It's not everyday that 'real life' is an Onion headline, but with GOP Senators lauding 'stay the course', if you don't laugh, you cry.
Meanwhile, many months late, the press starts to put dollars and effort into getting a chart-room of Iraqi progress measures, rather than continue to condemn the public to a "classified" stabilization effort. (here-the surge, here-Baghdad violence and here-various, including sectarian violence).
Note to man-in-the-wind, Senator Joe Lieberman: If you got Bush's base (the "have mores", as he once called them) to pay $12 billion a month in taxes until you are ready to withdraw, you might get someone to listen. A simple wealth-tax would do it, yes?
Note to Senator Judd Gregg, R-ubberstamp, NH: It's not cynical for you to vote your continuing support for Bush-Cheney and their strategy. If you honestly think more of the same is your best judgment, keep voting it and we'll see you in 2010! If you don't want to have your career judged by your views of the Iraqi Stabilization effort, the so-called phase-three, then I don't have the time of day for you. Sorry. Life and death and all that, you see.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
One Gov't That Won't Be Benchmarked Issues a Report That Another Gov't Hasn't Met Its Benchmarks
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
How the GOP Induce Fear Of Healthcare Reform Among Their Own
Brad Plumer put up a great post explaining how deep into the woods the GOP is willing to take its own, in order to protect the profits of health insurance companies.
IDEOLOGY OVER FAMILY HEALTH, CHILDREN
It's amazing how quickly 'family values' goes out the window, when talking about healthcare.
Life is sacred until birth, after which it is economic and 'not-my-problem', for the Republicans, sadly.
The fight now is over S-Chip, which is a program of key importance for States who are taking the lead on providing additional healthcare options, if not universal care plans, while the Federal Government remains in the clutches of the GOP's impoverished ideologies and the health industry's dollars.
SOME PEOPLE ARE PREPARED FOR THE COMING DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN
Money quote (but I liked the whole enchilada):
Meanwhile, a recent Urban Institute study found that low-income children in public-insurance programs actually get better care than their privately-insured counterparts: They see doctors and dentists more frequently, and it's all done at a lower cost. For whatever reason, it really does appear to be more effective than tax credits and the like. - The Plank
A President and his Party Move into the Surreal Zone on Healthcare
OPEN MOUTH, INSERT FOOT
In Cleveland today, Republican President Bush made the jaw-dropping assertion that we don't have a problem with healthcare access, because anyone can "walk into an emergency room".
How amazing is it that someone can say something so thoroughly vacant and get away with it, largely? I think it means that people are still afraid that they are going to lose their doctor and their health if they try something else. Whatever the case, chalk another up for the "Looney Right".
Among other things:
- He wants to complicate the tax code further, by putting up more subsidies, this time for the health insurance companies (as if they didn't get enough from the prescription drug bill).
- He thinks that people have a responsibility for their own wellness in ways that most people would probably reject, while we pay for him to have six hour annual physicals at Bethesda medical and the rest of Congress, many of whom are millionaires, to have comprehensive medical benefits, a gym, and more (like coverage continuation?).
- He wants to shift more cost to individuals via 'health savings accounts', making health insurance companies even more profitable, for the same amount of coverage.
Last and most importantly:
-He thinks that more private health insurance is the solution, rather than THE problem. [Rather, we need to end the "Nanny Corporation" and all its waste and problems, by moving over to a single-payer system.]
Oh, as predicted, he's not afraid of putting the fear into people, about compromising the best equipment and the best care and the best doctors getting eaten up by those horrible trial lawyers (who really are the only ones left capable of putting accountability into the juggernaut of a busted system, afterall, that is probably gearing up to spending hundreds of millions to protect themselves from important changes just right now).
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Sicko: The Day After and the Coming Deluge
So half of US healthcare is already government-funded; and patient satisfaction with treatment is the highest in the world. Does that not count for something in the argument? -AS
No.
First, Moore cannot put everything into his film. He's already said that one could make a whole film on the drug companies themselves.
THE DAY AFTER - THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK!
What's more, I can just hear the thousands of private health insurance boosters - recall that there are three to four times as many health industry lobbyists in Washington than there are members of Congress, all of whose Blackberrys are working overtime this weekend! -- who are screted away, probably this very moment, on their beepers, with Nexis, with investigative services, to discredit everything and everyone who said anything or appeared in Moore's film.
Expect on Monday to find the backstories of every single 9/11 worker, Peena probed and discredited as 'old news', systematic problems dismissed (as always) as "mistakes" and "cracks", deaths contrasted with smiling children, and a slew of PR to make insurance industry executives look like Mother Theresa, working hard to provide 'affordability', with "Big Government" regulation the real culprit and, of course, those horrible, nasty trial lawyers who inject even a shred of accountability into the system portrayed as the bane of everything patriotic and 'American'.
We know the drill. At least some of us. Maybe enough to turn the tide?
'COVERAGE' VERSUS 'COVERAGE'
Anyway, on to the direct point:
No, because ...
On the first part, the government is paying larger sums because it is being 'adversely selected'. Put simply, the government is getting hit with large, end-of-life bills that the insurance companies are avoiding (to their profit), among other things.
Second, questions about 'satisfaction with treatment' hardly mean quite as much when you have so many without and without enough. Do you feel "satisfied' with treatment, knowing that it occurred at the expense of someone who was culled from your socialized, private insurance pool? Even moreso, knowing that is a false tradeoff forced on you?
Third, the most important point is that one can concede the point, in argument, about "satisfaction", and still point out that it would be possible to have more people 'satisfied' by moving to a single payer system, that gets rid of the "Nanny Corporation" and its waste.
The GOP Watches While American System Bleeds
More reason not to vote for GOP leadership. They have simply been asleep at the wheel since 1994, at least. In looking up bits on the ever rising co-pays for "managed care" that was supposed to provide full access once you bought into an HMO, I found this:
What is one way to take an ordinary insurance income stream and accelerate it? Well, you start raising co-pays to drive down "loss-ratios" and/or use "pre-approval", etc., to make utilization onerous or risky. Follow this up by putting serious caps on the plan and exclude or limit as much treatment as you can, either upfront or with fallback-refusal, fraud-net "questionnaires", while still claiming to provide "coverage".
The result: booming earnings, a soaring stock price, and possibly a huge non-cash CEO payout.
Anyway, here is how one person put it on the B-P blog:
So far in this discussion we have not talked about the declining coverage in available private insurance plans. This is a huge problem as well. Over the last decade my dental plans went from 90% payout to "60% of usual and customary for approved procedures only." The list of exclusions on my health plans quadrupled in size. Deductables rose, EVERY name brand drug was taken off the formulary (even when there was no generic), and my coworkers started to have increased trouble with denial of claims. Over this same period premiums more than tripled.
This is yet another reason why simply compelling private insurance will not solve the problem. Absent government regulation of coverage and costs, quality of insurance will continue to decline until the effect of buying insurance is identical to donating money to the insurance corporations.
That's pretty much the book on Romney-care and other ideas that fall short of the much needed single-payer system.
What this doesn't cover (and something Michael Moore leaves out of sicko), is that people have very little way of tracking how their insurance is being reduced. Few really know what their Nanny-Corporation is doing behind the curtain year-to-year ...
DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU ARE CO-PAYING FOR?
Have you ever gotten complete listings of what is covered, each year when you enroll (if you are lucky enough to) or are you asked to "Call us, and we'll tell you"?
Have you ever heard of companies providing complete details to prospective applications or much more than, "Yes, we provide 'full' medical and dental."?
THE MYSTERIOUS AND UNSEEN 'CHIEF MEDICAL REVIEW DOCTORS' AND "THE PLAN BOARD"
Here's another one (and an item for someone who wants to do serious healthcare reform advocacy): Have you ever tried to find out the names of the people who are responsible for determining if your claim is paid or denied?
It's never published in any materials you ever get as part of standard issue. that I've seen or heard.
You can request it. Boy, is that a bad idea. About ten years ago, I put in a phone call to ask for the list (I believe you might be entitled to this disclosure by law), on not much more than a whim, just to see who the Who's Who was. Was I ever persona non-grata. I got "20 questions" on the phone, most of them hostile. At the end, I would have bet that my name got put on a watch list of people looking to sue the company or something. All I wanted to do was to see who was running my health care - I really had NO other agenda.
Media Watch: "Sicko"
Since "Farenheit 911", 'the Media' appear to be skeptical of Michael Moore, although the more we learn about the inside workings of the Bush White House, the less disingenuous Moore's portrayal becomes.
GETTING BACK TO BUSINESS BY ENDING "THE NANNY CORPORATION"
AC 360 had a representative of the insurance industry on, who, when pressed, opined something like, "Do employers purchase enough [health insurance] coverage?"
Well, no! D'oh.
If companies want to provide 21st Century "health" benefits, let them focus on preventive care plans, time away for 'recovery' and 'family leave' (both mental health items) and possibly retraining/sabbatical, and gym/healthclub benefits (and the like, such as holistic centers and even spas, that many people find very useful). Let them get out of basic medical and health insurance (they've already gotten out of pension insurance, so there is plenty of precedent).
Nothing to remark from Jon Stewart's i-view, except that Jon was looking for Moore to make an Rx at the end ("Tell us what to do"). Three words: Single payor system.
LARRY
Larry King asked Moore if his trip to Guantanamo was a "gimmick". Many commentators ignore that Moore didn't set out to go to Cuba, he just followed the U.S. Gov't to Gitmo and ended up in Cuba.
There was a short Larry King 'moment' in which he said, (close quote), "They torture you, then they repair you", in referring to the brand spanking new medical facilities at Gitmo. True, he said it was a jest, but I think CNN is slipping. Carol Costello called NYC's electricity provider "Con Air", during the recent subway power outage.
--------
AS presents this crap movie review, which is divorced from the actual facts of the film to such an extent that it makes the case against itself and its supporters. I mean, if they cannot even represent the film properly, why should anyone listen to them on weighty matters like health care? From that perspective, I'm looking forward to more rounds of hyperbole from AS-like commentators on the issue!
Looking for Joy in the Wrong Places
A Michael Moore-style anecdote from Ontario. Demagogery is a two-way street -AS, in The Joy Of Socialized Medicine
- At least AS is honest that the Right has historically fallen back on demagoguery to makes its counterpoints (and probably will prospectively, too). In truth, if this clip has any educational value, it is that people should understand the difference between single payer and single provider. The problem in this clip is single provider, not single payer.
- If you want to do just demagoguery, you've got your one person. I'll see your one and raise you 46 million with no insurance, of whom 9 million are children and countless others who are under-insured. I have two other Aces in the hole:
- My counter-example: would you advise someone to have their insurance company pay for an HIV test? Now? Ten years ago? For various reasons, at various times, it may be desirable to pay on your own, and not because of a single-payer system. [May as well do all the education, that goes beyond just taking pills, etc.]
- Medicaid is I think the largest or second largest payer for those with AIDS. Are we to abandon that snidely disparaged "joy of socialization" in favor of letting those who have the wealth get the care they need?
- The problem is that Moore's perspective isn't demagogic, because single payer systems of medicine are delivering both satisfaction and healthcare that is producing longer lives in many cases. Even Cuba, with its low standard of living ranks pretty good on life expectancy.
- Last, this is just more lies about the film and lies about the solutions.
We have a single payer, for many people already. One is called Medicare/medicaid. Another exists for Federal Employees (and members of Congress). The VA is BOTH single payer and single provider, so it doesn't count. Is AS a hypocrite for not criticizing any of those? Probably.
With Medicare, no law denies people the right to purchase their own insurance or to seek treatment outside the coverage that is offered. If fact, companies have made money selling supplemental medicare insurance.
Any more sweet little lies from reform intransigents about the necessary shortfalls of a single-payer system? Expect a boatload!
Friday, June 29, 2007
Sicko: The Right Has Every Reason to be Very Afraid
Little but plaudits for "Sicko" from the keyboard here, and not just because the End-the-Nanny-Corporation side of fixing America's broken healthcare system is smart.
I agree with others that its film-making is technically better than some of Moore's other films.
The best part is how Moore dispenses with all of the ways that the Republicans have fought to discredit what has been "obvious" and accepted to folks in other nations, who don't have to deal with a history of false warnings on the topic. He deals with all of them, wittily: the cries of "Socialism! Socialism!", the AMA fighting alongside Ronald Reagan, the drug companies 'buying up' Washington. There is even a clip, that is absolutely precious, of Nixon saying one thing in private and then "selling" his health plan on TV to the nation, while the obvious duplicity drips from his every word.
Truly, the way we've treated healthcare in this country is the seamy underside of what the putative "Greatest Generation" left undone, much to their shame. Yet, they still have time to "fix it", many of them.
The Right has every reason to fear. The end of paying insurance money to be ripped off, denied services by people whose job it is to find ways to call claims anything but valid, and made less healthy on average than 36 other industrial countries that all rank higher is just within Americans' grasp, if they are unafraid to ask for it. The estimated $100 milliion dollars spent last time to "fight Hillary", fill people with fear of change, and threaten people with the "decay of Socialism" says otherwise.
Brace yourself.
I'm not always a big fan of Tony Benn, but I'll tell you, he does a masterful job in the film. He even notes that Maggie Thatcher said that 'National Healthcare is safe in our hands". Sorry, AS, but it's true.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
More on Big Pharma: The European Connection
This is what the left wants to do to pharmaceutical research in the US as well. There's a case for it: the usual leftist case for nominal equality over quality and progress. They're not being honest about it. They need to be. -AS
Wow. The film hasn't even been released and everyone is already lobbing "dishonest".
It may be that "socialism always fails", but it's not clear that this is an example of it.
THE U.S.'S RUNAWAY PRICE UMBRELLA - WRONG KIND OF 'COMPETITIVE EDGE'?
The principle reason that the U.S. has been a center of gravity is because it hasn't addressed the soaring costs of drugs, rising rates of drug utilization, or pharmaceutical companies possibly using pricing power to continue to drive "high" profit growth for ever larger companies.
Here is a graph of how prices for drugs on patent have moved in the U.S. versus the rest of the developed world. Had the U.S. moved to improved access years ago, instead of "managed care", it's not clear whether a shift away from Europe would have occurred, in the same degree.What's more, not all of the shift in R&D to U.S. protection has been the result of a price umbrella, either. The U.S. has a deep market and well established lines between private and public research. The Europeans do not.
# It would be too simplistic to attribute the deterioration of the European pharmaceutical environment to a single factor. As a whole, Europe remains less attractive for R&D investments than the US. The economic and healthcare environments, the science base, the investment conditions, the regulatory framework, and societal attitudes towards new technologies all contribute.
# US patients, for example, are better informed and more willing to embrace innovation - they want to have the benefits of new approaches to healthcare and new treatments immediately, and to use them effectively.
LINES OF SIGHT THAT CURB EXCESS, RULES THAT INCENTIVE ADAPTIVE BEHAVIORS
Last, I'm not big on governments getting involved in price-setting or questioning anything but blatantly fraudulent 'drug innovations' (or doing much else than facilitating level playing fields, redressing externalities, or regulating natural monopolies).
However, sometimes monitoring and working with industry to reduce cost, is enough. Have a look at this reported success:
The [Canadian Patented Medicine Prices Review] Board’s record in fulfilling its mandate is well-known. We have achieved compliance with the Patent Act through our ongoing monitoring of the prices of new and existing patented drugs, obtaining the cooperation of patentees through our Voluntary Compliance Policy, and in using the statutory provisions for public hearings and remedial orders when necessary.
Over the past decade, the publicly-funded drug plans, which account for approximately 40% of total drug expenditures in Canada, have adopted a large number of innovative approaches to help contain costs while still providing for prescription drug coverage.
These initiatives by both levels of government have helped to ensure that drug prices in Canada have not increased faster than overall consumer prices as measured by the Consumer Price Index.
Staying Focused, In Order to Dust the Healthcare Intransigents
A great source: Physicians for A National Health Program.
Couldn't have made the point too much better myself:
"The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $7,129 per capita. Yet our system performs poorly in comparison [it does on most of the major metrics that physicians use] and still leaves 46 million without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered.
This is because private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment though a single nonprofit payer would save more than $350 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans"Know Civil Preparedness: A Boatload of resources
More on Big Pharma :: Disinformation by Implication?
There is much that can be changed within the sprawling thing we call "healthcare", without doing anything about Big Pharma.
In other words, one can actually take steps to improve access and efficiency without touching the drug companies.
Therefore, those peddling either/or scenarios centered around "Drug Companies", or "whole system down the tubes" analogies are deliberately misinforming folks.
If both Wyeth and Novartis have to consider that their next blockbuster drug is going to bring in less revenue, the probability that Drug X will be that blockbuster has to be higher in order to justify spending the money to find out. -AS, quoting the Drum-head
I'll suggest that this is a misunderstanding of the drug development market.
"Blockbuster drugs" are going to get developed, under almost any circumstances, even if almost all patent protection were removed. They are just too big and there is just too much money to be made.
The question then becomes about the marginal drug researched/produced.
Now, you can argue that patent protection, prescription-stabilized markets, handsome returns and large companies all militate against a Corporation taking risks on 'small market' drugs, speculative therapies, or very, very costly guesses on where basic science is headed. All of these things do not fit the most desired risk profile.
And, in fact, you see that reflected in the market. The marginal drugs are frequently researched by companies that finance and run like venture capital. The big companies that acquire these smaller, venture firms run them like that too, internally, in some cases, I think (I haven't looked in a while, but I think that's accurate). Otherwise, they are involved in buying "winners", picking up stage-II or stage-III prospects, pulling them into their Big Pharma marketing machines, etc. [In fact, if one wants to drag the AIDS period into it, which is probably not constructive, big pharma are historically poor at things like vaccine development, where liabilities are enormous and understandably so - perhaps even rightfully so.]
Marginal drugs are unlikely to be deeply jeopardized, therefore, if some strides are made to ... restructure the way(s) profits are taken on big-time research drugs. An initial patent protections period that recoups a drug's development cost in 5-7 years (that's a guesstimate of the shelf life of some therapies), and then a tradeoff between cost-reduction and extended patent protection (until some better idea comes up).
Again, all this could take place separately from changes to the system to provide improvements in access and an end to the "Nanny Corporation".
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
The Disinformation Campaign on "Sicko" Starts
THE UPHILL BATTLE AGAINST THE STATUS QUO
Reforming healthcare is what marketing people might call a 'technical sale'. It potentially involves knowing details about insurance and lingo. There is a learning curve, an education that has to take place hopefully starting now, because the forces of disinformation will be stronger than ever, as time goes by.
WHO IS FAKING IT?
One of the systems Sicko suggests as a template for a remodeled American health care is the United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS).Well, until I see it myself, I'll take A.O. Scott's opinion that, although Moore investigates Cuba and Britain, he doesn't approve them as templates for remodeled America. So, this statement is just false.
A WORD ABOUT 'RATIONING' - IS THAT A FIRST AND FOREMOST CONCERN, AT THIS STAGE, OR A FRIGHTWIG PUT ON BY THE RIGHT?
Moreover, a wholesale shifting of healthcare from the private to the public sector simply means replacing rationing by wealth with rationing by number, and a drastic decrease in individual freedom on both sides of the medical equation.
This is unclear, which is unfortunate, when starting out by calling someone (Moore) a 'practiced liar' and 'not too smart'. What does 'shifting healthcare' mean, exactly? No one has proposed that doctors should be employed by the State, as they are in Britain, right?
We don't have just rationing by wealth, we have rationing based on employer. This has to end, one way or another. That is increased freedom. Employers should get out of the business of being insurers. Given how they've abandoned their pension obligations, for instance, it's fairly plain that they are just not any good at it.
There is no reason that a society should enthusiastically tolerate drastic increase in wealth disparity and wring its hands over some redistribution for healthcare, which, in the long-haul, can significantly improve the wealth of a nation by improving the human capital available. A healthy workforce is an economic good.
You'd replace insurance company bureaucrats who deny care with government bureaucrats who deny care.
Economically, we'd pick up all the profits of the insurance companies into public savings. As for being denied care of some amount, that probably always should be on the table, until the nation is much richer per capita. I'll take my chances with a BlueCross-type government agency, than with myriad insurance companies whose job it is to make sure that 'insurance' is a losing proposition for everyone in the pool in general (otherwise, how would they garner a 'profit'?).
MANAGING DRUG DEVELOPMENT COSTS CAN BE SEPARATE THAN PROVIDING ACCESS, EXPERIENCE SO FAR WITH NEW MEDICAL DRUG BENEFIT DOESN'T SHOW 'COST MANIA'
And slashing the profit motive from the drug companies will simply mean fewer new drugs for fewer illnesses....
The European health systems have, of course, been free-riding on private U.S. drug research for decades. Name a great new drug developed in Europe these past ten years.
Yeah, I don't follow that at all. The big pharma companies have gobbled up their European equivalents, in order to create scale. Pharmacia didn't have an empty drug pipeline when it merged with Upjohn or was later acquired (sure, it's Sweedish, but which 'European drug companies' are we talking about?). The French have long been known to have been ahead on the development of many therapies.
Besides, I'd challenge anyone to show just how much basic science is done by major pharma, these days. I'd hazard that a large part of their effort is in other areas - important, but not in the way that is put forward with sweeping praises.
Meanwhile, this simplistic either/or analysis doesn't capture alternatives for managing drug development costs. Not that all of healthcare reform has to occur at once. For instance, what about the proposition that exclusive patents last for, say, 10 years, after which exclusive patents can be extended for another 10-15 years, provided that the government is satisfied that the drugs start being marketed at 'generic' prices. In other words, trade extended patent protection for a price reduction, after the initial patent period. I'm quite sure that companies would be willing to do that. It would bring down the cost of drugs and continue to provide all the powerful financial incentives that are needed to ... to pay for ... let's see, wasteful direct advertising, wine-and-dine the doctor routines, contribute to the political campaigns of everyone, massive issue advertising every 10-12 years, etc.
SCORING POINTS
Oh, and just to make it complete: This is a tradeoff that the Right will deny until they are red in the face, but it's a real tradeoff.
NASTY BITS
And yes, I see no problem with the wealthy having access to better care than the less wealthy.The problem with this is that it's open to interpretation in the worst way [I mean, probably worse than Moore]. I wonder if AS realizes that there are some people who think that the wealthy deserve better health care, even if 'better' is defined in terms of some people having NO access, even basic, not in terms of having, say, Beverly Hills house calls and private hospital rooms?
I have less worry that the Left is going to shut down the lifestyles of the wealthy or super wealthy than I do of those who are more than willing to let 'those without' make do without. This is particularly why the 'Conservative' effort on healthcare is generally baffling as a studied 'viewpoint', as a question of emphasis, or as the 'other side of the coin'.
The Myth of Socialized Medicine
But I grew up with socialized medicine, and I know what a disaster it is. It's coming, of course. -AS
Maybe, this is some evidence that AS hasn't 'done his homework' on health care.
I haven't read all of the plans for health care (nor all that I intend to on the upcoming, massive healthcare debate); but no leading candidate, on either side of the isle, is proposing what Andrew grew up with. (Besides, Andrew himself seems to have somehow come away from the British system without having been mutilated...)
ENDING THE GOP MEME ABOUT "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE"
I've heard Rudy Giuliani repeat the 'talking point' that the Dems are proposing 'socialized medicine'.
Tell me, when employers create a 'insurance risk pool', what is that except a 'socialization'? Everyone in the pool benefits by sharing / 'socializing' the risks in the pool.
The only difference with Giuliani (and others) is that companies set up (and cull?) these pools for profit.
What smart people are talking about is recognizing that the "Nanny Employer" model is bust, and building a single pool for most risks (but maybe not ALL).
Cutting out the financing costs associated with private risk pools will (a) reduce the amount spent on healthcare by tens of billions, (b) realize that savings in terms of access for a greater number of people, and (c) keep the current system of misallocated private physicians and seriously overpriced lab services, medical equipment, and prescription drugs largely unchanged.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Let's Go Hawaii!
The Commonwealth Fund, a non-profit, writes a state-by-state scorecard on health care and provides a sort-of 'interactive' map. (hat-tip bweek).
Saturday, June 9, 2007
"It's not the uninsured, stupid"
Do you know how much money will be spent to protect the Insurance Industry's profits at the expense of your views about affordable coverage for all?Do health care horror stories raise consciousness?
In doing research for the upcoming, massive struggle over health care, I found this author, sporting a JD MPH BMW, who thinks maybe not:
"Viewers may get so caught up on one family's troubles [called "episodic framing"] that they fail to make the connection back to the national condition."
It's kind of a dismal view of the capacity of your average fellow citizen, but it's backed up with real research (I think people still like a face with a name, but ...).
Author suggests the following (the import of which is good with me):
- It's the economy, stupid: dump short-term profits and short-term thinking in favor of talking about how good health benefits the economy, jobs, and future prosperity.
- Highlight real, working solutions/projects that have appeal, such as those that have provided low-income residents with comprehensive, affordable healthcare, regardless of their age, income, or the absent good graces of their employer.
- The pro-growth, long-term nature of a healthy workforce.
- The economic pitfalls of letting people fall through the cracks: "Someone who is bankrupt because of high medical bills isn't going to buy a new car down at the local Ford dealership."
- The tremendous boost in economic vitality, innovation, and efficiency created by releasing skilled workers from being chained like chattel to their employer's health plan and to their employer's hired underwriter's view of each employee's work-age health-risk to the private insurance pool.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Fixing Health Care
In Sicko, AS asks, "How radical is Michael Moore"?
The truth is that a lot of other, quite sober folks have asked for a single payor system.
There is a compelling case to be made that the insurance pools, as they exist today, are no longer serving the public interest.