tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7476621888383604834.post8311391610811567703..comments2024-02-15T03:26:38.897-05:00Comments on Health Care Organizational Ethics: Turning the Republican Attack on Health Care Reform on its HeadJim Sabinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03087828142188534542noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7476621888383604834.post-54206437939549883602009-07-27T19:22:07.536-04:002009-07-27T19:22:07.536-04:00Dear anonymous -
Thank you for your bi-national c...Dear anonymous -<br /><br />Thank you for your bi-national comments. Your description of your emergency room adventure is, alas. not rare. A family member of mine got a cut that she recognized needed some stitches. Her primary care doctor's office was closed, so she went to the emergency room. Her bill for the 10 minutes there was came in at 3 digits, not 4 like yours, but just barely.<br /><br />It must seem strange for someone accustomed to the NHS to hear the disinformation we Yanks spread about care in the U.K., Canada and any other country that might be used as an example to prod ourself to make changes.<br /><br />Best<br /><br />JimJim Sabinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087828142188534542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7476621888383604834.post-13259868599128763442009-07-27T16:16:47.843-04:002009-07-27T16:16:47.843-04:00I KNOW ALL ABOUT NATIONAL HEALTHCARE! – IT’S A JOY...I KNOW ALL ABOUT NATIONAL HEALTHCARE! – IT’S A JOY!!!! And as a wealthy individual, I can vouch that it did not take away from our way of life in UK. Au contraire, it gave us freedom from fear, always! The government never decided whether or not we required a heart transplant, believe me, it was the doctor! We carried catastrophic insurance for serious injury, minimal expense, but for countless doctor visits such as cuts, stitches, accidents, mammograms, blood checks etc… it was superb. Not perfect, but isn’t occasional human failing inevitable as humans. And believe me, care was just as good if not better. Conversely, living in the States, always holding comprehensive insurance, at great cost, with high deductibles, I end up paying for every health check in addition. What kind of service is that? I’m slim and healthy. However, one hour in emergency with a simple back spasm from hiking cost me $2500. Placed on every conceivable machine in the ER, presumably to bring up hospital shortfalls to compensate for my friends without insurance! Bless their hearts and livers. What kind of justice is that! – America, please do yourselves a favor? Place a cap on lawsuits – if the doctor cuts off your pinky instead of your toe, you deserve compensation, but not multi millions. Save that money to see youngsters through medical school – we will have more good doctors. Another pitfall, if America insists on eating fast food, then lets encourage fast food chains that offer health-building alternatives. America, you deserve freedom!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7476621888383604834.post-58307620757155150422009-07-09T10:37:01.173-04:002009-07-09T10:37:01.173-04:00Hi Tim -
Thanks for this comment. It covers a lot...Hi Tim -<br /><br />Thanks for this comment. It covers a lot of ground!<br /><br />It may well be that for some folks in the Obama administration the public option is a stealth way to get to a single payer plan. Zeke Emanuel's proposal, though it was written before he joined OMB, is built around the concept of multiple insurers. <br /><br />If the public plan controlled costs simply by lowering reimbursement it would not be a boon for the health system. Medicare has not yet been allowed to be innovative in using its clout to push hard for improved care, and if a new public plan were similarly constrained I wouldn't see it as worthwhile.<br /><br />I wish I could agree with you that private insurers have been able to control costs. When they did so in the 1990s the backlash was fierce, and they retreated - understandably - from managing care since then. There's been so much villification of insurance in our political discourse that I can't see the public granting legitimacy to insurers to make tough choices about whether or not to pay for marginally beneficial treatment.<br /><br />If the administration's intent is to get to a single payer system by way of a new public plan that would gradually kill off private insurance I agree with you that in principle telling the truth would be the preferable approach. My GUESS is that this is not the administration's intent. As I said in my posting, I believe that a public plan would have more leeway to engage seriously with cost management than private insurers do. Good private insurers could do the job well, but being trusted to set limits fairly is half of the job, and we - the public and our political leaders - have demonized insurers too much for that trust to be available.<br /><br />Best<br /><br />JimJim Sabinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087828142188534542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7476621888383604834.post-68295318578563865282009-07-08T03:27:47.198-04:002009-07-08T03:27:47.198-04:00The problem with a public plan that competes with ...The problem with a public plan that competes with private insurers is that the Obama Administration intends for it to be the only plan. And, in a matter of time it will not have to outperform the private plans. If the public plan pays providers what it is paying for other government plans now, it will in effect pass on the difference to the private plans - until they collapse! With subsidies to artificially lower the "premium," of the public plan, and no accountability to a budget, the public plan will attract enrollment from the private plans, and reduce their revenue until the private plans cannot pay providers any more than Medicare and Medicaid pay them. What this plan overlooks is that private plans have had success with cutting costs and improving the health of the 200 million Americans with private insurance primarily purchased by employers. <br />It is a revenue stream grab. It is no secret that the government NEEDS control of 15%+ of the GDP (paid for Healthcare) to pay for other programs. <br />I am not fundamentally opposed to this scenario - but call it what it truly is! It is a single payer plan. The plan is for private insurance companies to be driven out of the system. And, while we are telling the truth, tell us what the public plan looks like. How will it save money and help us get healthier? Hopefully, we can salvage some of the private plans’ collective knowledge for promoting wellness before they are eliminated.Tim J. LeClairehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316149449631798798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7476621888383604834.post-66105512957791367522009-06-22T07:15:08.338-04:002009-06-22T07:15:08.338-04:00Hi Eric -
Thanks for the link!
For the President...Hi Eric -<br /><br />Thanks for the link!<br /><br />For the President, speaking to the AMA isn't quite as much of a challenge as speaking in Cairo was, but it's a bit in the same direction. I thought his AMA speech was a good one. I hope that his extraordinary communicative abilities plus his intelligence will allow him to be a true leader of national reflection about health care.<br /><br />Best<br /><br />JimJim Sabinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087828142188534542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7476621888383604834.post-45487914013610443282009-06-21T18:41:56.329-04:002009-06-21T18:41:56.329-04:00http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/our-peop...http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/our-people/house-delegates/2009-annual-meeting/speeches.shtml<br />Jim--President Obama took your suggestions. Above is a link to his speech to the AMA. The reaction of the AMA responds to a concern you state in today's post. --Ericerichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16137189911651175163noreply@blogger.com