Re: The thread about the thread Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 13/09/2009, at 2:27 PM, Ray Ludenia wrote: The change of seasons is not as obvious here as it seemed to be in the States as we toured around last year. We don't go from ridiculous negative temperatures to extreme heat as for example in Colorado. It's gradually getting warmer now (the low 20s C) and it looks like we might be expecting another horror bushfire season. Melbourne's dams are still below 30% full after 12 years of drought. I'm wondering how many more years it is before it gets through to people that it's looking like it's not just a deviation from the average, it's a climate shift to a hotter drier south-eastern Australia. And yeah, another horror season ahead. :-( Hopefully people will be better prepared for catastrophic conditions this year, and more inclined to arrange to be elsewhere on Red Alert days. Charlie. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The thread about the thread Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Ray wrote: The change of seasons is not as obvious here as it seemed to be in the States as we toured around last year. We don't go from ridiculous negative temperatures to extreme heat as for example in Colorado. It's gradually getting warmer now (the low 20s C) and it looks like we might be expecting another horror bushfire season. Melbourne's dams are still below 30% full after 12 years of drought. We're having a bit of a drought here in California as well, but nothing like what you're experiencing. Of course we experience nasty wildfires every year too. Um, I'd like my health care to be unnecessary! If only... If you mean do I like Australia's system?, then overall, I'd say yes. There is universal health coverage under the government mandated Medicare system, and as well as that, many people also to take out private health cover (which is subsidised by a 30% gov contribution). I won't go into detail here, but I encourage those on both sides of the debate to perhaps check out: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/healthsystem-overview-1-Introduction or http://tinyurl.com/qppnmu This seems like a very reasonable system. Its obvious that there _must_ be some large degree of subsidy by the government because insurance companies can't make money insuring low and no income people. Being a government site, it perhaps paints too rosy a picture, but it does give the outline of the system. From discussions with many people during our US trip last year, it was amazing to us what a worry it was to US citizens about how to pay for their health care. Some of the premiums discussed were to our ears, unbelievable. Relying so much on employer-sponsored health benefits seems to me a strange system. The employed surely are far more able to pay for their own health coverage than the unemployed. Here in Australia, at least everyone is entitled to basic care, usually with little copayment required. It obviously does help if you can afford to take out private health insurance was well, as it increases the range of choices you have for treatment. The system here is a mess, a complicated mess. I agree that employee sponsored care is not the best approach, but how do you change it? The reform measures they're working on now are a strange amalgamation of public and private systems, but hopefully it will eventually lead to a system similar to yours. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Doug Pensinger brig...@zo.com wrote: John Williams wrote: http://american.com/archive/2009/august/maybe-we-should-spend-more-on-healthcare Yikes. Let's first look at the source of the article, The American Enterprise Institute. Actually, the source of the article is the author, James V. DeLong. The publisher is The American, and the owner of the publisher is the American Enterprise Institute. Here's a bio for James V. DeLong: http://cei.org/people/james-v-delong Described in Wiki as some of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy. Well, if you are interested in the background of the author, Jame V. DeLong, you could look at specifics of his life, in the bio above. He does not seem to be closely associated with the American Enterprise Institute. In fact, his associations look rather diverse, a quality which you have praised. Or we could continue playing your game of six degrees of separation. James V. DeLong can be linked to the Clinton administration in two steps (1. Bradford, 2. Clinton's deputy assistant secretary of Treasury), and those steps are less tenuous than the two you have just outlined. If you want to figure out how expensive health care should be, looking at other systems around the world should at least give a ballpark idea as to what we should be paying. In what sense should be? I don't see why I should choose something just because someone else has. I should be able to make my own choices as to what benefits me the most. Which is one of the points DeLong was making: | The proper level of spending depends on the value derived from it, | and in the end this level should be whatever results from the sum of | consumer choices made in the light of the value received. And if we're doing the lions share of the innovation when it comes to medical research, then maybe we need to figure out how to get the rest of the world that benefits just as much as we do (if not more) One way to accomplish this is for American companies who develop useful new techniques to profit by selling related goods or services throughout the world. Personally, I think that a system that places an emphasis on boner drugs, reformulation of proven drugs and anti-depressants that don't work is in need of an overhaul in and of itself. I don't have a problem with any of those drugs being sold to people who want to buy them. Just because I don't want to buy them (at the moment), does not mean that others should be unable to buy them. We should all have the choice to buy any of those drugs, and as many more as people can think up. Diversity is good. Finally, if the proposed reforms are really what we need to fix the system, why weren't they implemented when they had the ear of the president and a cooperative congress? Who is they? Are you saying that James V. DeLong's proposed reforms are not worthwhile because the American Enterprise Institute did not persuade the Bush administration to eliminate the tax subsidy for employment-based health insurance? I don't think that could be what you are saying, since it does not make a lot of sense. But I cannot imagine what else you meant. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Health care reform: without a correct diagnosis, there is no cure
Jeffrey S. Flier is Dean of Harvard Medical School. In the Journal of Clinical Investigation article referenced below, Flier offers his ideas on health care reform. http://www.jci.org/articles/view/41033 Flier identifies three root causes for the symptoms of America's health care ills: | First, there is our inefficient and inequitable system of | tax-advantaged, employer-based health insurance. While the federal | tax code promotes overspending by making the majority unaware of the | true cost of their insurance and care, the code is grossly unfair to | the self-employed, small businesses, workers who stick with a bad job | because they need the coverage, and workers who lose their jobs after | getting sick. | Secondhealth insurance markets suffer from overregulation, which | limits innovation in both insurance and new ways of delivering medical | care. | Third, we have Medicaid and Medicare These programs pay providers | by administrative pricing formulas that are well documented to promote | both overuse and underuse of appropriate care, have led to rising | expenditures decoupled from better health, and obligate massive future | deficits that everyone agrees are unsustainable. They are also rife with | fraud and abuse. Flier also recommends David Goldhill's recent article in The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: From CNN: Democratic leaders in Congress soften on public option
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Ronn! Blankenship ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net wrote: The Democratic leaders of the House and Senate on Thursday signaled their willingness to drop a government run public health insurance option from a final health-care bill. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/10/democratic-leaders-in-congress-soften-on-public-option/ This seems unfortunately, since it certainly appears to me that the health care industry could benefit from more competition. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: From CNN: Democratic leaders in Congress soften on public option
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Nick Arnett nick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: This seems unfortunately, since it certainly appears to me that the health care industry could benefit from more competition. I'm always in favor of more competition. But I think the best way to increase competition, without increasing government spending[1], is for the Federal government to pressure the states to reform state laws that limit interstate competition for health insurance. Perhaps make Medicaid funds dependent on such reforms. [1] I know that reformers claim the government option would not be subsidized, but I find that extremely hard to believe. I'm afraid it would end up sucking down taxpayer money quite soon. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
John Williams wrote: Actually, the source of the article is the author, James V. DeLong. The publisher is The American, and the owner of the publisher is the American Enterprise Institute. The latter being one of the driving forces behind the failed conservative revolution and the miserable failure that was the W. Bush administration. DeLong's resume is impressive, but the fact that his article appears in the AEI rag is a strike against it. If you want to figure out how expensive health care should be, looking at other systems around the world should at least give a ballpark idea as to what we should be paying. In what sense should be? I don't see why I should choose something just because someone else has. I should be able to make my own choices as to what benefits me the most. Which is one of the points DeLong was making: It's not just because someone else has it, it's because it works and it doesn't cost nearly as much. Looking at other country's health insurance is like comparison shopping; there are dozens of them that do as well or better than we do on overall quality while paying a good deal less than we do. One way to accomplish this is for American companies who develop useful new techniques to profit by selling related goods or services throughout the world. Personally, I think that a system that places an emphasis on boner drugs, reformulation of proven drugs and anti-depressants that don't work is in need of an overhaul in and of itself. I don't have a problem with any of those drugs being sold to people who want to buy them. Just because I don't want to buy them (at the moment), does not mean that others should be unable to buy them. We should all have the choice to buy any of those drugs, and as many more as people can think up. Diversity is good. I don't have a problem with the drugs, I have a problem with the priorities. Big pharma concentrates on those drugs that can make them the most money rather than those that are deemed most necessary. Sometimes those interests coincide, many times they do not. It's a glaring flaw in the free market system. Finally, if the proposed reforms are really what we need to fix the system, why weren't they implemented when they had the ear of the president and a cooperative congress? Who is they? They referred to the proposed reforms and what I meant was that AEI and the rest of the neocons and the Bush administration had ample opportunity to address these problems when their guy and their congress was in power. As for JVD's one paragraph proposal of reforms it didn't even begin to address some of the most glaring problems such as how to cover the 50 million people that have no coverage. His proposals are vague and generally not very helpful. Take the first one; a phaseout of employment-based health insurance in favor of other policies Great, phase 'em out. I agree with that and said as much in a different post, but how do we phase them out? What other policies will we employ?The high deductible thing is just dumb. If people have high deductibles they will avoid being seen and what ever is wrong with them will probably get worse and cost more to treat. Instead, they should lower rates if a person gets regular checkups and encourage them to come in in cases where early treatment could prevent complications. In any case, I was less than impressed with the article. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: From CNN: Democratic leaders in Congress soften on public option
John Williams wrote: [1] I know that reformers claim the government option would not be subsidized, but I find that extremely hard to believe. I'm afraid it would end up sucking down taxpayer money quite soon. Who's paying for the uninsured right now? Are we just telling them they are SOL and sending them home? Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
