
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Two Doctors&#8217; Promising Views Of Health Reform</title>
	<atom:link href="http://themoderatevoice.com/38906/two-doctors-promising-views-of-health-reform/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/38906/two-doctors-promising-views-of-health-reform/</link>
	<description>An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 12:59:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fold/Spindle/Mutilate 2.1 &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Make the Call: Stop Harry Reid’s $3.31 Billion Vacation</title>
		<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/38906/two-doctors-promising-views-of-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-224449</link>
		<dc:creator>Fold/Spindle/Mutilate 2.1 &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Make the Call: Stop Harry Reid’s $3.31 Billion Vacation</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:14:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=38906#comment-224449</guid>
		<description>[...] health insurance industry is spending $1.4 million a day trying to continue the regime of delay and denial that ruins the lives of millions of Americans. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] health insurance industry is spending $1.4 million a day trying to continue the regime of delay and denial that ruins the lives of millions of Americans. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hopefuldoctor</title>
		<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/38906/two-doctors-promising-views-of-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-195294</link>
		<dc:creator>hopefuldoctor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 04:01:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=38906#comment-195294</guid>
		<description>I hope the day I begin practicing health care as a whole in the US will resemble something like that of the Mayo Clinic. I love the idea of not worrying about maximizing your next paycheck and spending more time on paperwork than on patient care but rather doing what you went in to medicine for in the first. I&#039;m not wasting four years of college, four years of medical school, and five years of residency in my (hopeful) specialty of choice to be an accountant or record keeper for half the day. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Unfortunately, I doubt this will happen. For some reason, many Americans think that the way to save money in health care is to take away from the smallest piece of the pie: doctor&#039;s salaries. Making up 10% of health care costs, even if all doctors took a 50% pay cut (not going to happen, btw), that would lower health care costs a whopping 5%! Instead administrators, lawyers, health care company profits, and health care company executives who contribute nothing to the care of the patient make more than the doctor slaving away for 70 hours a week. They make up the other 90%.  Sorry for the rant.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hope the day I begin practicing health care as a whole in the US will resemble something like that of the Mayo Clinic. I love the idea of not worrying about maximizing your next paycheck and spending more time on paperwork than on patient care but rather doing what you went in to medicine for in the first. I&#39;m not wasting four years of college, four years of medical school, and five years of residency in my (hopeful) specialty of choice to be an accountant or record keeper for half the day. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, I doubt this will happen. For some reason, many Americans think that the way to save money in health care is to take away from the smallest piece of the pie: doctor&#39;s salaries. Making up 10% of health care costs, even if all doctors took a 50% pay cut (not going to happen, btw), that would lower health care costs a whopping 5%! Instead administrators, lawyers, health care company profits, and health care company executives who contribute nothing to the care of the patient make more than the doctor slaving away for 70 hours a week. They make up the other 90%.  Sorry for the rant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AmerMedicalAssoc</title>
		<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/38906/two-doctors-promising-views-of-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-194081</link>
		<dc:creator>AmerMedicalAssoc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:31:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=38906#comment-194081</guid>
		<description>To clarify – the AMA is committed to health reform this year that provides all Americans with affordable, high-quality health care coverage.  AMA policy, developed through the nation’s only democratic assembly of physicians and medical students representing all state and specialty medical societies, states that:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;“AMA supports health system reform alternatives consistent with AMA principles of pluralism, freedom of choice, freedom of practice, and universal access for patients.” &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;We don’t yet know what form a final bill will take, which is why we will carefully study all options that make the system better for America’s patients and allow physicians to provide high-quality care.  The AMA will stay actively engaged to get reform this year that improves the system for patients and physicians.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;J. James Rohack, M.D.&lt;br&gt;President, AMA</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To clarify – the AMA is committed to health reform this year that provides all Americans with affordable, high-quality health care coverage.  AMA policy, developed through the nation’s only democratic assembly of physicians and medical students representing all state and specialty medical societies, states that:</p>
<p>“AMA supports health system reform alternatives consistent with AMA principles of pluralism, freedom of choice, freedom of practice, and universal access for patients.” </p>
<p>We don’t yet know what form a final bill will take, which is why we will carefully study all options that make the system better for America’s patients and allow physicians to provide high-quality care.  The AMA will stay actively engaged to get reform this year that improves the system for patients and physicians.</p>
<p>J. James Rohack, M.D.<br />President, AMA</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Olip</title>
		<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/38906/two-doctors-promising-views-of-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-194061</link>
		<dc:creator>Olip</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:09:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=38906#comment-194061</guid>
		<description>Insurance reform + medical provider reform = health care reform, right?  Utah health insurance reform has been center focus for the state, UAHU and private insurance carriers over the past 24 months.  Mike Oliphant (UAHU board webmaster) runs a small Utah based health insurance website &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.BenefitsManager.net&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.BenefitsManager.net&lt;/a&gt; as well as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.HealthInsuranceSource.net&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.HealthInsuranceSource.net&lt;/a&gt;. Mike’s viewpoint provides a unique analysis which comes from being a “fly on the wall” observer in countless state session and insurance meetings. “Utah has been thrust into a state insurance reform pressure cooker which isn’t necessarily negative where I am an insurer, insured and patient”.  Several interesting changes took place with H.B. 188 passage earlier this year which seems all too familiar to the ongoing federal health care reform attempt under Obama’s administration. The spirit of the bill allows private Utah market place remedies. It essentially guarantees a Utah health insurance carrier a &quot;no loss&quot; or &quot;no gain&quot; premise over competing carriers that operate within the “Utah Insurance Exchange portal”. On the surface it would seem unattractive to a carrier’s consideration (voluntary at this point). But you have to understand the carriers’ goal is to cover their administration fees and maintain a 3% profit. The Utah health insurance reform model claims this can be accomplished now by legislation and the watchful eye of the state’s risk adjuster board. The medical claim risks are essentially shared equally among the participating carriers. Therefore, the carriers can focus on administration efficiencies more so than competition over a fluctuating market share. Insurance carriers such as SelectHealth have efficiencies and risk management experience polished by long tested actuarial tables with health statistics and claim trends. Is it a bad idea to share that experience with a national carrier such as Humana? Would it surprise anyone to know that maternity NICU and anti-depressants represent the highest utilization in health insurance costs for medical and pharmacy in Utah? Compare this to Texas which suffers from abnormally high levels of diabetes and liver disease per capita. &lt;br&gt;The other half of the “health care reform equation” is medical provider and billing practices. The state claims this is on the agenda. It is popular belief among Utah legislators that reform stops with the insurance carrier. However, how can the insurance carrier continue to bear the risk and re-distribution of health insurance premiums back out the door in claims without provider billing reform?  Add to this obstacle a continuing shrinkage of the insured populace. Obama’s administration proposes mandatory participation in a health insurance policy by employers of all sizes, self employed and unemployed populace. The logic being to shore up the unhealthy with healthy premium.  When analyzing the Massachusetts’s system, you actually pay a penalty if you have no proof of coverage.  The benefit level and health insurance price is nowhere close when you compare Utah health insurance quotes through &lt;a href=&quot;http://benefitsmanager.net&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;benefitsmanager.net&lt;/a&gt; or dental insurance quotes at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dentalinsuranceutah.net&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dentalinsuranceutah.net&lt;/a&gt;. Utah premium is easily half. This insight comes from a Utah health insurance agent whom often interacts with employers and residents looking for affordable coverage, making sure claims are paid correctly, implementation and explanation of the many policy procedures and putting a complex SelectHealth insurance language in understandable terms. Yet legislators claim agents to be of no value all in the name to save 3-4 off of Utah health%</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Insurance reform + medical provider reform = health care reform, right?  Utah health insurance reform has been center focus for the state, UAHU and private insurance carriers over the past 24 months.  Mike Oliphant (UAHU board webmaster) runs a small Utah based health insurance website <a href="http://www.BenefitsManager.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.BenefitsManager.net</a> as well as <a href="http://www.HealthInsuranceSource.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.HealthInsuranceSource.net</a>. Mike’s viewpoint provides a unique analysis which comes from being a “fly on the wall” observer in countless state session and insurance meetings. “Utah has been thrust into a state insurance reform pressure cooker which isn’t necessarily negative where I am an insurer, insured and patient”.  Several interesting changes took place with H.B. 188 passage earlier this year which seems all too familiar to the ongoing federal health care reform attempt under Obama’s administration. The spirit of the bill allows private Utah market place remedies. It essentially guarantees a Utah health insurance carrier a &#8220;no loss&#8221; or &#8220;no gain&#8221; premise over competing carriers that operate within the “Utah Insurance Exchange portal”. On the surface it would seem unattractive to a carrier’s consideration (voluntary at this point). But you have to understand the carriers’ goal is to cover their administration fees and maintain a 3% profit. The Utah health insurance reform model claims this can be accomplished now by legislation and the watchful eye of the state’s risk adjuster board. The medical claim risks are essentially shared equally among the participating carriers. Therefore, the carriers can focus on administration efficiencies more so than competition over a fluctuating market share. Insurance carriers such as SelectHealth have efficiencies and risk management experience polished by long tested actuarial tables with health statistics and claim trends. Is it a bad idea to share that experience with a national carrier such as Humana? Would it surprise anyone to know that maternity NICU and anti-depressants represent the highest utilization in health insurance costs for medical and pharmacy in Utah? Compare this to Texas which suffers from abnormally high levels of diabetes and liver disease per capita. <br />The other half of the “health care reform equation” is medical provider and billing practices. The state claims this is on the agenda. It is popular belief among Utah legislators that reform stops with the insurance carrier. However, how can the insurance carrier continue to bear the risk and re-distribution of health insurance premiums back out the door in claims without provider billing reform?  Add to this obstacle a continuing shrinkage of the insured populace. Obama’s administration proposes mandatory participation in a health insurance policy by employers of all sizes, self employed and unemployed populace. The logic being to shore up the unhealthy with healthy premium.  When analyzing the Massachusetts’s system, you actually pay a penalty if you have no proof of coverage.  The benefit level and health insurance price is nowhere close when you compare Utah health insurance quotes through <a href="http://benefitsmanager.net" rel="nofollow">benefitsmanager.net</a> or dental insurance quotes at <a href="http://www.dentalinsuranceutah.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.dentalinsuranceutah.net</a>. Utah premium is easily half. This insight comes from a Utah health insurance agent whom often interacts with employers and residents looking for affordable coverage, making sure claims are paid correctly, implementation and explanation of the many policy procedures and putting a complex SelectHealth insurance language in understandable terms. Yet legislators claim agents to be of no value all in the name to save 3-4 off of Utah health%</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: chrisinpi</title>
		<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/38906/two-doctors-promising-views-of-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-194007</link>
		<dc:creator>chrisinpi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:25:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=38906#comment-194007</guid>
		<description>Great article.&lt;br&gt;One correction.  It&#039;s Rochester, Minnesota, not Rochester, N.Y.  The home of the Mayo Clinic is Rochester, Minnesota.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great article.<br />One correction.  It&#39;s Rochester, Minnesota, not Rochester, N.Y.  The home of the Mayo Clinic is Rochester, Minnesota.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dr_J</title>
		<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/38906/two-doctors-promising-views-of-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-193958</link>
		<dc:creator>Dr_J</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 02:54:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=38906#comment-193958</guid>
		<description>Jim, if you mean that making the rich and healthy subsidize the poor and sick is a good thing to do and the private sector can&#039;t do it, I agree on both counts.  But profit isn&#039;t the reason they can&#039;t.  Whether Robin Hood filed as a for-profit or a non-profit agent, he was still an outlaw.  Only the government has the moral legitimacy to rob from the rich, and the government should be performing whatever redistribution of health care dollars we decide is appropriate.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;But redistributing money is quite a different thing from being a service provider.  That should be left to the private sector, because they do it better.  Food is at least as critical an industry as health care, and our for-profit farmers and grocery stores meet our needs just fine, without prices spiraling relentlessly upward.  If anything the system works too well.  We&#039;ve got so much cheap, delicious food we have an obesity problem.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;We could use a little of that magic in health care.  Let industry do what it does best and government do what it does best, and we&#039;ll swap our shortages of health care for the opposite problem: too much pampering, and too many ancient in-laws who can&#039;t seem to find their eternal rest.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim, if you mean that making the rich and healthy subsidize the poor and sick is a good thing to do and the private sector can&#39;t do it, I agree on both counts.  But profit isn&#39;t the reason they can&#39;t.  Whether Robin Hood filed as a for-profit or a non-profit agent, he was still an outlaw.  Only the government has the moral legitimacy to rob from the rich, and the government should be performing whatever redistribution of health care dollars we decide is appropriate.</p>
<p>But redistributing money is quite a different thing from being a service provider.  That should be left to the private sector, because they do it better.  Food is at least as critical an industry as health care, and our for-profit farmers and grocery stores meet our needs just fine, without prices spiraling relentlessly upward.  If anything the system works too well.  We&#39;ve got so much cheap, delicious food we have an obesity problem.</p>
<p>We could use a little of that magic in health care.  Let industry do what it does best and government do what it does best, and we&#39;ll swap our shortages of health care for the opposite problem: too much pampering, and too many ancient in-laws who can&#39;t seem to find their eternal rest.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bostomk</title>
		<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/38906/two-doctors-promising-views-of-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-193954</link>
		<dc:creator>bostomk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 02:15:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=38906#comment-193954</guid>
		<description>Anyone who wants nationalized healthcare is clearly misinfomed - the care is laughable and it SUCKS.  It doesnt work.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Nationalize banks&lt;br&gt;Nationalize Auto Industry&lt;br&gt;Nationalize Healthcare&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Good grief you sound like a democrat??  Opps sorry for the profanity</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anyone who wants nationalized healthcare is clearly misinfomed &#8211; the care is laughable and it SUCKS.  It doesnt work.</p>
<p>Nationalize banks<br />Nationalize Auto Industry<br />Nationalize Healthcare</p>
<p>Good grief you sound like a democrat??  Opps sorry for the profanity</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim_Satterfield</title>
		<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/38906/two-doctors-promising-views-of-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-193952</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim_Satterfield</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 02:00:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=38906#comment-193952</guid>
		<description>Advertising for drugs that are patented do not share the characteristics you proclaim as being good, Dr_J. They just don&#039;t come close to being the great thing you say it is.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I specifically stated that it is in the field of health care where the social good conflicts with the levels of profits. In other businesses there is not as great a conflict. Maybe our retirement funds can invest in other places than the health care field.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Advertising for drugs that are patented do not share the characteristics you proclaim as being good, Dr_J. They just don&#39;t come close to being the great thing you say it is.</p>
<p>I specifically stated that it is in the field of health care where the social good conflicts with the levels of profits. In other businesses there is not as great a conflict. Maybe our retirement funds can invest in other places than the health care field.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Glittering Eye</title>
		<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/38906/two-doctors-promising-views-of-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-193899</link>
		<dc:creator>The Glittering Eye</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:09:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=38906#comment-193899</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Word Problem (Update)...&lt;/strong&gt;

Do you remember the word problems you had in junior high?  Here&#8217;s one for you.
&#8220;If you spend $2 trillion per year providing healthcare for 254 million people, how much will you spend per year providing healthcare for 300 million people?......</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Word Problem (Update)&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>Do you remember the word problems you had in junior high?  Here&#8217;s one for you.<br />
&#8220;If you spend $2 trillion per year providing healthcare for 254 million people, how much will you spend per year providing healthcare for 300 million people?&#8230;&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MaxC</title>
		<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/38906/two-doctors-promising-views-of-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-193884</link>
		<dc:creator>MaxC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2009 13:50:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=38906#comment-193884</guid>
		<description>The really big problem is that WE ALREADY have nationalized health care. A hospital or physician CAN&#039;T refuse treatment just because a patient can&#039;t pay. The real issue is who is going to pay. We are already paying now with high healthcare costs. Physicians and Hospitals are shifting the costs to cover the uninsured. I also agree that litigation does play a role. We need to be careful with the way that we are dealing with litigation though; physicians do not police their own ranks. There is no other way to rid ourselves of bad physicians than through the courts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The really big problem is that WE ALREADY have nationalized health care. A hospital or physician CAN&#39;T refuse treatment just because a patient can&#39;t pay. The real issue is who is going to pay. We are already paying now with high healthcare costs. Physicians and Hospitals are shifting the costs to cover the uninsured. I also agree that litigation does play a role. We need to be careful with the way that we are dealing with litigation though; physicians do not police their own ranks. There is no other way to rid ourselves of bad physicians than through the courts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Two Doctors’ Promising Views Of Health Reform &#124; Adobe Tutorials</title>
		<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/38906/two-doctors-promising-views-of-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-193860</link>
		<dc:creator>Two Doctors’ Promising Views Of Health Reform &#124; Adobe Tutorials</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2009 07:08:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=38906#comment-193860</guid>
		<description>[...] House committees are expected to introduce their versions of healthcare reform measures Monday. A public option of government-pooled coverage competing with private carriers is included in the consoldated bill that would extend insurance to the estimated 45 million uninsured and underinsured. That in itself will add to the spiraling increase of health costs now reaching $2 trillion annually.  The rest is here: Two Doctors’ Promising Views Of Health Reform [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] House committees are expected to introduce their versions of healthcare reform measures Monday. A public option of government-pooled coverage competing with private carriers is included in the consoldated bill that would extend insurance to the estimated 45 million uninsured and underinsured. That in itself will add to the spiraling increase of health costs now reaching $2 trillion annually.  The rest is here: Two Doctors’ Promising Views Of Health Reform [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Two Doctors’ Promising Views Of Health Reform &#124; Adobe Tutorials</title>
		<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/38906/two-doctors-promising-views-of-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-193859</link>
		<dc:creator>Two Doctors’ Promising Views Of Health Reform &#124; Adobe Tutorials</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2009 07:08:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=38906#comment-193859</guid>
		<description>[...] House committees are expected to introduce their versions of healthcare reform measures Monday.  Go here to read the rest: Two Doctors’ Promising Views Of Health Reform [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] House committees are expected to introduce their versions of healthcare reform measures Monday.  Go here to read the rest: Two Doctors’ Promising Views Of Health Reform [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dr_J</title>
		<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/38906/two-doctors-promising-views-of-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-193851</link>
		<dc:creator>Dr_J</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2009 06:32:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=38906#comment-193851</guid>
		<description>&quot;the fact that ... publicly held corporations [run] hospitals, pharmaceutical businesses, insurance companies and other businesses involved in health care is one of the problems.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Jim, that public companies do run those things is a fact.  But that that constitutes a problem is an opinion, and a reasonably disputed one.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The upside of advertising is consumer choice.  A system that doesn&#039;t offer consumers meaningful choices saves money on advertising, for sure.  But if we&#039;re to benefit from real choices, advertising is essential.  A choice you never find out about might as well not exist.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;And I can give you three upsides to profit.  First, it encourages innovation by giving people a financial incentive to do more with less.  Second, when we&#039;re talking about profits of large publicly held companies, we&#039;re really talking about the returns on our retirement funds, and we like it when these go up.  As a matter of fact, we&#039;re collectively pretty ruthless about evaluating mutual funds based on returns, so complaints about wicked the managers of these companies (whom we get to vote for, remember) are to focus on profit ring somewhat hollow.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The third advantage of profit is, paradoxically, loss.  Companies that don&#039;t deliver more value to customers than they consumed in the attempt get shut down, within just a few years.  So bad ideas get killed quickly.  Contrast that with, say, a government program like the war on drugs, which has been devastating our most vulnerable communities for decades and shows no sign of being retired.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;the fact that &#8230; publicly held corporations [run] hospitals, pharmaceutical businesses, insurance companies and other businesses involved in health care is one of the problems.&#8221;</p>
<p>Jim, that public companies do run those things is a fact.  But that that constitutes a problem is an opinion, and a reasonably disputed one.</p>
<p>The upside of advertising is consumer choice.  A system that doesn&#39;t offer consumers meaningful choices saves money on advertising, for sure.  But if we&#39;re to benefit from real choices, advertising is essential.  A choice you never find out about might as well not exist.</p>
<p>And I can give you three upsides to profit.  First, it encourages innovation by giving people a financial incentive to do more with less.  Second, when we&#39;re talking about profits of large publicly held companies, we&#39;re really talking about the returns on our retirement funds, and we like it when these go up.  As a matter of fact, we&#39;re collectively pretty ruthless about evaluating mutual funds based on returns, so complaints about wicked the managers of these companies (whom we get to vote for, remember) are to focus on profit ring somewhat hollow.</p>
<p>The third advantage of profit is, paradoxically, loss.  Companies that don&#39;t deliver more value to customers than they consumed in the attempt get shut down, within just a few years.  So bad ideas get killed quickly.  Contrast that with, say, a government program like the war on drugs, which has been devastating our most vulnerable communities for decades and shows no sign of being retired.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim_Satterfield</title>
		<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/38906/two-doctors-promising-views-of-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-193849</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim_Satterfield</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2009 05:26:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=38906#comment-193849</guid>
		<description>Except that DaGoat&#039;s post does nothing to address the fact that the existence of publicly held corporations running hospitals, pharmaceutical businesses, insurance companies and other businesses involved in health care is one of the problems. Wall Street has its expectations. It wants high levels of growth and profits and the things that these companies do while chasing those goals contribute nothing to providing affordable health care. The money spent on advertising has nothing to do with noble goals of helping people&#039;s health. Having employees whose job is to look for loopholes to justify dropping customers addresses the bottom line and probably impresses the people on Wall Street when it comes to proving how serious they are about controlling &quot;costs&quot; but that is meant to go to profits, not saving money for clients. What is absolutely necessary is some kind of large non-profit that doesn&#039;t pay anyone by the numbers of procedures or tests, etc. Whether this is a government run agency or a not-for-profit corporation that is subsidized for providing care to those who can&#039;t afford it shouldn&#039;t matter to anyone but the ideologically driven.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Except that DaGoat&#39;s post does nothing to address the fact that the existence of publicly held corporations running hospitals, pharmaceutical businesses, insurance companies and other businesses involved in health care is one of the problems. Wall Street has its expectations. It wants high levels of growth and profits and the things that these companies do while chasing those goals contribute nothing to providing affordable health care. The money spent on advertising has nothing to do with noble goals of helping people&#39;s health. Having employees whose job is to look for loopholes to justify dropping customers addresses the bottom line and probably impresses the people on Wall Street when it comes to proving how serious they are about controlling &#8220;costs&#8221; but that is meant to go to profits, not saving money for clients. What is absolutely necessary is some kind of large non-profit that doesn&#39;t pay anyone by the numbers of procedures or tests, etc. Whether this is a government run agency or a not-for-profit corporation that is subsidized for providing care to those who can&#39;t afford it shouldn&#39;t matter to anyone but the ideologically driven.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DaGoat</title>
		<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/38906/two-doctors-promising-views-of-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-193841</link>
		<dc:creator>DaGoat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2009 03:08:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=38906#comment-193841</guid>
		<description>I agree 100% doctors order too many tests and do too many procedures, but the answer is much more complicated than just going to nationalized health care.  You also can not focus solely on physicians.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;1.  The incentives for doing procedures rather than treating conservatively must be taken away.  Right now doctors are over-rewarded for procedures.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;2.  The legal climate must change.  One reason there are too many tests and procedures is the threat of lawsuit if something is missed.  Physicians have to be protected from lawsuits if they are following established algorithms.  The inevitable result of doing less tests is missing an occasional problem.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;3.  Patient expectations must change.  Every sprained ankle doesn&#039;t need an X-ray, every back ache doesn&#039;t need an MRI, just because you are tired doesn&#039;t mean you need $5000 of tests, etc, etc.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The reasons for over-spending are numerous and they all need to be addressed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree 100% doctors order too many tests and do too many procedures, but the answer is much more complicated than just going to nationalized health care.  You also can not focus solely on physicians.</p>
<p>1.  The incentives for doing procedures rather than treating conservatively must be taken away.  Right now doctors are over-rewarded for procedures.</p>
<p>2.  The legal climate must change.  One reason there are too many tests and procedures is the threat of lawsuit if something is missed.  Physicians have to be protected from lawsuits if they are following established algorithms.  The inevitable result of doing less tests is missing an occasional problem.</p>
<p>3.  Patient expectations must change.  Every sprained ankle doesn&#39;t need an X-ray, every back ache doesn&#39;t need an MRI, just because you are tired doesn&#39;t mean you need $5000 of tests, etc, etc.</p>
<p>The reasons for over-spending are numerous and they all need to be addressed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dr_J</title>
		<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/38906/two-doctors-promising-views-of-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-193835</link>
		<dc:creator>Dr_J</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2009 02:02:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=38906#comment-193835</guid>
		<description>Ah, Father Time, finally I&#039;m able to agree with something you&#039;ve posted.  At least the first three paragraphs.  You&#039;re right: insurance is just a symptom of the real problem: treatment costs too much.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Your wisdom in your first paragraphs makes your proposed solution all the more surreal.  Nationalized health-care amounts to a big government-run insurance company that wouldn&#039;t reduce costs either.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Jerry skipped the most telling bit of the article, that 60 Minutes moment when the reporter confronts the execs at Medicare&#039;s most egregiously overcharging hospital:&lt;br&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;It was a depressing conversation—not because I thought the executives were being evasive but because they weren’t being evasive. The data on McAllen’s costs were clearly new to them. They were defending McAllen reflexively. But they really didn’t know the big picture of what was happening.&lt;/blockquote&gt;In other words, not only is our government-run health care program failing to control costs, it&#039;s not even bothering to mention to the most expensive providers that they&#039;re the most expensive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, Father Time, finally I&#39;m able to agree with something you&#39;ve posted.  At least the first three paragraphs.  You&#39;re right: insurance is just a symptom of the real problem: treatment costs too much.  </p>
<p>Your wisdom in your first paragraphs makes your proposed solution all the more surreal.  Nationalized health-care amounts to a big government-run insurance company that wouldn&#39;t reduce costs either.</p>
<p>Jerry skipped the most telling bit of the article, that 60 Minutes moment when the reporter confronts the execs at Medicare&#39;s most egregiously overcharging hospital:<br />
<blockquote>It was a depressing conversation—not because I thought the executives were being evasive but because they weren’t being evasive. The data on McAllen’s costs were clearly new to them. They were defending McAllen reflexively. But they really didn’t know the big picture of what was happening.</p></blockquote>
<p>In other words, not only is our government-run health care program failing to control costs, it&#39;s not even bothering to mention to the most expensive providers that they&#39;re the most expensive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: caddieo</title>
		<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/38906/two-doctors-promising-views-of-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-193831</link>
		<dc:creator>caddieo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:52:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=38906#comment-193831</guid>
		<description>The health care industry is spending 1.4 million dollars a day to protect its turf in congress. This is just one of the many bloated expense of private health insurance that is diverting money away from patient care itself. What do corporate profit and stockholder dividends and advertising have to do with patient care anyway?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The health care industry is spending 1.4 million dollars a day to protect its turf in congress. This is just one of the many bloated expense of private health insurance that is diverting money away from patient care itself. What do corporate profit and stockholder dividends and advertising have to do with patient care anyway?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Father_Time</title>
		<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/38906/two-doctors-promising-views-of-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-193823</link>
		<dc:creator>Father_Time</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:03:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=38906#comment-193823</guid>
		<description>I DON&#039;T WANT INSURANCE.....I WANT HEALTHCARE!&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Insurance, of any kind, its NOT the answer. Why, because insurance plans do nothing to address COST.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Cost is the principal problem. Healthcare in the U.S. costs far more than healthcare in ANY other country.&lt;br&gt;With an &quot;insurance plan&quot;, that trillion or two trillion will just go up!&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;There is no doubt that healthcare is a concern intrinsically important for our population. The cost of healthcare is to high because Demand is high. Demand will NEVER become less....NEVER. So does this mean that costs will never get smaller? YES IT DOES!&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Nationalize the healthcare system over the next five years and END THIS PROBLEM FOREVER!&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Good grief people its not like we breaking new ground. There are examples of nationalized healthcare everywhere in the world BUT HERE!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I DON&#39;T WANT INSURANCE&#8230;..I WANT HEALTHCARE!</p>
<p>Insurance, of any kind, its NOT the answer. Why, because insurance plans do nothing to address COST.</p>
<p>Cost is the principal problem. Healthcare in the U.S. costs far more than healthcare in ANY other country.<br />With an &#8220;insurance plan&#8221;, that trillion or two trillion will just go up!</p>
<p>There is no doubt that healthcare is a concern intrinsically important for our population. The cost of healthcare is to high because Demand is high. Demand will NEVER become less&#8230;.NEVER. So does this mean that costs will never get smaller? YES IT DOES!</p>
<p>Nationalize the healthcare system over the next five years and END THIS PROBLEM FOREVER!</p>
<p>Good grief people its not like we breaking new ground. There are examples of nationalized healthcare everywhere in the world BUT HERE!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

