Shorter NY Times opinion on Florida Medicaid: It’s so screwed up that screwing it over more can’t make it any worse, and really Florida Republicans are deserving of our trust, as they’ve proved their fairness to their poorer and darker-skinned citizens so often in their history (as in the 2000 election).
Categories: Uncategorized
Matthew I live in Florida but I work in Michigan. I have a meeting on Thursday with the head cheese of 7-Eleven, who I enrolled the first year in ’97, and one of the 2 guys running for U.S Senate up here.
I will keep you posted, not that you care.
You are right Gadfly. There is not a chance for Socialized Medicine. Now if Matthew would quit dreaming of turning Americans into Socialists we would all feel better.
Matthew lets all Liberals have as much space as they need. I am an HSA supporter so he says I only get 10 lines. His posts talks about the Florida election but of course I can’t discuss politics.
Blue Cross put a huge article in Detroit on HSAs today.
//other luxury cars balk at paying a $15 dollar co-pay for services.//
Part of what sold social security was the idea that everyone would get it – means testing was just taken out of the equation. The only issue is that there needs to be more people paying in than taking out. (I apologize for my amateur way of of describing this. I’m not an economist – but think of me as a sample of a non-expert point of view.)
My sense is that despite all the demagoguery against socialism, this society is fundamentally socialist. People will vote for benefits that are spread out evenly. We would rather have a zillionaire get a social security check than find out we’re giving money to a special group of poor people. People go to work for corporations because they know corporations have rules to give everyone benefits, instead of attaching benefits to either merit or need.
Also I saw a pithy quote just yesterday (can’t remember where) about how this nation will have universal bandwidth access insurance before universal health insurance. It was a toss off joke, but it has a creepy ring of truth.
theorajones writes:
> We need to agree that the only thing that
> matters in a health care system, in terms
> of both cost and quality, is how it works
> when dealing with sick people.
> The litmus test simply cannot continue to be
> how well the system that’s supposed to take
> care of the sick works for the healthy.
We cannot agree on what it means to “be sick” or on what “care” is. And the 80% will not stop questioning what is spent on the 20% so long as people improperly value risk, and the medicos continue to apply an “any theoretically possible benefit” test when recommending diagnostics or treatments to be 80% paid for by someone else.
While I like the intent of the above comments (healthcare as more of a social program rather than a capitalistic program as well as the provide for the sick and not the healthy), I would challenge that the statement:”…contain the costs and provide access to high-quality medically necessary care for sick people,” is really hard to accomplish. First of all, what is “high-quality medically necessary care for sick people” particularly in a “cost contained environment.” I have polled hundreds of healthcare workers (physicians, therapists, nurses) about “quality” care and I have not met one yet that noted they were not providing “quality” care. First, we would have to come to consensus on what is quality while also medically necessary. Medically necessary for you, may not be the same as my perception of what is “necessary” for me or my family.
While I believe that healthcare and education are necessary for a progressing society, I still question how many in our society value “healthcare,” particularly in comparison to entertainment such as sporting events and rock concerts. I have seen people arrive to clinics for care in BMW’s, Mercedes Benz’ and other luxury cars balk at paying a $15 dollar co-pay for services.
Finally, while I think that focusing on the sick is important, who is “sick?” Is the sick person the individual that consistently maintains a healthy lifestyle or the person with undiagnosed diabetes and early heart disease, or is it the person actually displaying symptoms? Who is “sick” and who is “healthy” is very hard to define. It is almost impossible to draw the line in the sand without leaving someone (sick or otherwise)feeling deprived.
I don’t know what the overall solution is, but it seems to me we will never make it from where we are to where we need to be to see to it that all the nation is served without doing it in phases or step. Proactive rateher than reactionary steps would be great, but unfortunately it will likely be reactive steps (as we are already reacting). Some sort of provider tax credit for caring for uninsured (it has to strat somewhere and having providers on board is critical) seems like a start. I see many health care providers doing pro bono work, but I see more providers not doing this type of work.
Anyhow, thanks for the forum, I really get alot from the dialogue.
I think it was worth saying twice. 🙂
Ack! Double post! Sorry!
I think it’s time for health care wonks to propose a new policy test for every healthcare plan.
When evaluating a reform plan the litmus question, and the ONLY question, should be, “how does this plan work to contain the costs and provide access to high-quality medically necessary care for sick people.”
Today, people propose all sorts of health care plans and defend them by saying that they work well for most people. And, fundamentally, they’re right. The Florida plan will work really well for lots of moms and kids.
But what this overlooks, of course, is that rubbing chicken bones on your forehead while singing, “bwa la la la, bwa la la,” will also work to keep most people healthy, because most people aren’t sick. If the standard we’re going to use in evaluating a healthcare system is, “how does it work for the healthy,” then we should simply eliminate health insurance and the entire health care system because, quite frankly, it’s far most cost-effective to go with the chicken bone approach (and maybe some vaccines and an annual dose of antibiotics).
Wonks know better than this. We’ve allowed the debate to go off the tracks by allowing political actors to say, “let’s compare how acute care system A and acute care system B work for people with almost no need to use the acute care system.” It’s moronic. It’s like GM designing a car that will be just perfect for the women of Saudi Arabia. Or putting the recipe for “perfect steak” in a vegetarian cookbook. It’s that stupid.
Wonks need to stop engaging in this debate. We need to agree that the only thing that matters in a health care system, in terms of both cost and quality, is how it works when dealing with sick people.
The litmus test simply cannot continue to be how well the system that’s supposed to take care of the sick works for the healthy.
I think it’s time for health care wonks to propose a new policy test for every healthcare plan.
When evaluating a reform plan the litmus question, and the ONLY question, should be, “how does this plan work to contain the costs and provide access to high-quality medically necessary care for sick people.”
Today, people propose all sorts of health care plans and defend them by saying that they work well for most people. And, fundamentally, they’re right. The Florida plan will work really well for lots of moms and kids.
But what this overlooks, of course, is that rubbing chicken bones on your forehead while singing, “bwa la la la, bwa la la,” will also work to keep most people healthy, because most people aren’t sick. If the standard we’re going to use in evaluating a healthcare system is, “how does it work for the healthy,” then we should simply eliminate health insurance and the entire health care system because, quite frankly, it’s far most cost-effective to go with the chicken bone approach (and maybe some vaccines and an annual dose of antibiotics).
Wonks know better than this. We’ve allowed the debate to go off the tracks by allowing political actors to say, “let’s compare how acute care system A and acute care system B work for people with almost no need to use the acute care system.” It’s moronic. It’s like GM designing a car that will be just perfect for the women of Saudi Arabia. Or putting the recipe for “perfect steak” in a vegetarian cookbook. It’s that stupid.
Wonks need to stop engaging in this debate. We need to agree that the only thing that matters in a health care system, in terms of both cost and quality, is how it works when dealing with sick people.
The litmus test simply cannot continue to be how well the system that’s supposed to take care of the sick works for the healthy.
Ron: Remember–brevity good. Relevancy-better. This post was about Medicaid–not abortion, metrosexuals, union insurance or Michigan. not that I understand how you can be in Michigan and Floida at the same time.
Sign into the blog I gave you and put it all there…
Here in Detroit everybody is screaming about union benefits for workers. Union employees now will find their costs jump to $60 a month for family health insurance. Editorials are saying Hillary beat Gov. Granholm (D-MI) in asking President Bush to have taxpayers pay for union employees’ insurance. Howard Dean was demanding Socialized Medicine too. Democrats will never learn, they have no ideas.
http://www.autoindustry.co.uk/news/industry_news/24-10-05_13
My neighbor in Florida is a Brit and she is as big a Liberal as you Matthew. Thank goodness she can’t vote. Most American’s don’t like Partial Birth Abortion like Senator Stabenow (D-MI) voted for. She is funded by EMILY’S List and Blue Cross of MI CEO, Dan the Man from Michigan. What a fruitcake.
Flash from England (Englandonions):
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1598631,00.html