Those Town Halls — Ouch!
Aug 8th, 2009 | 6 responses
Several weeks ago, about 425 active and retired employees of The San Diego Union-Tribune were asked in an email newsletter they publish what they would do if they were dictator for a day. Naturally, most of the replies were humorous. Allow me to don the imperial crown for a moment.
I would tell the demonstrators disrupting town hall meetings with their elected representatives on the proposed health care reform legislation to shut the you-know-what up and stop acting like unruly Third World agitators. A grown-up needs to step in and take charge of these unruly events and restore a sense of civility.
Ain’t gonna happen. I’ll tell you why.
The debate has evolved into a confluence of diametrically opposed political and economic positions in regards to delivering our health care. It is the new mother of hot button issues surpassing all others including the most important one of all — jobs.
Its foundation is the simple premise that health care represents 16% of our nation’s gross national product and escalating at an alarming rate while delivering poorer results compared to other industrialized countries.
Most polls show people overwhelmingly favor heath care and insurance reform. The devil is in the details.
That’s the first problem. Congress before its summer recess drafted several bills with President Obama sitting on the sidelines offering only broad principles of what he wants, yet he is the guy ramrodding the legislation as part of his signature change agenda. As House and Senators return to their home districts this August to hold their traditional town hall meetings, they are forced to defend or deflate a bunch of proposals that no where near are close to become law. As a result, their minions are acting like dogs barking, jumping and snapping at imaginary buzzing flies.
The second problem is the Congressional Democrats. The liberals and moderates are divided over the basic Old Democratic platform for universal health care delivered by a single-payer or public option plan that would compete with the private insurance carriers. The wedge dividing the groups include TV ads by liberal interests such as MoveOn.Org targeted at several key “Blue Dog” Democrats.
Problem No. Three is opposition to all the reform plans offered by Democrats from the Republicans and their vocal and influential talk radio, television and websites. Lobby groups representing health industry moguls not only have donated big bucks to both Democrats and Republicans but have paid for smear campaigns urging people to attend the town hall meetings for the sole purpose of disruption and creating chaos.
American politics have always carried rowdy overtones. The difference in today’s world is television, the Internet, YouTube and Twitter. The constant repetition of showing film clips of unruly town hall events no matter how exaggerated eventually imbeds in the public awareness a belief that something is wrong. And the wrong in this case translates in favor of those who oppose health reforms.
Of all the arguments cited at the town hall meetings, only one resonates with an element of legitimate concern. That is the cost to implement the reforms at a time the federal budget is $1.3 trillion overdrawn and the Chinese holding the pink slip to our national debt.
Most of the other arguments are based on lies and fears fed by rabble rousers on both sides of the issue.
The Republicans certainly outflanked and outsmarted the Democrats in taking their propaganda battles to the town halls. An emergency meeting at the White House developed this strategy among the Democrats: “If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard.”
We don’t need another arsonist. We need a grown-up to take charge.
The New York Times offers this round-up on the shenanigans.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
6 Responses to “Those Town Halls — Ouch!”
Phooey!
“That’s the first problem. Congress before its summer recess drafted several bills with President Obama sitting on the sidelines offering only broad principles of what he wants, yet he is the guy ramrodding the legislation as part of his signature change agenda.”
I think Obama should only offer broad outlines and principles (this was a key issue he campaigned on and people voted him in). He should then let the legislators do their job- write legislation. And that legislation should be a result of bipartisan input. The problem is that the Republicans don't want Obama to succeed and want to use healthcare to “bring him down.” The Republicans are sore losers and will use extremist tactics, to get their way. Despite the vote by the American people.
Yes, there may be a difference of opinion on the details.. but the Republicans can have input, if they want.
The thing is that the division between “regular” democrats and blue dogs is not a division reflecting any political or lifestyle differences between the constituents of democrats and blue dogs. Simply, the blue dogs were targeted because they were the only plausible allies of the insurance companies, and they danced for the money. But the blue dogs will be the first to go in the midterms if reform fails, so they have to play their two mistresses – the DNC and the insurance companies – against one another. They have to make sure the bill (which they will have to vote for) is as inane and unhelpful as possible by the time it comes down to a vote, that way they'll survive the midterms and still get money from their insurance company friends. The financially stressed families and the uninsured will have to pay the price for the subterfuge.
They're about as philanthropic and likable as wasps.
Part 1.
Problems :
1. No systematic, expansive Prevention & Wellness Program.
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. Rather, all of the excellent health systems seem to have one feature 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 one clue of why all of the free states have public insurance policy in place.
Surprisingly enough, the system today is designed around treating patients once they become sick. As far as I'm concerned, the congress affected by the special interests
has turned down the budget request for prevention program in Medicare & Medicaid, which are the most expensive parts of the health program. Let's imagine the astronomical
costs and invaluable lives following the levee breach.
2. A pay for each service / volume compensation, & No E-Medical Record.
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, in return, it could lessen the tragic, prohibitive ER cares.
Medical errors ( No e-Medical Record ) & lawsuits, more profits motive, and indirect payments from employers etc would account for it.
Supposedly, 'a pay for each service / volume' compensation seems to leave the medical institutes unequipped with the essential IT system. To understand its importance, If
we imagine the cost difference between the previous and current system in financial institutes, the magnitude of cost-savings and the mess in health care system can
be easily explained.
3. Premium Inflation.
This last spring, due to the demand decrease, the peak fuel price came down below $40 per barrel, though, the
'Similar' insurance premiums keep on rising, accordingly the inaction could bankrupt family, business, and
government 'BEYOND this recession' , as all across the spectrum agree.
Insurance premiums have nothing to do with the law of demand & supply and the free / fair market concept.
Basically, as demand diminishes, the price tends to reflect it, nonetheless, the insurers that formed a cartel through
consolidation have replenished the loss by exercising inhumane malpractices involving denying, capping, cherry-picking, rationing, rapid
premium increase and the like. And this runaway premium ended up in the collapse of middle
class ranging ' from finance to mental health' , alongside the peak fuel price and fast-growing mortgage rate, as all of
us know. Thereby they could be cited as an objective for anti-trust or anti-corruption. If the public plan sets the same rate of the insurers, it will be another headache.
Ironically, the Deficit-sensitive groups have a distinctive common ground, they all have a Deficit-driven background out of
question. Therefore, I'd say they have nothing to say about deficit unless they are free from the sponsors.
And the spoiled menu, 'Takeover and Rationing Cliche' is still marching for bankruptcy, as opposed to its motto.
4. 'Work or Break' health system with no brake or safety system.
Just like marriage, economy also undergoes up and down, however, economic downturn is not reflected in the employment-based system.
The rising mental stress or illness & 'keep eating habit' , which are the epicenter of a number of different diseases,might be traced
to this insecure system and exorbitant premiums.
Part 2.
The Public Plan:
1. Thankfully, the health care reform bill currently before Congress makes several key investments including more primary care doctors in preventive care, and those pieces
of the public plan must be maintained .
2. The pay for 'Outcome' pack is most likely to expedite the introduction of Health Care IT SYSTEM, and it will help doctors focus on their patients.
3. The 'innovative' idea of a 'pay for value / outcome' pack will allow for 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.
Young folks and advocates need to explain the notion of a pay for outcome agreement to the elderly misled by the
disinformation.
4. 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 decrease the
crushing lawsuits and deter the excuse for unnecessary cares to make fortunes.
5. The creative 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.
6. This New 'Payment Reform' could accelerate the progress in medical science, in return, it will save more cash.
And this idea will be able to bring 'competition' to the private market, as a result, it can contribute to mitigating premium inflation.
7. 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.
(Please visit http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?st… for detailed infos).
8. Through clinic's network, users of its health-care services can keep up with their health information and information for family members, and receive health guidance and recommendations from clinic that is optimized for each person.
The system also allows patients to upload information from home-health devices such as blood glucose monitors and digital scales. Patients can authorize whether they want to share their health information with doctors or other caregivers, and those caregivers can provide health-care and general wellness recommendations based on the information patients provide.
9. In case the health care reform provides the general public with peace of mind, the rising mental stress, obesity caused by the insecure system and
exorbitant premiums may bend the curve surprisingly.
10. Clearly, the positive impacts involving massive job creation, promising stem cell research, several times more economic effects of 'from bed to work' lie ahead, these will
lead to economic recovery.
Part 3.
Conclusion ;
1. The last thing to expect is rallying for premium inflation
2. Over time, supposedly, the public plan will concentrate more on basic, primary cares, and the private insurers will provide their clients with differentiated services.
3. With the Prevention & Wellness Program as a stable levee in place, the promising pay for value/ outcome reimbursement reform based on IT system could clear the way for revenue-neutral. Some say the installation of IT network will take time, but once this new outcome-based payment system is implemented, the hospitals reluctant to adopt it will most likely rush to introduce it.
4. The final hurdle looks like a scoring issue surrounding the savings on Prevention & Wellness Program, but I'd like to say
health clubs and media reports on prevention tips must be maintained.
Thank You !
“Most polls show people overwhelmingly favor heath care and insurance reform. The devil is in the details.”
–Detail number 1, the public overwhelmingly wants Republicans to be included in the real formulation of policy, not just a partisan democratic bill that has shut out the opposing point of view in its effort to rush through legislation before the Democratic Honeymoon is over. Poll numbers are down, so they pushed healthcare ahead of climate change. The people don't want a ruch job with political motivations, they want a job done right with lots of bipartisan debate and give and take, not another item ticked off on a democratic wish list that they will likely be stuck with for the rest of their lives. Healthcare needs to be bigger than the political parties.
If the democrats ever actually make a real effort to engage in a new negoation with republicans, then the ball is no longer in their court for rushing things too fast, but will be in the GOP court to see if they match such an effort or if they obviously try to stall, if they do, then the Dems can pull out that filibuster proof majority and use it without so much public disapproval.
Please refrain from posting long long comments. Just a reminder, according to TMV posting rules for commenters, no posting articles or cross-posting long comments to more than one post at TMV. If you want to post a long comment or your own article, give a few paras and then link to the full long comment elsewhere or on your own site, and readers can click on it if they are interested.
Thanks.
dr.e
Assistant Editor, The Moderate Voice