Health Care Reform – Issue is a perfect example of the notion that ‘all politics are local’

August 5, 2009
By

The national debate this summer over reforming health care is all about changing a system that’s destined to bankrupt the nation.

Nowhere is this more evident than right here in Revere.

In the School Department budget next year, it will cost the city $7.7 million to provide health insurance for school employees.

Mayor Thomas Ambrosino has used some of $1.75 million in federal stimulus money to cover part of that amount because the city didn’t have the funds on hand to pay it.

Five years from today, the bill for health insurance for the city’s School Department employees will be $3-$5 million higher – an unsustainable amount of money.

At that rate of increase, the city will likely have to make Draconian choices in the years to come – notwithstanding what contracts provide for.

Health care reform the president is asking for is becoming more of a political battle than a reality battle for health care reform.

We know this – even where we sit, far away from Washington and not close to the corridors of power wherever they exist – without health care reform, the nation goes bankrupt in five years.

We are hearing many arguments that go like this: “You don’t want to do a total reform. Just fix bits and pieces.”

That’s how the Republicans want to do it, and frankly, we don’t understand why.

Fixing bits and pieces is like wrapping a leaking pipe with a cloth instead of removing the pipe, and with a torch and flux, fixing it for the next 20 years.

“We’re very fearful of the government running health insurance,” say the Republicans.

However, how many Republicans are on Medicare or Medicaid, and who is afraid of those programs working? And who runs those two vital programs? The government.

There is a bottom line to this issue. The bottom line is fiscal survival and health care for everyone.

Everyone in this nation should have government provided health care or be able to purchase their own.

This is what a great nation does.

How do we call ourselves the greatest nation in the world when many of our middle class and working poor can’t afford health insurance for themselves and their children?

A great nation like ours provides health insurance to its people, at the very least.

Let’s get on with it and reform health care.

  • hsr0601

    According to the scoring of CBO on the prevention & wellness program, all fitness centers around the world should close down immediately and all media have to end reporting health tips about prevention.

    Immune System & Levee System :

    All of the excellent health systems seem to have one thing in common, a expansive, systematic preventative program requiring immense investments. I think a prevention system works as a ‘levee’ built against flood by the government, similarly, it also needs non-profit investments from the government ‘on a large scale’.

    This might offer us the clue of why all of the free states have public insurance policy in place.

    It won’t be easy to draw some specific numbers on the economic effect of the ‘levee’ , but the flood measure lacking a stable ‘levee’ would be a house on sand, as the too high level of ‘preventable’ chronic diseases in America shows.

    At present, about 75 percent of each health dollar goes to treating chronic conditions.
    When tests reveal patients are at risk of a chronic disease, physicians have no benefit to help them make necessary changes to stay healthy. Rather, the system today is designed around treating patients once they become sick.

    If current health care system could shift a small percentage of total spending into programs that help prevent people from getting sick in the first place, it would dramatically reduce the overall cost of care.

    Thankfully, the health care reform bill currently before Congress makes several key investments in preventive care, and those pieces of the PUBLIC OPTION must be maintained.

    “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”, said Benjamin Franklin , and ‘Early Detection’ goes beyond monetary value as we see the recent case.

    As far as I’m concerned, the congress affected by the special interests has impeded the budget request for prevention program in Medicare & Medicaid. Let’s imagine the costs and invaluable lives following the levee breach.

    Thank You !

  • hsr0601

    The ‘innovative’ idea of a ‘pay for value / outcome’ pack came after the CBO had previously pointed out this health care reform wouldn’t work without ‘fundamental’ change in the out of date system. It is said that as much as 30 percent of all health-care spending in the U.S. -some $700 billion a year- may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not improve the health of the recipients, and this 700 billion dollars a year can cover a lot of uninsured people.

    The expected Benefits of this ‘innovative idea’ are as follows ;

    1. Meet the objective of revenue-neutral.
    Supporters of the agreement say it could save the Medicare System more than $100 billion a year and ‘improve’
    care, that means more than $1trillian over next decade, and virtually needs no other resources including tax on the
    wealthiest. Supposedly even the ‘conservative’ number of such savings might be able to meet the objective of
    revenue-neutral.

    2. Quality and affordability.
    If you are a physician, and your pay is dependant upon your patient’s outcome, you will most likely strive to
    prescribe the best medicine earlier in the process, let alone skipping the wasteful, unnecessary risk-carrying
    procedures.

    3. No intervention in decision-making.
    The innovative idea of ‘a pay for outcome’ will more likely prompt team approach and decision, as at Myo clinic.
    Under the ‘pay for outcome’ pack, for good reason, best practices as ‘recommendations’ would simply help them
    make a better decision, and the government won’t still have to meddle in the final, actual decision-making
    process as a non-expert.

    4. Speed up the introduction of IT SYSTEM.
    The pay for ‘Outcome’ pack is most likely to expedite the introduction of Health Care IT SYSTEM.
    The synergy effect of the combined Health Care IT & a pay for ‘outcome’ system may allow the clinicians to
    ‘correctly’ diagnose and effectively treat a patient earlier in the process so that it can measurably scale back the
    crushing lawsuits and deter the excuse for unnecessary cares to make fortunes.

    5. Accelerate the progress in medical science, in return, it saves more cash.

    6. Settle the regional disparity.

    7. Reduce the emergency room visits & save immense costs.
    Public health insurance plans such as Medicare and Medicaid paid for more than 40 percent of U.S. emergency
    room visits in 2006, according to government figures released recently. Many experts say reducing these hospital
    visits would be an important way to lower the enormous, and growing, expense of U.S. health care.

    I share the opinion that unlike the insurer-friendly senate plan by ‘some’ members, only a strong public option will be capable of getting the premium inflation under control and saving the U.S in turbulence.
    To my knowledge, a dual system tends to deliver better results than a pure single payer system. Supposedly, to be or not to be might be up to the innovations like a pay for value program, otherwise, the forthcoming start-ups may fill the void with competitive deals. The competition based on ‘fair’ market value would be a beauty of true capitalism, not monopoly, an objective for anti-trust.
    Thank You !

  • hsr0601

    According to the scoring of CBO on the prevention & wellness program, all fitness centers around the world should close down immediately and all media have to end reporting health tips about prevention.

    Immune System & Levee System :

    All of the excellent health systems seem to have one thing in common, a expansive, systematic preventative program requiring immense investments. I think a prevention system works as a ‘levee’ built against flood by the government, similarly, it also needs non-profit investments from the government ‘on a large scale’.

    This might offer us the clue of why all of the free states have public insurance policy in place.

    It won’t be easy to draw some specific numbers on the economic effect of the ‘levee’ , but the flood measure lacking a stable ‘levee’ would be a house on sand, as the too high level of ‘preventable’ chronic diseases in America shows.

    At present, about 75 percent of each health dollar goes to treating chronic conditions.
    When tests reveal patients are at risk of a chronic disease, physicians have no benefit to help them make necessary changes to stay healthy. Rather, the system today is designed around treating patients once they become sick.

    If current health care system could shift a small percentage of total spending into programs that help prevent people from getting sick in the first place, it would dramatically reduce the overall cost of care.

    Thankfully, the health care reform bill currently before Congress makes several key investments in preventive care, and those pieces of the PUBLIC OPTION must be maintained.

    “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”, said Benjamin Franklin , and ‘Early Detection’ goes beyond monetary value as we see the recent case.

    As far as I’m concerned, the congress affected by the special interests has impeded the budget request for prevention program in Medicare & Medicaid. Let’s imagine the costs and invaluable lives following the levee breach.

    Thank You !

  • hsr0601

    The ‘innovative’ idea of a ‘pay for value / outcome’ pack came after the CBO had previously pointed out this health care reform wouldn’t work without ‘fundamental’ change in the out of date system. It is said that as much as 30 percent of all health-care spending in the U.S. -some $700 billion a year- may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not improve the health of the recipients, and this 700 billion dollars a year can cover a lot of uninsured people.

    The expected Benefits of this ‘innovative idea’ are as follows ;

    1. Meet the objective of revenue-neutral.
    Supporters of the agreement say it could save the Medicare System more than $100 billion a year and ‘improve’
    care, that means more than $1trillian over next decade, and virtually needs no other resources including tax on the
    wealthiest. Supposedly even the ‘conservative’ number of such savings might be able to meet the objective of
    revenue-neutral.

    2. Quality and affordability.
    If you are a physician, and your pay is dependant upon your patient’s outcome, you will most likely strive to
    prescribe the best medicine earlier in the process, let alone skipping the wasteful, unnecessary risk-carrying
    procedures.

    3. No intervention in decision-making.
    The innovative idea of ‘a pay for outcome’ will more likely prompt team approach and decision, as at Myo clinic.
    Under the ‘pay for outcome’ pack, for good reason, best practices as ‘recommendations’ would simply help them
    make a better decision, and the government won’t still have to meddle in the final, actual decision-making
    process as a non-expert.

    4. Speed up the introduction of IT SYSTEM.
    The pay for ‘Outcome’ pack is most likely to expedite the introduction of Health Care IT SYSTEM.
    The synergy effect of the combined Health Care IT & a pay for ‘outcome’ system may allow the clinicians to
    ‘correctly’ diagnose and effectively treat a patient earlier in the process so that it can measurably scale back the
    crushing lawsuits and deter the excuse for unnecessary cares to make fortunes.

    5. Accelerate the progress in medical science, in return, it saves more cash.

    6. Settle the regional disparity.

    7. Reduce the emergency room visits & save immense costs.
    Public health insurance plans such as Medicare and Medicaid paid for more than 40 percent of U.S. emergency
    room visits in 2006, according to government figures released recently. Many experts say reducing these hospital
    visits would be an important way to lower the enormous, and growing, expense of U.S. health care.

    I share the opinion that unlike the insurer-friendly senate plan by ‘some’ members, only a strong public option will be capable of getting the premium inflation under control and saving the U.S in turbulence.
    To my knowledge, a dual system tends to deliver better results than a pure single payer system. Supposedly, to be or not to be might be up to the innovations like a pay for value program, otherwise, the forthcoming start-ups may fill the void with competitive deals. The competition based on ‘fair’ market value would be a beauty of true capitalism, not monopoly, an objective for anti-trust.
    Thank You !

Search the Journal


Recent Activity

Full Print Edition

Get Adobe Flash player