2009 - Added 2d 4h ago

Congress is working too fast.

Lawmakers rushed to pass the $700 billion bailout bill . . . the $787 billion “stimulus” bill . . . the $400 billion “omnibus” appropriations bill.

Now they’re poised to hike health-care spending by $634 billion over 10 years. The plan could cost at least twice that amount.

Is our health system really that bad off? Patients the world over flock here for the best care. Bill Clinton travels the world, but he checks into Columbia Presbyterian for bypass surgery. Massachusetts is only a short hop from Canada and its socialized health system, yet Sen. Ted Kennedy opts to get his cancer treatments at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Of course, our health system has some big problems, but the vast majority of Americans are insured, and they rate their coverage as good or even excellent.

And the Census Bureau report pegging the number of uninsureds at 46 million can mislead. Many of those were uninsured for only a short time. Typically, these are people who change jobs and must wait 30 or 60 days for their new coverage.

Another large chunk - 20 percent of the uninsured - are uninsured by choice. Another 25 percent qualify for federal coverage but don’t enroll. Plus, uninsured non-citizens, including those here illegally, get rolled into the 46 million.

One thing to remember: The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 ensures access to health services to everyone residing in the United States - legally or illegally. No one is kicked out of the ER for lack of coverage.

The part of our health system that’s broken isn’t the care; it’s the financing.

The way to fix it is not to have government pick up an even larger share of the tab.

The answer is to give individuals more control over how their health care dollars are spent. That includes letting them decide what kind of coverage they want, be it a health savings account or some other options.

For this to happen, Washington will have to change the tax code.

It also means establishing a system where Americans can select the coverage that best suits their situation - and keep it even when changing jobs.

Unfortunately, the House budget sets the stage for an incremental federal takeover of medical service financing and delivery.

It’s the wrong prescription.

Jason Fodeman is a health policy fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

Link (http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1166680)

[commanding]

Reminds me of the "bit" that comedian Ron White did in his show "Behavioral Problems" the other night (television), talking about the USA Federal govt. having nothing in the bank and they are still just writing checks and smiling! Basically that is what they are doing by passing all these billion and trillion dollar bills....writing checks with no money in the bank. Pretty dumb isn't it? A billion here and a billion there, pretty soon it adds up.

[sinophile]

Joseph McCarthy, oooops I mean Speaker Pelosi, seeking to distract the country from more bad news to come, plans a witch burning complete with stakes, flames and wall street bankers. How many innocent lives will be ruined by this inquiry?

The new red menace is green.

From Bloomberg


Wall Street may be heading for the deepest investigation of its practices since a congressional panel's probe of abuses following the 1929 stock market crash.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to push for a comprehensive inquiry, saying that three-quarters of Americans want to know what led to the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and the collapse of Bear Stearns Cos. and Merrill Lynch & Co. She favors one patterned after Senate Banking Committee hearings led by Ferdinand Pecora starting in 1933, according to her spokesman, Nadeam Elshami.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Joseph McCarthy, oooops I mean Speaker Pelosi, seeking to distract the country from more bad news to come, plans a witch burning complete with stakes, flames and wall street bankers. How many innocent lives will be ruined by this inquiry?

The new red menace is green.

From Bloomberg
Interesting, thanks sinophile.

My personal opinion is that there needs to be a real alternative to employer-sponsored health insurance. That, even more that compensation, is what I think immobilizes workers in the same job.

[Will Clark]

A lot of people forget about all the research US companies do, which is then paid for by the US. If it seems like we pay more for the same care, it's because we're propping up the companies who research all the new wonder drugs. When we control the costs, there will be no incentive to continue research.

But yes, our system is not the free market in action. We need to get out the middle men, get the AMA to stop stonewalling the amount of new doctors, and allow individuals to competitively shop for insurance/choose their doctors.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

A lot of people forget about all the research US companies do, which is then paid for by the US. If it seems like we pay more for the same care, it's because we're propping up the companies who research all the new wonder drugs. When we control the costs, there will be no incentive to continue research.

I do think Americans shoulder a disproportionate amount of the cost of new drug development.


But yes, our system is not the free market in action. We need to get out the middle men, get the AMA to stop stonewalling the amount of new doctors, and allow individuals to competitively shop for insurance/choose their doctors.

I think there are many things that affect the cost of health care. But I do there is more we can do to increase the choices for consumers.

I think HMOs were a potential avenue for controlling costs. Maybe with a few alterations. But there were tremendously unpopular. Somewhat unfairly targeted I think.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

They are replaying Senate hearings on medical care in the US on C-SPAN2 right now.

[Kit]

Having the United States imitate European health care systems is just unrealistic. There are demographic differences, cultural differences, and economic differences; it won't line up right.

Personally, I think the government needs to abandon ship with Social Security and put those funds into Medicare. Social Security is now just a big useless money pit that will be inadequate for the aging Boomer population.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Having the United States imitate European health care systems is just unrealistic. There are demographic differences, cultural differences, and economic differences; it won't line up right.

Personally, I think the government needs to abandon ship with Social Security and put those funds into Medicare. Social Security is now just a big useless money pit that will be inadequate for the aging Boomer population.Your so right and its these same differences that would prevent the American model being implemented in Europe not as if that would stop some conservative politicos forcing it upon us.

[HellToupee]

I do think Americans shoulder a disproportionate amount of the cost of new drug development.



Most of the money is spent on marketing drugs. Drug companies make huge profits the cost is lumped on the drug users.

[Will Clark]

Most of the money is spent on marketing drugs. Drug companies make huge profits the cost is lumped on the drug users.

Yup, but 15% profit, 30% marketing, and 15% research isn't excessive or unusual for a company providing such a service.

The costs are pretty much lumped onto drug users in the United States. When the government dictates lower prices that other countries pay for their knock off brands, these companies will collapse. Then we pay less, but remain stagnant.

[sinophile]

Most of the money is spent on marketing drugs. Drug companies make huge profits the cost is lumped on the drug users.

Your Pfizer and you spend $7.8 billion in 2006 on R&D. Damn right you spend like nuts on marketing.


you ended up with 3 drugs with real money-making potential.
You've got a year before some foreign countries start counterfeiting the drug. You've got possibly 12 years before the drug goes generic because six years we're used up in clinical trials.
You've got possibly 5 years before you're competition releases a copy with enough molecular variation they can sidestep your patent.
The whole time you're being sued by plantiff's attorneys for every patient that gets a rash on their ass as an alleged side-effect of the med.


Bottom-line... you don't know wtf you're talking about and you're approach would result in a return to leeches and witchcraft.