Deep thought

Comments (15)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

1. Unstable Isotope says:

   June 8, 2009 at 9:22 pm

   Huh? I don’t quite understand what you’re saying.

2. Donsquishydishimaharishi says:

   June 8, 2009 at 9:30 pm

   another way of saying keeping the man down

3. Donsquishydishimaharishi says:

   June 8, 2009 at 9:30 pm

   it regulates the competition

4. cassandra_m says:

   June 8, 2009 at 9:36 pm

   Not so much regulating the competition — just making them have to compete for something would be the trick.

5. Donsquishydishimaharishi says:

   June 8, 2009 at 9:38 pm

   back to my ‘the man keeping em down’ comment it is then 🙂

6. Rebuild the Delaware GOP says:

   June 8, 2009 at 10:04 pm

   Real Health Care reform? Obama’s plan fails in every way.

   http://delawarerepublican.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/health-care-full-speed-ahead/

   Try this one. Ted Kennedy wants to have subsidies for up to 500% of the poverty level or families making over $100,000 for a family of four?

   I want Universal Care but National Health Care will be a failure.

   Mike Protack

7. Rebuild the Delaware GOP says:

   June 8, 2009 at 10:06 pm

   Health Care, National Health Care or Universal Care?

   The health care debate is going to heat up this summer and probably in to the fall. The outcome of this debate is crucial to individuals of all income levels and businesses of all sizes.

   The key part of the recent health care legislation proposal was brought to the forefront by this phrase by David Lazarus, a reporter on business issues for the L A Times who had this to say when asked about how to pay for Mr. Obama’s plans. ” We can’t pay for anything now, why pay for this?”

   Folks, this statement is a shocker. Here is why he said it. Senator Kennedy has proposed insurance subsidies for up to 500% of the poverty line or income of over $100,000 for a family of four.

   Possibly, we can’t wait to reform health care but we can certainly wait and do it right and the public option is not the best way to do it.The so called public option can exist only with massive subsidies (tax dollars) to the tune of $643 billion down payment over ten years.

   Remember, this amount is a down payment and despite Obama’s honorable intentions there is no past record of achievement on such an issue of such magnitude.

   Still, for Republicans it is possible to propose Universal Care based on Wellness, Productivity and Security. Throw in choice, competition and personal responsibility and we can indeed move out smartly on health care. Senator Tom Coburn has a plan at the national level and I had one called DELACARE last year in the Governor’s race.

   Do no not believe for a minute the Democrats own this issue. However, they do own the bigger government and more tax dollars plans for national health care. The financial realities simply say Obama’s plan will not restrain costs.

   Since Medicare and Medicaid were implemented health care costs have risen 2.5% than the economy has grown. In the mean time chronic disease has grown to over 72% of health care costs, obesity/over weight patients have grown to 60% and TYPE II diabetes has tripled. the government can not control health care costs without rationing but we as patients can control costs by choices and personal actions.

   National Health Care will cost more, will limit choices and put individuals further away from their Doctors. My oldest son is a Doctor at Yale University and he tells me Doctors want universal coverage and the freedom to care for their engaged, involved and covered patients. Let’s move ahead on health care and seek an economic and financial solution not a political solution.

   Mike Protack

8. Rebecca says:

   June 9, 2009 at 4:00 am

   scrolling, scrolling, scrolling

9. Donsquishydishimaharishi says:

   June 9, 2009 at 6:19 am

   pretty much…

10. Unstable Isotope says:

    June 9, 2009 at 8:21 am

    I always scroll past Protack.

11. cassandra m says:

    June 9, 2009 at 9:00 am

    You might as well — he only has about 3 punchlines and they are all tired.

12. callerRick says:

    June 9, 2009 at 9:14 am

    However it’s paid for, healthcare is a battle between technology and cost. It’s sort of like the early period of the automobile (or, DVD player, etc.). The cost/benefit ratio must be brought into equilibrium.

    Today, many individuals, particularly seniors, undergo medical procedures that, in many cases, cost more in the last ten years of their lives than they made in their entire working lives. This cannot be sustained.

    It is not a partisan issue; it is simple economics. The cost of modern healthcare may indeed, at least in the foreseeable future, consume a significant portion of all workers’ income.

13. Progressive Mom says:

    June 9, 2009 at 12:00 pm

    “My oldest son is a Doctor at Yale University and he tells me Doctors want universal coverage and the freedom to care for their engaged, involved and covered patients”

    My disclaimer: I don’t know Mike Protack. Or his son. But I spent a career in health care, both on the delivery side and the payer side, and this statement unwittingly is the foundation of much of what is wrong with the myth of Universal health care without a government plan.

    The actual translation of this statement is: New doctors at Yale want to be paid private insurer rates to treat the patients they want to treat in the manner they want to treat them.

    Let me break it down:

    “universal”: Most discussions of universal coverage carefully avoid explaining exactly how we’re going to cover everyone under the mantra of “competition, choice and personal responsibility.” Competition and choice were tried in the 1970’s with the advent of HMO’s and the rise of for-profit health insurers, and we know where that went; and, unless the Republicans are willing to describe how they are going to legally enforce personal responsiblity, especially on the elderly, the mentally ill and those with neurological disabilities, that’s just code for upper class self-righteousness.

    Without the “universal” in Universal Coverage, nothing substantially changes, and we’ll have this same discussion in 20 years.

    “covered”: Make sure everyone who comes in my office door has coverage at prevailing private insurer rates, not Medicare/Medicaid rates. If we don’t discuss a public option, my rates stay up.

    “engaged” — I want to see alert, intellectually curious patients. A nice idea, but not if you are a psychiatrist. a neurologist, a gerentologist or a host of other practitioners, who routinely see patients that are not or cannot be engaged. Engaged sounds a tad bit elitist since it often relates to amount of education.

    “involved” : code for “compliant with my instructions.” A euphamism for “don’t send me folks who are difficult, self-medicate, ask too many questions or use the internet for diagnosis and pharma info. But, assuming that a practitioner truly wants an “involved” patient, please see “engaged” above. Involved tends to mean educated and walking well or walking wounded, or those with loved ones with time, education and money. Involved also tends to be the patient who asks for more tests and procedures and, because we don’t want “cook book medicine” (is anyone on this board old enough to remember that phrase from the 1970’s HMO debates?), involved patients mean more money for practitioners.

    I’m getting too old. At age 55, I realize I’m listening to this debate, mostly with economists and politicians, for the third time in my adult life.

    The difference this time is that I realize the people doing the debating have high-end health insurance policies that they don’t pay for; that I have a 19 year old who can’t get a policy in NY that covers him because of his health history; that my family’s ability to stay financially afloat is completely dependent — not on what I spend or save — but on my husband’s ability to keep a job that offers health benefits.

    And, while I agree that on this blog we can scroll past comments like Mr. Protack’s, I think it’s a good idea to remember that ideas like his won the last two debates.

    (And, to those who made it to the end of this rant), thanks for listening.

14. Rebecca says:

    June 9, 2009 at 1:37 pm

    Hey P.M.

    I read the WHOLE thing and couldn’t agree more. It’s my third time, at least, at this dance and the guys on the stag-line keep getting homelier. Or just disabled. It’s hard to do the pony or the mashed-potatoes with some guy in a walker-frame.

    We need to back up Howard Dean. If there’s no public option we’ve lost! Once more! Without competition the insurance industry and big pharma have no, absolutely no, motivation to reign in costs or deliver a better product.

    And you also hit it on the core problem with the medical profession. There is a built in monetary conflict of interest. If you get better they lose money.

    We just gotta have a public option!!!

15. Progressive Mom says:

    June 10, 2009 at 8:24 am

    Rebecca,

    Many thanks. Keep those emails going to your rep and senators, and the other 98 senators. Somebody has to speak louder than the lobbies for the docs, the hospitals and the insurers (both profit and NFP), or we’ll get snowed again.