Saturday, August 29, 2009
When everyone gets a chance they should watch this outstanding Bill Moyers Journal on healthcare. A very good journal which gives many reasons why our health care is the best in certain areas, and substandard in others. It is based off the book Money-Driven medicine and details the growth of the medical industry and how this leads to higher costs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Just watched this, it's a really good explaination of the problem. It's really good!!
I just wish they addressed some posible fixes.
THANKS MIKE!
It sounds like we are now in agreement that there is problem.
BTW here is a quote from a doctor in the movie
"We're not the best health care system in the world in infant mortality rates. We're like number 23. There is an index that is used in rating health care systems, which is the rate of mortality that could have been prevented by health care. There are at least a dozen countries with lower rates of preventable mortalities than the United States and not one of those countries spends 60 percent of what we do on health care. "
How about a public option in return for reasonable tort reform?
He followed that by saying we are no doubt the best in rescue care..
He eluded to the fact that if you need the most advanced chemo or heart surgury we are the best.
So I guess we're both half right.
I like the thought of tort reform, is anyone proposing such a plan... I could probably sign on for that.
This is frustrating part. There is no doubt in my mind that Obama would accept some tort reform in return for a strong bipartisan healthcare plan. Unfortunately, the republicans would still count that as a loss.
Complete opposition and stoking the same hate that fueled McCain-Palin rallies last Fall is a safer option.
Here is my suggestion for the public option cover anyone who wants/needs a health plan from birth through age 21 and 65 and older. What's missing?
The unemployed (continued coverage from previous job until new job is obtained?) and prenatal care (should "birth" be conception? )tough issue.
Re: tort reform. The Dems have 60 votes -- why would they risk one of their most valued constituency? What would it buy them?
Re: the RET plan. 0-18 is covered by SCHIP and Medicaid. 65+ is covered by Medicare. I'm not being cute here -- why cover things that are already covered?
(Or are you suggesting that your public option cover 18+ to 65?)
Or are you suggesting that we lower the floor on SCHIP? That's reasonable, but at some point, we should not be taxing the rich to pay for the middle class anymore than we do.
As a start I am suggest an even larger lower income level and at least two extra years with the hopes of ensuring that everyone has sustained coverage through their life.
The reason I support SOME tort reform is that it is well known that malpractice insurance affects healthcare costs AND the Doctors are more likely to be sued because of their bedside manner than their medical capabilities.
I might be an idealist but I would like to believe Obama's pursuit of healthcare reform is both from moral AND fiscal grounds
I'm sorry -- you're right -- I meant raising the ceiling. Sure, I guess, but I'm guessing that's a little less ambitious than what folks are looking for, for both the short and long run.
Obama is probably interested in both universal coverage and "bending the curve." It's pretty clear that "bending the curve", sadly, isn't going to go anywhere. He's much better off pushing universal coverage, which is what you, Rich, are trying to do with your plan (i.e. widening SCHIP's reach)
But the ranks of the uninsured are much less sympathetic (electorally speaking) than kids w/o health care. It takes a bit more doing to get people convinced to do more for them.
Post a Comment