November 5th, 2010 by RyanDuBosar in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News
No Comments »
Republicans who had opposed healthcare reform before the election are now elected officials with a say in how the programs are funded. At federal and state levels, the program’s opponents either have a larger voice or are now in charge of implementing elements of reform. Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid said he’d consider adjustments to healthcare reform.
Frightened seniors flipped toward opposition to healthcare reform, while flipping on the issue may have saved a few Democrats. Exit polling showed 48 percent would repeal healthcare reform, 16 percent would leave it as is, and 31 percent would expand it.
Now that Republicans have a larger say in the matter, take a look at their plan for healthcare in A Pledge to America, starting on page 25, and decide for yourself. (New York Times, Kaiser Health News, Reuters, Wall Street Journal, Politico, CBS News, GOP.gov)
*This blog post was originally published at ACP Internist*
November 2nd, 2010 by DrRob in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion
1 Comment »
The top vote-getting answer on my poll about what people feel about the election: Different lunatics, same asylum. We are getting jaded by our system. Being the “flaming moderate” that I am, I find it hard to hear the substance of the rhetoric on either side, just the shrillness and rancor of the voices.
From the physician’s perspective, it is very hard to know who to favor in this election. The democrats seem to love lawyers and hate tort reform, and they also favor an expansion of government. The republicans love big businesses and “free market,” accepting the bad behavior of insurance and drug companies as “the market working itself out.” They both seem hell-bent on sticking it to the other party at the expense of getting anything done — and this in a time of crisis for our industry.
The results of this playground brawl between the two gangs of bullies is that all of us wimpy kids (the ones without power) end up lying bloody in the dirt. Here are the facts as I see them about healthcare in our country:
1. It costs far too much. The top item on the agenda needs to be cost control. The only way to control cost is to stop paying for things that are unnecessary or for which there is a cheaper alternative. I know that’s not simple as it sounds, but so much of the discussion is about coverage and how things are paid, while the real issue is not who pays, it’s what and how much gets paid. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Musings of a Distractible Mind*
November 2nd, 2010 by JenniferKearneyStrouse in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News
No Comments »
All eyes are on today’s mid-term elections and how they’ll play out across the country. The results are likely to affect the recently enacted healthcare reform legislation, Politico reports. Although repealing the legislation would be difficult, Republicans may be able to challenge its implementation if they gain control of the House. Attempts to modify the law could require a delicate balance since, as noted by the Washington Post‘s Ezra Klein, some of its provisions, such as coverage for dependents age 26 and younger, are individually popular.
Reuters has published a Q&A on what the election results could mean for the healthcare reform law. The Wall Street Journal is asking readers to weigh in on whether the legislation is affecting their votes. (Politico, Washington Post, Reuters, Wall Street Journal)
*This blog post was originally published at ACP Internist*
November 2nd, 2010 by John Mandrola, M.D. in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Humor, Opinion
No Comments »
Have you ever thought: “What if I won an election and was put in charge of an administration?”
Halloween weekend seemed the perfect time for considering the fantasy (or some would argue the horror) of a DrJohnM administration. (Let it be known, I have some leadership experience: I lead local group rides with some success. A community organizer of sorts.) But for the sake of college-like dreaming, let’s consider government under my realm.
First off, clearly the present-day political costumes would have to change. There would be a ban on suits, ties (MRSA-spreading), and uncomfortable shoes. People think better if they are dressed in comfy clothes. It works for Google.
Of course, since I am a practicing doctor, a focus of my administration would be on healthcare reform. And like our current president, I would also have “expert” panels — only my “fix healthcare” panel would look very different. To illustrate these phenotypical differences, let’s consider some of my panel’s inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Panel exclusions:
Anyone with a 4.0 GPA. You are out. Sorry, there are plenty of other think tanks for you, in pretty cool places too, like Cambridge, Ann Arbor, and Palo Alto. A very wise retired urologist once told me that B students nearly always make better doctors, and surely those who tried other things in life (besides the classroom) will make better real-life decisions. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Dr John M*
November 2nd, 2010 by Jennifer Shine Dyer, M.D. in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion, Quackery Exposed, Research
No Comments »
I recently read an article by Heather MacDonald entitled “Public Health Quackery” that has not left my thoughts since. The truth in regards to what determines health is being argued in the article.
At the heart of the article, MacDonald seeks to contrast the traditional science approach with the miasmatician approach to the fundamental question of the role of individual behaviors vs. socioeconomics on the determinants of health. MacDonald summarizes the miasmaticians’ beliefs of health determinants as being exclusively influenced by socioeconomics thereby dismissing any and all influences on health by individual behaviors.
Her primary argument in favor of the traditional science belief in individual behaviors as determinants of health is as follows: Traditional science bases assumptions of truth on data that is valid by scientific standards vs. miasmaticians’ assumptions of truth from biased, “flimsy” data. In other words, “quacky” ideas come from “quacky” data thus are not likely to be true. Read more »
