Healthcare Reform: Now What?
It's pretty clear that the various Democrat-sponsored health bills are dead in the water. The plans are simply antithetical to common sense. Even the President's most ardent supporters have to be watching in disbelief as really smart person after really smart person is sent to slaughter attempting to defend them. Can you recall any other big, controversial issue for which someone wasn't able to make a compelling case, no matter how much you might have been opposed? It has actually been uncomfortable to witness the complete dismantling of these people and their arguments with the very simplest of probing questions. If that alone doesn't highlight the proposed legislation's debilitating problems, see your doctor; you may be in Kool-Aid shock.
So, what now? Healthcare is clearly on an unsustainable path. And, the President is right; it does require reform.
Surprisingly, the ball could be in the Republicans' court. The GOP has largely been on the sidelines. Sure, they've helped to stoke the fires of discontent. But, for the most part, they've sat back as Democratic infighting and grassroots anger has fractured the partisan efforts of the administration and congressional leadership. Conceivably, the GOP might be abiding by that old Napoleon dictum, "Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake." But, is that really the proper approach? Is it enough to be united in opposition? To be fair, they have offered their own programs and amendments, but they haven't done so in as forceful and unified a fashion as possible. A clearly defined Republican alternative needs to be in the public's consciousness. So far, they've failed to get one there. The debate and the populace would benefit from an understandable and tangible comparison of the two programs.
If the Republicans do not make a stronger effort to promote their ideas, and instead count on the continued implosion of the Democrats, they risk ultimate failure, because a less radical, but still economically disastrous piece of legislation will eventually pass.
It is not difficult to imagine a scenario whereby something terrible makes it to the finish line because the opposition wears down and/or the public becomes immune to the counterarguments. The legislation might look better in comparison to the original, far out of the mainstream draft, but it still could be catastrophic. If someone is hitting you on the head 100 times a day, but finally agrees to do it 50 times, you're better off because of the reduction, but at the end of the day, you're still getting hit on the head.
There is a reasonable deal to be made if ideology is set aside. The potential elements are not unknown—tax credits for the uninsured, medical savings accounts, pooling, portability, tort reform, standardized electronic medical records, etc, etc. etc.
Democrat and Republican centrists would be wise to find common ground where it exists and compromise where it doesn't.
It's the right thing to do.
P.S. To those of you who are regulars, thank you very much for your readership. If you comment infrequently or never at all, please take a moment to express your opinion on this entry or any of the many others. A dialogue is much better than a monologue.
So, what now? Healthcare is clearly on an unsustainable path. And, the President is right; it does require reform.
Surprisingly, the ball could be in the Republicans' court. The GOP has largely been on the sidelines. Sure, they've helped to stoke the fires of discontent. But, for the most part, they've sat back as Democratic infighting and grassroots anger has fractured the partisan efforts of the administration and congressional leadership. Conceivably, the GOP might be abiding by that old Napoleon dictum, "Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake." But, is that really the proper approach? Is it enough to be united in opposition? To be fair, they have offered their own programs and amendments, but they haven't done so in as forceful and unified a fashion as possible. A clearly defined Republican alternative needs to be in the public's consciousness. So far, they've failed to get one there. The debate and the populace would benefit from an understandable and tangible comparison of the two programs.
If the Republicans do not make a stronger effort to promote their ideas, and instead count on the continued implosion of the Democrats, they risk ultimate failure, because a less radical, but still economically disastrous piece of legislation will eventually pass.
It is not difficult to imagine a scenario whereby something terrible makes it to the finish line because the opposition wears down and/or the public becomes immune to the counterarguments. The legislation might look better in comparison to the original, far out of the mainstream draft, but it still could be catastrophic. If someone is hitting you on the head 100 times a day, but finally agrees to do it 50 times, you're better off because of the reduction, but at the end of the day, you're still getting hit on the head.
There is a reasonable deal to be made if ideology is set aside. The potential elements are not unknown—tax credits for the uninsured, medical savings accounts, pooling, portability, tort reform, standardized electronic medical records, etc, etc. etc.
Democrat and Republican centrists would be wise to find common ground where it exists and compromise where it doesn't.
It's the right thing to do.
P.S. To those of you who are regulars, thank you very much for your readership. If you comment infrequently or never at all, please take a moment to express your opinion on this entry or any of the many others. A dialogue is much better than a monologue.
I work in the IT Health Care sector. We are experiencing the same thing we did when Hilary was threatening everyone. Nothing is moving forward. Everyone is taking a wait and see attitude. Everyone knows the Health Care system is broken, but nobody knows how to fix it. What scares everyone the most is having the government, who does not "manage" anything well, come up with a government run plan. I don't have any answers, but I do feel that getting the government involved is a BIG mistake.
Reply to this
Frequent reader, seldom contributor...
Yes, the GOP does have the potential to take the upper hand in the health care debate. But I doubt their ability to do so after watching them drop the ball so many times.
Key to the health care solution is tort reform, MSA's, etc. BUT just as important, it must be simple. Reform cannot be adding mandate on top of mandate. A health care metaphor -Putting more bandages on may stop the bleeding but does nothing about the infection, which will persist unseen under the heap of bandages, until the limb must be cut or falls off. Simplicity would also help the public understand and the politicians explain the issue. I enjoyed Krauthammer's 8/7/09 editorial in the Wash Post where he makes this point much better than I can.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/06/AR2009080602933.html
Reply to this
The healthcare issue is undoubtedly complicated, but a major fix can be accomplished in a lot less than 1000 pages. Nobody is talking about tort reform. The enormous cost of emergency care can be greatly decreased. ER docs are scared witless by the threat of a lawsuit. Consequently, they order every lab test and radiographic procedure that they can think of, in order to cover their butts. And if they don't, the patients are well enough informed to demand them. Pity the poor ERMD who refuses to xray a pretty normal looking ankle on a child, when the probabilities of a fracture are slim to none. In the one in a thousand cases where a subtle fracture is present, the ER doc is toast. If this situation is not corrected, everyone will have health insurance, but no doctor to treat them.
Secondly, Medicare is in dire financial condition. Medicare premiums are not sufficient to cover the care demanded by overpromised seniors. There will be rationing in some form. This problem must be left in the hands of the physician. You cannot allow terminally ill patients, with no hope of recovery to fill our hospital intensive care units. This is a quite different situation, than allowing a perfectly alert and viable 85 year old to have a fractured hip repaired or replaced. This is no decision to be left in the hands of a bureaucratic committee.
The government has made a big deal about about privacy with the HIPPA act. There is certainly room for improvements and cost savings in the IT area, but this also must be in the hands of health care professionals. This should not be a government function.
These few improvements would go a long way in curing many of the problems of our healthcare system, without the further intrusion of government.
Reply to this
Another problem with the healthcare bill, is that Obama is now leading the fight, and he has no clue what is in the bill. He makes things up as he goes along. The real danger of passing any kind of bill, even though watered down, will allow the camel's nose under the tent. In time, this administration will include every onerous provision into this plan. Better the Dems can force the bill through in its present condition, and let the whole industry collapse, so that it can be rebuilt from the ground up.
Furthermore, Obama better watch what he is saying about doctors. There are always a few bad characters in any profession, but the vast majority try to do a good job in helping their patients. I have never heard of any doctor rubbing his hands with glee at the thought of removing an appendage, so that he can make $30,000. Medicare pays between $500 and $700 for that kind of procedure anyway. Unfortunately, doctors do not have any community organizers to band them together. Perhaps they could hire some Acorn operatives to organize a strike. Then Obama could do the surgical procedures himself and add to the riches he has already attained.
Reply to this
I enjoy reading your blog.
Reply to this
I believe we have two challenges 1) Living Healthy 2) Health care. One is linked to the other, we need to solve both or there will not be enough health dollars to cover the aging population and the growing unhealthy population. They are on a collision course, the morbidly obese increased by 50% from 2000 to 2005 even though stomach reductions have averaged 200,000 per year. Throw cigarette, drug(legal and illegal) and alcohol abuse into the mix and where will the money come from to pay for a life saving operation. Colorado is considered to have the only healthy population out of the 50 states. The big decisions that will be the talk of our retiring years will be who will be the ones selected for life saving surgery/medicine and who will not. Will it be based on a health factor like BMI or your healthy/unhealthy lifestyle?
Reply to this