Today I received an email with an editorial on Governor Schwarzenneger's announcement to veto BS 840.
The folks who originated the email decided to insert their rebuttal to his comments. Of course the Guv isn't there to give his side but that didn't stop them from having a one-sided argument. I figured I could do likewise.
Here is a 3 way conversation on BS 840.
FTCR (Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights) analyzed Schwarzenegger's broad mischaracterizations issued today of SB 840, sponsored by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, and answers them below.
AS: Socialized medicine is not the solution to our state's health care problems.
FTCR: SB 840 is not socialized medicine. Doctors and hospitals would remain private. SB 840 would, however, remove wasteful insurance companies from the health care system and replace them with a non-profit, publicly accountable insurance pool.
BV: Call it what you want, but when the government decides they can make better use of your money than you can, takes your money and then spends it on something THEY want, it is Socialization.
AS: Such a program would cost the state billions and lead to significant new taxes on individuals and businesses, without solving the critical issue of affordability. I won't jeopardize the economy of our state for such a purpose.
FTCR: SB 840 would save Californians $8 billion off what the state is currently spending and use this to provide coverage for the 7 million Californians without health care. The new public insurance pool would actually decrease overall health spending by utilizing the 25 percent of revenue currently wasted on CEO salaries, record corporate profits, overhead and advertising by private insurers to provide better health care for all Californians. Individuals and employers would pay one lower rate for comprehensive care.
BV: Even if the plan can save $8B, and that figure is highly questionable, covering 7M without health insurance, including those who can well AFFORD health insurance but choose to go without, would most likely require a much larger figure. Using $8B for 7M people is $1142 per person per year. Must be pulling the health insurance rabbit out of a hat on that one.
AS: It uses the same one-sided approach tried in SB 2, the employer-mandated coverage measure signed into law before I became governor. I opposed SB 2 because it placed nearly the entire burden on employers, and voters repealed it in 2004.
FTCR: SB 2 required employers to buy health insurance from for-profit insurance companies without any oversight of their rates. SB 840 provides affordability protection by removing insurer waste, by purchasing prescription drugs in bulk and by focusing on disease prevention.
BV: Removing insurer waste. Must be like the folks in GA recently did when they took 30% of the people OFF the Medicaid rolls who were NOT QUALIFIED to receive benefits. Certainly no waste there.
AS: I want to see a new paradigm that addresses affordability, shared responsibility and the promotion of healthy living.
FTCR: Governor Schwarzenegger means, by "shared responsibility," a plan that would shift more burden, not less, to individuals, requiring them to buy health care from the for- profit insurance market or face liens against their taxes and their property. "Shared," in this case, is likely to mean that patients pay more and have fewer protections against insurance company gouging.
BV: Shifting more burden to the individual. Sounds like capitalism. This is different from government provided (through taxpayer gouging) health care. Believe that is considered Socialism.
AS: Single payer, government-run health care ... would reduce a person's ability to choose his or her own physician, make people wait longer for treatment and raise the cost of that treatment.
FTCR: Under SB 840 Californians would have better choices of private doctors and private hospitals and would not have to wait for profit-focused insurance gatekeepers to "approve" care - as happens now even in the case of life-threatening disease.
BV: Better choices, no gatekeeper. These folks must not be familiar with Medicare. Oh wait. Medicare is Socialized medicine. My bad.
The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) is California's leading non-profit consumer watchdog. For more information, visit us online at http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org
Thursday, September 7, 2006
Wednesday, September 6, 2006
Boom-docs
The doctor says I'm headed for trouble.
"You should be worried," she says.
After talking to her, I am. If you're a baby boomer, you should be worried, too.
Because the doc -- Laura Diachun, a geriatrician at St. Joseph's Health Care's Parkwood Hospital -- isn't talking about clogged arteries, spotty memory, failing eyesight, fading hearing or other unpleasant things that will befall boomers as they age.
Those are troubles. But what the doc is talking about -- and what may shock boomers who assume their sunset years are going to be a glorious romp through health, wealth and happiness -- is a looming problem with treating those troubles.
Because according to a just-published study, unless things change there aren't going to be enough geriatricians -- doctors who specialize in treating elderly patients -- to care for all the banged-up boomers during the next 15 to 20 years.
"This is a human resource crisis," says Diachun,
As one who is on the leading edge of Boomers, this (and Medicare) is not something I look forward to. Fortunately (or maybe not) I have about 10 years to go before I face this problem.
"You should be worried," she says.
After talking to her, I am. If you're a baby boomer, you should be worried, too.
Because the doc -- Laura Diachun, a geriatrician at St. Joseph's Health Care's Parkwood Hospital -- isn't talking about clogged arteries, spotty memory, failing eyesight, fading hearing or other unpleasant things that will befall boomers as they age.
Those are troubles. But what the doc is talking about -- and what may shock boomers who assume their sunset years are going to be a glorious romp through health, wealth and happiness -- is a looming problem with treating those troubles.
Because according to a just-published study, unless things change there aren't going to be enough geriatricians -- doctors who specialize in treating elderly patients -- to care for all the banged-up boomers during the next 15 to 20 years.
"This is a human resource crisis," says Diachun,
As one who is on the leading edge of Boomers, this (and Medicare) is not something I look forward to. Fortunately (or maybe not) I have about 10 years to go before I face this problem.
Going to Pot...
A while back, Bob blogged on The Pill Nazi. Now, we have the Pill Narc:
"(N)o animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use."
You may recall that there has been a move afoot (primarily in California) to legalize marijuana use fopr certain medical conditions (e.g. cancer pain management). Pot was touted as a potentially helpful alternative to other medications, which have their own negative side effects. Ostensibly, it offered quick and long-lasting pain relief, with minimum problems.
As expected, there has been a lot of smoke blown on both sides of the issue. Not being an afficianado myself, I've stayed out of the fray. But Dr Henry Miller (a physician, and fellow at the Hoover Institution) has an interesting article over at TCS Daily (ibid) which tends to undermine the reliability of medicinal cannabis supporters. He asks "is it 'medicine?'" And then he proceeds to answer the question:
According to Dr Miller, in order to be classified as a medicine, a product must:
■ Be prescribed by a physician (or other appropriate health care provider)
■ It must be standardized by composition, formulation, and dose
■ It must have been tested for a particular medical condition in rigorous trials
■ And it must be administered by means of an appropriate delivery system.
It's Dr Miller's contention that medical marijuana fails most, if not all, of these tests. Some of it's just common sense: since there's no Eli Lily (for example) which is testing, manufacturing nor distributing "joints," there's no standardization. So how can one determine the efficacy of a particular "dose?" And, there are different varieties of the plant, so variations in the chemical composition of these must be taken into account.
There's more, of course, and it's an interesting topic, one which I have not seen discussed much in the medblogosphere.
Until now.
"(N)o animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use."
You may recall that there has been a move afoot (primarily in California) to legalize marijuana use fopr certain medical conditions (e.g. cancer pain management). Pot was touted as a potentially helpful alternative to other medications, which have their own negative side effects. Ostensibly, it offered quick and long-lasting pain relief, with minimum problems.
As expected, there has been a lot of smoke blown on both sides of the issue. Not being an afficianado myself, I've stayed out of the fray. But Dr Henry Miller (a physician, and fellow at the Hoover Institution) has an interesting article over at TCS Daily (ibid) which tends to undermine the reliability of medicinal cannabis supporters. He asks "is it 'medicine?'" And then he proceeds to answer the question:
According to Dr Miller, in order to be classified as a medicine, a product must:
■ Be prescribed by a physician (or other appropriate health care provider)
■ It must be standardized by composition, formulation, and dose
■ It must have been tested for a particular medical condition in rigorous trials
■ And it must be administered by means of an appropriate delivery system.
It's Dr Miller's contention that medical marijuana fails most, if not all, of these tests. Some of it's just common sense: since there's no Eli Lily (for example) which is testing, manufacturing nor distributing "joints," there's no standardization. So how can one determine the efficacy of a particular "dose?" And, there are different varieties of the plant, so variations in the chemical composition of these must be taken into account.
There's more, of course, and it's an interesting topic, one which I have not seen discussed much in the medblogosphere.
Until now.
Carnival Update
This week's Carnival of Personal Finance is up, hosted at Aridni. Blogger Todd presents a cool 50 posts, replete with brief summaries of each.
Feeling charitable? Well, Joe Kristan at Roth & Co warns us that tax breaks for charitable donations just got a bit more challenging. Thanks, Uncle Sam!
Tuesday, September 5, 2006
BS 840 Update
The California Senate voted today to send universal health care legislation, SB 840, to Governor Schwarzenegger's desk as new data shows that biggest rise in uninsured rates occurred for families with household incomes of over $50,000 per year. SB 840 will save Californians $8 billion each year by cutting insurers, HMOs and unnecessary middlemen out of the health care system and covering everyone in a public insurance pool.
Save $8B by eliminating waste . . .
In GA waste was eliminated by kicking 25% of ineligible Medicaid beneficiaries off the roles. People recieving benefits who were not entitled, either because they lied about their income or their citizenship status.
According to U.S. Census Bureau data released Monday, Americans with annual incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 per year saw the biggest increase in uninsured rates, up to 8.3 million, an increase of 600,000 people. 800,000 more people with annual incomes of over $75,000 are now uninsured
Someone please tell me why a TAXPAYER FUNDED health insurance plan should be provided to people earning in xs of $50k.
Save $8B by eliminating waste . . .
In GA waste was eliminated by kicking 25% of ineligible Medicaid beneficiaries off the roles. People recieving benefits who were not entitled, either because they lied about their income or their citizenship status.
According to U.S. Census Bureau data released Monday, Americans with annual incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 per year saw the biggest increase in uninsured rates, up to 8.3 million, an increase of 600,000 people. 800,000 more people with annual incomes of over $75,000 are now uninsured
Someone please tell me why a TAXPAYER FUNDED health insurance plan should be provided to people earning in xs of $50k.
Grand Rounds...
Clinical cases & Images blog, hosted by Dr Ves Dimov, presents over 40 items in this week's 'Rounds. It's in the style of a medical journal, with posts organized by topic.
I think it's safe to say that many of us have trouble following directions. Aggravated DocSurg writes about his own experiences when he fails to do so, and how he deals with patients who ignore his advice.
I think it's safe to say that many of us have trouble following directions. Aggravated DocSurg writes about his own experiences when he fails to do so, and how he deals with patients who ignore his advice.
Monday, September 4, 2006
Wonk Alert! [BUMPED]
We'll be hosting the Health Wonk Review this week (Thursday the 7th). If you blog on health policy, infrastructure, insurance, or technology (or know someone who does), HWR is the place to be.
You can submit posts:
■ via email (for HWR submissions)
or
■ via TMBN
I don't really have a theme, but I love this place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)