May 18th, 2011 by Shadowfax in Health Policy, Opinion
No Comments »
I shouldn’t do this. It’s madness to try to delve into the minds of conspiracy theorists and try to make sense of their ravings. But I can’t help myself; I’m drawn like a moth to the flame. It never ends well. I only wind up with a horde of trolls in the comments telling me that I’m a glib supercilious idiot and should stick to medicine or go die in a fire or something.
Sometimes it’s too hard to stay away. Maybe it was the personal affront I felt in the false imputation of ill motives onto progressives. Maybe it was the gross errors in fact, sitting there ripe for the plucking. I don’t know, but I just can’t resist a rebuttal to Dr Rich at Covert Rationing, who weaves a technocratic cost control body into a paranoid web of fantasy, concluding that:
Progressives are dedicated to “progressing” to a perfect society, and they know just how to achieve it. … Specifically, the Progressive program requires individuals to subsume their own individual interests to the overriding interests of the collective – and human nature just doesn’t function that way. Thus, the Progressive program inevitably relies on a cadre of elites – those who have dedicated themselves to furthering the Progressive program – to set things up the right way for the rest of us, while manipulating we in the teeming masses to let them. And the rest of us, once the correct programs and systems are in place, will at last understand that it was all for our own good.
I suppose this paragraph tells you everything you need to know … about Dr Rich. Any supposition that he was approaching the view of policy with a fair mind or that he is willing to attribute anything but the worst motivations to those on the other side of the aisle is completely shredded by this paragraph. As rhetoric goes, it’s up there with “Conservatives want old people to die in pain.” So we can scratch Dr Rich off the list of people who are willing to discuss health care policy with a neutral mindset. He’s engaged in a holy war of ideology. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Movin' Meat*
May 18th, 2011 by DrRich in Health Policy, Opinion
No Comments »
In the speech President Obama gave responding to Congressman Ryan’s budget plan (the one in which he lured Ryan to sit in the front row in order to be publicly pilloried), the President did something DrRich did not think he would do before the next election. He openly invoked, and openly embraced, the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) as the chief mechanism by which Obamacare will control the cost of American healthcare.
“IPAB” might be a new term to many Americans, but DrRich pointed his readers to this entity, within a few weeks of the passage of Obamacare, as the lynchpin (and a very scary lynchpin at that) of the whole enterprise.
Until President Obama’s recent “outing” of IPAB, however, this new board has been almost entirely ignored by most commentators. Since the President’s speech, of course, many have written about it, either to celebrate it or to castigate it. (Of all these commentaries, DrRich most highly recommends the analysis provided by Doug Perednia at the Road to Hellth. In fact, DrRich recommends Perednia in general, as he is regularly producing some of the most insightful commentary, anywhere, on health policy.)
DrRich does not wish to simply repeat here all the observations that have lately been made by others regarding the IPAB. Rather, he will emphasize three particular features of the IPAB, features which are remarkable indeed, and which will tell us something very important about our Progressive leaders. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at The Covert Rationing Blog*
May 17th, 2011 by Stanley Feld, M.D. in Health Policy, Opinion
1 Comment »
“The media is the message.” It does not matter if the policy has failed previously. All that is important is the effectiveness of the policy’s presentation and its ability to manipulate the polls.
The government’s purpose is to work for the people who elected it. It does not seem to be working that way at present. Bureaucrats create rules or regulations as they interpret the laws made by congress and the president. Regulations are controlled by the administration’s ideology. Many times the regulations in one area nullify the intended effect in another area.
Regulations and bureaucracy inhibit the use of common sense in policy making for the benefit of the people.
The people did not have an outlet to express their opinions or frustrations until blogging came into its own seven years ago.
Americans do not like President Obama’s healthcare reform act. They also do not like Dr. Don Berwick’s apparent disrespect for their intelligence and his infatuation with the British healthcare system.
“I am romantic about the NHS (British National Health Service); I love it. All I need to do to rediscover the romance is to look at health care in my own country.” Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Repairing the Healthcare System*
May 3rd, 2011 by Stanley Feld, M.D. in Health Policy, Opinion
1 Comment »
Thousands of articles have been written about forming ACOs. Millions of dollars have been spent by hospital systems to try to form an ACO. Healthcare policy consultants have discovered a new cash cow.
Hospitals systems are wasting their money. They think the return from owning salaried physicians’ intellectual property will be more than worth the cost.
- Thousands of physicians have been confused by the concept of ACO.
- Many have felt ACOs are an attack on their freedom to practice medicine the best they can.
- Many have rejected the concept because they feel they will have to be salaried by hospital systems.
- Many physicians do not trust President Obama or Dr. Don Berwick.
- The Stage 2 ACO regulations are not easy to understand. They are more ominous than the stage 1 regulations.
The two core stated objectives for ACOs are:
(1) Reducing healthcare costs.
(2) Preserving and improving quality.
The stated objectives are laudable. The government regulations and controls are confusing. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Repairing the Healthcare System*
April 30th, 2011 by DrRich in Health Policy, Opinion
1 Comment »
The last two weeks have made clear that the debate over our national debt will play a major role in the next election cycle.
On one side, many Republicans, lead by Representative Ryan, insist that the rate of growth of our national debt – especially the massive projected growth of Medicare and Medicaid – promises to destroy our society within a generation or two; and that the only way to avert that catastrophe is to make substantial structural changes to our entitlement programs. The subtext of their message is: Federal debt is bad, and debt of this magnitude will be fatal.
On the other side, most Democrats, led by President Obama, stress that our entitlement programs are promises that simply can’t be changed in any substantial way, insist that such entitlements are “investments in our future,” and suggest that whatever shortfalls our current system might encounter can be remedied by taxing millionaires and billionaires. The subtext of their message is: Federal debt can be a force for good, and in this case will trigger a much-needed redistribution of wealth (which is a primary goal of Progressives).
The debate over the national debt is as old as the Republic. In the original version of this debate, the part of the modern Republicans (i.e., debt is bad) was played by Jefferson, and the part of modern Democrats (i.e., debt is an investment in the future) by Hamilton. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at The Covert Rationing Blog*
