------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 20 - WORLD GOA DAY
Celebrating the inclusion of Konkani in the 8th schedule of the
Indian Constitution on August 20, 1992
For a list of World Goa Day events see:
http://worldgoaday2009.blogspot.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- On Thu, 8/20/09, Mario Goveia <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Ironically, Gilbert parrots a blogger called Rad21 in the Huffington
> Post as was noticed by Santosh recently.? I guess he hoped no one would
> notice.
>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: lyrawmn <[email protected]>
It is my understanding that Gilbert Lawrence IS blogger Rad21 on Huff Post, and
not parroting (or plagiarizing, also known as brain rape) as M. Goveia wrongly
insinuates.
Mario asks:
Hey, lyrawmn,
"It is my understanding?" Do you know for sure or don't you? I would only be
wrong if we knew for sure whether there is self-brain-rape going on - using
your terms:-))
Anyway, it's not important with respect to Goanet as my following comments show.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Santosh Helekar <[email protected]>
Please don't be misled by my response to Gilbert. Gilbert does indeed comment
on the Huffington Post blog under the pseudonym rad21. You may not like his
arguments because of ideological differences, which is fair enough. But his
posts here and on the HP blog do argue the center-left position on health care
quite well.
Mario responds:
Since I haven't seen a denial, you are probably right.
Not to make too fine a point, but I would characterize my differences with
Gilbert or anyone else for that matter as intellectual, not ideological, the
difference being that I am not a member of any organized group and try to cite
facts and credible sources and logical common sense which an ideologue
generally cannot or does not.
Secondly, anyone who has practiced medicine for 40 years in the US must by
definition know something about the topic, even though weak economic
fundamentals or personal beliefs may lead to gems like, "The goal of the new
healthcare system should not be to ration medical care but rather to have a
rational application of care - one based on proven science and accepted
practice patterns."
Is it the "goal" of any national healthcare system to ration care, or does that
come from a mismatch in the patients to resources ratio by the same systems
that brag about being cheaper than American healthcare but have massive
mismatches of resources relative to the patients in their systems?
I heard Dr. Brian Day, past President of the Canadian Medical Association being
interviewed last night on TV. He said out of Canada's 34 million population
that ostensibly gets "free" health care, 5 million - 15% - do not even have a
primary care physician because they just don't have enough doctors. He said
that there are 1 million patients on waiting lists for surgery and another 1
million waiting to see a surgeon so that they can get on a waiting list for
surgery. Is this any way to practice medicine in a developed society?
Obviously this was not a "goal" of their system.
Dr. Day also said that it was a misnomer to say that all healthcare was covered
in Canada. He said that Canadians still have to buy private insurance for
their medications and for allied services like ambulances, etc. not to mention
American insurance for treatment in the US when necessary. See,
http://freep.com/article/20090820/BUSINESS06/908200420/1319/
There was a case just this week where a woman in Britain's "free" system had to
give birth on the pavement outside a hospital. When she unexpectedly went into
labor and called her midwife asking for an ambulance she was told she should
sit in a hot bath and then make it to the hospital on her own, a distance of
100 metres, because ambulances are not covered by NHS and she had had nine
months to arrange a ride. She didn't make it all the way and a passing
physiotherapist helped deliver the baby. Fortunately, baby and mother are
doing fine. In the US an ambulance would have been on its way in seconds
regardless of her ability to pay.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207151/Woman-gives-birth-pavement-refused-ambulance.html
One of my relatives had an anaphylactic reaction to a jellyfish sting in Miami,
FL, eight months ago. They called 911 and the EMTs were there in less than 5
minutes, took the child to the nearest emergency room, and no one even asked
for any payment even though they had insurance.
Contrast this humane response with the one in Britain. Yet, in a gross
generalization, Gilbert says Americans should be ashamed of their system.
Finally, Dr. Day said that in British Columbia, where he lives, 42% of the
state budget is for healthcare and this is projected to rise to 90% in the next
few years if their system is not reformed.
Dr. Ann Doig, the incoming President of the Canadian Medical Association said
the Canadian system is "imploding".
No rational person can say the American system is "imploding" - all it needs to
do is to cover the 15 million - 5% - hard core uninsurables, and require the
illegal aliens and others, like the Yuppies and self employed persons, who can
afford to buy their own coverage, to do so.
And is Gilbert suggesting that physicians are not applying medical care
rationally "...based on proven science and accepted practice patterns."
Within the context of practicing medicine based on "proven science and accepted
practice patterns" what do you think of a physician with decades of experience
in the US system writing four essays on solving the healthcare crisis but
making just one passing reference to the "medico-legal system", without
stridently calling for tort reform, the one elephant in the room that causes
BILLIONS in medical costs from defensive practice patterns to avoid lawsuits,
costs that are largely non-existent outside the USA.
Neither is the Messiah Hussein interested in tort reform because he has been
bribed to avoid this by the trial lawyers. Can we have REAL health reform
without some form of tort reform so that physicians can practice rationally and
not defensively?
Gilbert writes, "The implementation of R&D will reduce the cost of care by 20%
- 30%, bringing it, as a percentage of GDP, in-line with or lower than other
industrialized countries."
Oh, really? Isn't American R&D costs, unmatched in other countries, and the
steady stream of medical and pharmaceutical solutions and breakthroughs in the
US that we get as a result, that Americans and the rest of the world take for
granted, one of the reasons the American healthcare system is far more
expensive than any other country?
Also missing was any recognition that the third party payers, the 13,000 or so
insurance programs across America, operate under a blizzard of federal and
state regulations that inhibit free competition across state lines and force
them to cover politically correct medical issues, while protecting the weaker
players. The Messiah Hussein's solution is to throw yet another insurance
company into the fray to "punish" the existing insurance companies. This is
pure poppycock given the certainty that a government-run insurance will be an
unimitigated disaster like all government-run organizations.
For those who understand free market economics the best way to punish the
insurance companies is to de-regulate the industry and let them punish those of
them that cannot compete and are being protected by government regulations. By
allowing free competition among the fewer insurance companies that will survive
each with larger numbers of insured persona would also reduce costs and improve
coverages considerably, to the point that they may also be able to absorb the
risk of accepting genuine cases of pre-existing conditions.
If Gilbert stuck to arguing his center-left positions that would be one thing.
Unfortunately, in concert with others who populate the Huffington Post, and
piggy backing back and forth with some of his cronies on Goanet, who are all
left-left, the tendency to build straw men, demagogue certain facts and insert
snide personal comments to dismiss others who disagree with him is what brings
retaliation and drags the discourse down.
I still haven't heard a response to the "pre-existing condition" conundrum in
the context of laws restricting private health insurance companies from
competing nationwide and accumulating larger samples of patients to achieve
better actuarial patterns to absorb risks and lower costs. Not to mention why
anyone would buy health insurance if they could wait until they already had a
serious illness.
I don't think such thorny issues can be swept under the rug to arrive at a
rational system that preserves the technological superiority of American health
care and cover the 5% of uninsurables, avoid being buried by covering illegal
aliens, while also avoiding the Canadian and British models of care rationed by
panels of bureaucrats while bragging that they are less costly.
Of course they are less costly because they simply don't have enough equipment
and facilities and physicians, which is what the waiting lists are all about.
