Link to a good blog on health care

Dave Winer has a good note on health care here.

I would add that the sole purpose of for-profit health care providers and insurance companies, just like those in any other industry, is to make a profit. Increasing profits means increasing sales, or services provided. Doesn't matter if the services are cost effective, or even work, as long as they turn a profit. Actually, as long as they don't get sued, the treatment can have a negative effect. There are many examples of this.

Doctors are afraid of lawsuits, plus they now perform many types of tests in-house, such as x-rays, blood tests, etc., so they have every incentive to perform every test and treatment that insurance will reimburse. Where is the decision made for cost effectiveness?

One other thing, Dave touches on, is the overall cost. I find that often, people make arguments in a debate designed to convince people that already agree with them. More often than not, liberals and conservatives think differently. If you want to convince a conservative, make a conservative argument (same with liberals). Dave mentions the cost of health care, but I want to expand on that.

In the US, most businesses of any size pay huge sums for employee health care. Sometimes, they compete with other US companies that do not offer insurance. They can keep better employees, but with a higher cost due their providing insurance. For highly skilled employees, its a no-brainer, the business has to provide insurance. But what about lower skilled jobs, where employee retention isn't so important?

Conservatives will say that we should let the companies battle it out in the marketplace. If the economic benefit to the company is greater than the cost of insurance, then companies offering insurance will win. If not, they lose. This is the classic Wal-mart vs. Safeway battle for grocery sales.

But what about international trade? How can US companies compete with foreign companies when the foreign companies have a lower cost of business, even if they have to pay a payroll tax for health care? In my opinion, conservatives should work to reduce the barriers to economic growth, and the cost of health insurance for employees is a significant barrier to growth, especially employment.

Ted Kennedy Exits

With the passing of Ted Kennedy, Obama loses certainly the most effective liberal Senator, if not overall. Obama would have benefitted greatly from having a robust Ted Kennedy in the Senate during the health care battle.

The NY Times has a major piece here.

I did learn something significant from the NY Times article. I was not aware that Senator Kennedy has served in the army during the Korean war. Also, has family got him a cushy job, similar to President George W. Bush during Vietnam. From th times article:

Suddenly draft-eligible during the Korean War, Mr. Kennedy enlisted in the Army and served
two years, securing, with his father’s help, a cushy post at NATO headquarters in Paris. In
1953, he was discharged with the rank of private first class.

Dan Rather lost his career because he became obcessed with Bush, instead of reporting the facts. Its not just liberal journalists like Rather, but all journalists take sides instead of reporting the news. Maybe Rather should have reported on how most if not all powerful familes kept their kids out of war, Bush, Kennedy, all of them.

The public might today believe the media when they talk about Republican BS on health care, like death squads, if they attaked all politicians with the same vigor, not just those with opposing views.

Bias in the Media Haunts Obama

In my opinion, the entire main stream media is biased. Fox is very conservative, MSNBC is very liberal (both are good for their business), and the rest are slightly liberal (CNN and the networks). Anything that gets close to a debate becomes a name calling shouting match. The network participants (I refuse to call them journalists) take sides instead of moderating the shouting matches and calling foul when the truth is stretched by the guests.

I would much prefer that all the media players allow all sides of any debate to make their points, one at a time, then have journalists point out when either side spews BS. This will never happen. The old William F. Buckley debates on PBS were great. My favorite was where Buckley debated against Ronald Reagan (each on a team) on the merits of giving the Panama Canal back to Panama while Cater was President. More often than not, it was liberal versus conservative.

I believe that most of the liberal media, minus Fox, turned on Hillary Clinton early in the recent campaign and actually became boosters for Obama. Fox, weird as it may be, actually supported Hillary, after years of attacks on her.

Obama's media supporters made a horrible mistake. They should have created an outlet for honest debate before the health care push, where BS on any side were called out. With the history of the debate over HillaryCare, they should have expected a vigorous response from partisan Republicans. Maybe Obama's advisors should have developed a plan earlier.

Instead, it appears that Obama's camp and media supporters believed even the most partisan Republicans would roll over. Maybe they made the mistake of underestimating the dislike for Bush among voters, and thinking the election victory was all due to love of Obama.

What has happened is that Republicans, those with no plan to provide health care to millions of people, are spewing BS about ObamaCare, and there is no unbiased source of news to call foul. Of course MSNBC will play to a liberal audience (and Fox to conservatives), but that's preaching to the choir. Obama needs to win the minds of the independant voters.

Obama's supporters should encourage CNN and the networks to quickly develop programs with a moderated debate, where facts by all sides are checked. No shouting when its not your turn to speak. Where journalists don't participate, but verify the debate points of the guests. Obama is losing the middle ground, and a biased media isn't helping.

Shouting matches with biased journalists as participants make people afraid of any change.

Se. Grassley Loses Credibility

Dave Winer just Tweeted about a comment Sen. Grassley made about "Death Squads", here . Dave in turn links to MSNBC, which quotes The Huffington Post (neither are exactly unbiased). So I kept following the links to a video on YouTube, here. The video is edited, but I think there's enough there to say that the story sticks.

I've always respected Sen. Grassley. But he is now spewing BS.

The Republicans don't acknowledge there is a problem with having 45 Million (or whatever the exact number is, its large) people uninsured. There is no Republican plan to see that health care is available to all.

I hear them say these people do have health care, at an emergance room. Works for broken arms, not so much for non-emergancies.

I would like to ask the Republicans a few questions.

First, if the British NHS is so bad, why does their Conservative Party not try to convert to an American-style system? The British Conservative Party supports the NHS, except for a few token radicals. They spend less than half of what the US spends per person, and live longer. Is their another country with a single payer system that has citizens wanting to convert to a US-style sytem?

Second, if ObamaCare is so bad, will the Republicans go on record today for eliminating it when they next regain control of the Congress? I doubt it, because no one can vote to take millions of people of the health care rolls. I would think that if its so bad, the Republicans would go to their graves fighting it.

For the Democrats, they should be honest and pony up to their desire for a single payer, rationed system. That will happen, if ObamaCare is enacted, because its the only way to pay for all the uninsured, and keep cost low. I think the argument on a government option is wasted effort, once everyone is covered the writing is on the wall.

Journalism in the Health Care Debate

Where is Journalism today? The main stream media has changed from reporting on the news as a fact checker, to just another shrill voice with a dog in the hunt. Fox news is biased to the conservative view, and CNN is left of center, while MSNBC is left of anything approaching reality. News on the broadcast networks is clearly liberal. There is no voice of rational debate.

A lot of times I hear people confuse bias for lying. A journalist can be biased, and also tell the truth. The major bias in the media is what they choose to report. Fox reports news of interest to conservatives, the other media reports news of interest to liberals.

In the health care debate, the media is covering the shouting at town halls, ignoring the facts about what people are shouting. People on both sides of the debate spew almost nothing but BS, and no one in the media is covering it honestly. Sure, they point out the things the other side of the debate say that might not be true, but they don't cover the overall facts of the debate.

Instead of the old William F. Buckley debate of the facts, today's media wants shouting matches. Maybe the few people that watch TV news today prefer that, but not me. And now people watch journalists that reflect their view. What happened to the old idea that you couldn't determine the politics of a journalist?

Two New Thoughts...

First, its so funny how the Democrats are whining about the protests, but forgetting about all the anti-Bush protests. Wasn't Bush blamed for everything, to the point of being absurd? Remember that Bush was blamed for causing Katrina? Hilarious.

Note: What idiot advisor had Bush fly over New Orleans instead of showing up to show he cared?

As for the Republicans, they are so against ObamaCare. But no one is asking the question, what will the Republicans do if ObamaCare passes (assuming they get back control of the Congress). Will the Republicans pledge to kill ObamaCare, which will remove millions of people from the insured? I doubt it.

Swine Flu in Britain

There are a large number of new Swine flu cases in Britain every week. With the NHS, Britain has established a system where swine flu patients can provide information over the Internet or telephone, then receive a prescription for Tamiflu to treat the symtoms, eliminating the need for thousands to visit their doctor.

This isn't possible in the US. If the Swine flu takes off this winter, we will see millions of doctor visits (or emergancy room visits), swamping the health care system.

I think I had the Swine flu earlier this year, I thought I had a cold for a few days, so I didn't get in to the doctor in time for Tamiflu (although I went in later for pneumonia). I got to wear a mask over my face that almost kept me from breathing. Its a good thing that the Swine flu isn't that bad.

But what if we see a nasty bug that is contagious, and there exists a treatment. Something like TB. A free market health care system, where those without insurance go without treatment, would allow the uninsured to become carriers for the disease.

The British Health Care System

The British health care system, the NHS, is a rationed single payer system. All are treated for the basics, and the cost is substantially lower than in the US. Is it better or worse than the US? It depends. If your unemployed in the US, or otherwise uninsured, its far better. If you have good insurance, the NHS is not as good.

In Britain, health care isn't tied to employment. You can change jobs, retire, even be laid off or fired, and you still get health care. In the US, not so much.

The NHS is only affordable because of rationing. But not all health care provided in the US, that's not available under the NHS, is beneficial to the patient.

Anyone needing a prescription for an expensive drug in the US knows that drugs are already rationed by the insurance companies. Most new drugs are developed for the US market, where high prices can pay back the development costs.

Should the US cap drug prices? The savings to patients would be enormous, but at the expense of killing off the pipeline of new drugs.

Single Payer Health Care

Does anyone believe that there is a single liberal Democrat that prefers ObamaCare over a true single payer health system? ObamaCare is a nightmare, a train wreck we are watching in slow motion. Everyone will be covered, and the Republicans will never be able to take that away. Over the next 5 years, as ObamaCare pushes us to bankruptcy, either the Democrats or the Republicans will change the system so that we will have a single payer, rationed system.

If ObamaCare is implemented, what is the Republican plan? Will they kill it, removing millions of folks from the list of the insured? Hardly. How can Republicans cut costs, if they take over in 2010, and have to fix ObamaCare?

Since we're going to have single payer health care in 5 years, payed for by a payroll tax (offset by the elimination of the business cost of insuring employees), why not just do it today?

Republican's on Health Care

I am a Conservative. I worshipped Ronald Reagan, not so much the Bushes. I think Republican's will admit there is a problem with health care, and only see a political advantage by saying "NO". Where exactly is the Republican plan for health care? What exactly is their goal? Is it covering everyone or maximizing the profit of the health care industry, including providers, insurers, and drug companies?

I think the problem is insurance. Health insurance is really free market socialism. Insurance companies that are public are required to maximize their profits for their shareholders. That's the reason they exist. Health insurance companies take about 40% of their income as gross profit ( I'm just guessing), yet don't provide any treatment. They allow doctors, hospitals, drug companies, etc. to keep providing more treatment at a higher cost, often without positive outcomes.

The true free market solution to the problem is to ban health insurance. Providers can only charge what the market will pay. Health car would then become like every other industry. But Republicans dare not offer this strategy, because lower income folks would get no expensive treatment.

Is there another free market solution?

What is the Goal of Free Market Health Care?

Sadly, there is no rational debate on health care. I miss the old William F. Buckley debates on PBS.

I am a free market conservative. Health care is hosed, yet there is nothing proposed by the Republicans. They talk about the free market, but the the actual free market solution is to outlaw insurance, so providers can only charge what the market will pay. Insurance is a form of free market socialism.

Oddly enough, even as a conservative, I have thought for a long time that we will have socialized medicine at some point. I believe that socialized medicine is a much better alternative to the current proposal offered by the Democrats. But once practically everyone is covered, no one can vote to eliminate health insurance. Either the Democrats or the Republicans will have to change the current plan to fix the cost, where we will get socialized medicine.

There are some aspects of the debate that I don't hear mentioned, anywhere. For example, the explicit goal of a free market enterprise, in this case health insurers, providers, drug companies, etc., is to maximize sales and profit. That's fine for making computer chips or software, but what about when its the health of your child?

No one is talking about Doctor's income. Today, they order tests for everything, especially if they can perform the test (or treatment) in house.

Democrats are afraid to bring up rationing. Republicans lie about it, as if treatment today isn't rationed. Just try to get an insurance company to pay for one of the new expensive drugs. Rationing, and some sort of controls on lawsuits, are both required to control costs.

The current Democratic plan is to tax someone else to pay for it. They found that you can't tax middle income folks to pay for the uninsured, when the taxpayers get nothing in return. Good luck. The real system needs to be a graduated income tax. Also, as Hillary did years ago, you have to get rich people into the system if you want them to pay the taxes. And heaven forbid that Congress has better health care than the voters.....

I'd really like to see a healthy debate, somewhere, like the old Buckley PBS debates.

Rationed Health Care

Republicans complain about the the various Democratic health care plans implementing rationing, as though for the first time. A lot of people that have good health insurance, but have never needed it, think rationing doesn't currently exist. This is silly, just try to get a prescription for any of the large number of newer drugs that are expensive, but work. Insurance doesn't cover them. But the word rationing is a good scare tactic, for people that don't understand that rationing is already in place.

Rationing is currently implemented by insurance companies. The Democrats want the government to ration health care, but are terrified to talk about it. But cutting health care costs can only be achieved by reducing the cost of drugs, tests and procedures, or rationing them.

The funny thing is that the same Democrats are the ones that have voted in some states to un-ration health care, that is to require coverage for silly treatments like Chiropractors, hair restoration, etc., as if these treatments didn't drive up the cost of insurance.

First post

This is a new blog, discussing health care policy. I am a free market conservative, but I think the free market has failed in health care. The cost to individuals and businesses is to large and growing too fast, and the number of uninsured is reaching a tipping point.

I would prefer that the government stay out of as much of lives as possible, including health care. But I don't see a free market solution to the problem. And the debate is a joke. No one is telling the whole truth, and there is no real, honest debate on the issues.