Bottomline: We are getting a horrible return (4.00 / 1)

on investment for our health care dollars.  We spend way more and have very little to show for it.  

RebelCapitalist - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.

---

by: RebelCapitalist @ Tue May 19, 2009 at 10:51:14 AM CDT

Seconded (4.00 / 1)

If Obama wants to cut health care costs AND create middle class jobs, he will triple the amount of seats in all levels of medical education.

It doesn't matter whether you have one payer or many, if the demand exceeds supply, you will have shortages and high prices.

Let all who wish to beg borrow or steal their way through medical school do so, don't let the OPEC of Medicine (The APA) tell us we can only have 1 dermatologist per 20,000 people, when the market would prefer much much more.

PS On a much more basic level, notice how this is the "third rail" and we cannot talk about it or debate it! The APA cut the number of medical school seats in the 80s even though the population - and hence the demand for doctors - was increasing dramatically.

The upshot: extremely rich doctors strutting around like Lords, and 50 million people without basic health care (the rest with shitty health care).

Don't wish this away with the false panacea of "single payer".

---

by: Paul Goodman @ Tue May 19, 2009 at 11:26:36 AM CDT

what exactly are you seconding, Paul? (0.00 / 0)

You are calling "single payer" a false panacea, but both "single payer" and the "public option" work by forcing costs down and squeezing profits out of the system.  Chris is advocating for the "public option" so I'm not sure what you're agreeing with.

That said, I am not necessarily disagreeing with your "supply side" proposal for increasing the number of doctors which is an idea I haven't thought much about.

What, though, is the APA?  I've heard of the American Medical Association which works pretty much as you are describing, but not the APA.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

---

by: sTiVo @ Tue May 19, 2009 at 11:55:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

More like this, Chris (0.00 / 0)

Excellent use of simple statistics to cut through the bullshit.  We need to get ready for a fight and this is good ammunition.  According to Robert Reich, key Senate Democrats like Schumer have ALREADY started to trim away from the "public option".

A third option is to create a public plan that pays for itself and, according to the office of Sen. Charles Schumer, who came up with it, "adheres to private-insurance rules." But adhering to private insurance rules is exactly what the public plan is not supposed to do. How can it possibly discipline private insurers and get good deals from drug companies and medical providers if it adheres to the same rules that private insurers have wangled?

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

---

by: sTiVo @ Tue May 19, 2009 at 11:59:38 AM CDT

Another thought I've had recently (4.00 / 2)

re: framing this issue:

Health Insurance as opposed to Health Care, is not a service, but is at most a way of paying for a service.  Or if Health Insurance is a service at all, it's a service to employers, enabling them to cut costs, whereas to the policyholders it's the disservice everyone knows it to be.  No way these folks are on your side.

In the past month, two personal anecdotes point this out:

1.  My wife has a serious, chronic, and incurable illness that is fairly expensive to treat.  Recently she started getting phone calls from a "Case Management" person at Blue Cross, pitched as helping her manage her illness.  She turns out to be fairly useless, never having met my wife, with little real familiarity with her situation, and nothing in her bag of tricks much more than a list of phone numbers to various charities who she thinks might be able to help.  She doesn't even have my wife's claims at her disposal.  Talk about useless!  

We need none of this.  The one thing we might be able to use is some help cutting through the idiot bureaucracy that is denying some of her claims for reasons that cannot even be discerned, let alone evaluated.  My wife did mention this situation to the "Case Manager" who was, surprise, surprise, unable to do anything about it.

2.  United Health Care (my employer's health insurance) left me a phone call the other day telling me I MUST call a phone number to learn some important information.  The "important information" turned out to be some new "resource" they were opening to help me with whatever health issues and questions I may happen to have.  I thought that was what DOCTORS were for.  

I detect a trend here.  Private Health Insurers are now trying to portray themselves more as a "service" since they have provided nothing in the line of service to the insured since they came into existence.  As it should be - they are NOT a service.  This new "service orientation" seems to me nothing but a cosmetic attempt to appear more service-like, while still not providing any tangible service to the insured.

And anyone they hire for these positions is a further waste of money.    

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

---

by: sTiVo @ Tue May 19, 2009 at 12:14:54 PM CDT

Gotta say (4.00 / 1)

This post will make me the owner of more than half the posts here.

Why don't Open Left Readers consider this a red-meat topic, such as yet another assessment of Obama or the latest torture revelations, which typically get dozens if not hundred of replies?

Ultimately, in my opinion, if the administration delivers something real here (at minimum a real public option) it can lay claim to having been partially successful, otherwise not.  

But we need to make this happen.  It won't happen on its own.  And it won't happen by venting spleen at Obama either, much as he may deserve it.  We need to direct the anger at the forces who are blocking Universal Health Care.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

---

by: sTiVo @ Tue May 19, 2009 at 12:20:14 PM CDT

This Is The Most Important Domestic Legislation In A Long Time (4.00 / 1)

    Unfortunately, there a lot of old tropes still being flung out into the public.  That's why it is so important to volunteer as much time as possible, donate whatever one can for Healthcare For America Now--or its different coalition groups. This is the campaign!

1.  On this issue, I would suggest working with the Obama donors list.  In doing so, I suggest you voice your concerns about the substance of the public option.  And don't get them any money after 1 contribution, if they don't include strong provisions in the legislation regarding a public option.

2.  Also, I think we should  to set up our own Facebook page, networking with Obama's donor list (there are people interested on the substance of this legislation on the list) on the policies we want implemented in the "public option"; otherwise, we will not give a cent towards "health-care reform".

3. I would ask anyone and everyone who wants to have a robust public option, to contact local artists of all stripes to do fundraisers for "A Strong Public Option".
I am shocked that no one has contacted any music groups or musicians to have large concerts on this issue around the country, especially in the states where Senators are weak on this issue.

***Can anyone tell me why this has not occurred?  Aside, from musicians, there a lot of celebrities and artists who I am sure will be interested.

4.  Lastly, while I strongly support single-payer reform, it is not going to become a reality.  So while I know Dean and others are trying to get the single-payer coalitions on board for a "strong public option", has there been any further outreach to bring them into the fold?  They have a large coalition.  We have to try to bridge the gap.

---

by: Jason Cataldi @ Tue May 19, 2009 at 13:17:29 PM CDT

The OECD (0.00 / 0)

report that you link to is an amazing report.  Another report
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/4...
This is a brief comparison of the US to other countries in spending.  The data is as of 2006.  Note that health spending increases are about the same for both the US and Europe.  Also note that the obesity rate in the United States is 34%, substantially higher than in Europe.  Obesity is rising in Europe, though as well.  As the report notes, the time lag between obesity and the onset of chronic desease suggests health care costs will significantly increase.

There was one report - which I cannot find - which was designed to evaluate McCain and Obama's proposals.

---

by: fladem @ Tue May 19, 2009 at 13:46:35 PM CDT

Surely this is about waste? (0.00 / 0)

It's just not government waste.

Some companies are run badly. We've taken over a lot of them. Why should healthcare be any different?

After all, only ideologues believe that private enterprise is always more efficient than government...

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Tue May 19, 2009 at 16:05:01 PM CDT