So Indu & I invite Alan Greene and Sarah Greene out to dinner in Utah few months ago. Alan is famed pediatrician from drgreene.com. Sarah runs the NY Times Health page. And now Alan has his own column on parenting on NY Times.com. And both their last names are Greene! A coincidence? I think not!
(Actually I think it’s great to have such innovation on the NYT, but this was too hard to resist!)
Americans have been lying to pollsters for years, and here’s another example
Question: The candidates for president have each proposed changes to the healthcare system in America. Generally speaking, on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being not at all well, and 5 being very well, how well do you understand the details and differences of the various healthcare proposals put forth by the current presidential candidates?
1. Not at all well: 34%2. Not very well: 21%3. Neutral: 25%4. Well: 13%5. Very well: 6%6. Not sure: 1%
So discounting for the bullshit inflation factor of about 75% that means less than 5% of Americans understand all the candidates proposals—and not that many people read Bob L’s blog. And no I don’t count myself in that 5%. I have no idea what Romney’s health care plan is, ditto most of the rest of the Republicans other than Giuliani’s and he’s probably off back to fake homeland security consulting after Tuesday in Florida. And the Democrats can’t really make their minds up either. On the other hand I’m not sure I count the candidates in that 5% either!
The poll is from a website called PresidentialRx from a group at Vanderbilt Univ with a bunch of middle of the road healthcare worthies on board attempting to explain the health care policies of the candidates to the unwashed masses. There’s another one from HealthCentral run by our bud Craig Stoltz which we featured on THCB the other day which has really cool graphics. (And Susan Blumenthal has done yeoman’s work getting all the details down on her HuffPo blog)
But don’t forget kids, chances of anything actually happening in the next Administration that resembles anything much of the actual plans of any candidate as now described? — low
iMedix, a really new start-up that combines search and community messaging in health care won “best start-up” in The Crunchies. The Crunchies is the latest Web 2.0 awards show run by a combo of Web 2.0 tech blogs including TechCrunch, Read/Write Web and a couple of others. I’m not exactly a big fan of award shows—there’s this thing called the market which tends to be a more important judge—but it’s nice to see health care getting some notice from the ubber-tech crowd.
Well done to Iri, Amir and the team back in Israel.
Craig Stoltz is a web consultant working in the health
2.0 space. He has previously served as health editor for the Washington Post and editorial director of Revolution Health. He blogs at Web 2.0 … Oh really? I recently had a hand in a project, called the Healthcare08
PoliGraph
, which seeks to find meaningful
distinctions among the presidential
candidates’ healthcare policies. This was tougher than it sounds.
This being the primary season, each party’s contenders are pretty
much sticking with the approved script. The Democrats are trying to outbid each
other for cradle-to-grave healthcare for all humans treading on U.S. soil. The
Republicans are quietly uttering free-market shibboleths to avoid alienating
their big contributors until the fall, when they’ll probably have to promise to
do something or other.
The PoliGraph project plotted each candidate’s stances on
six healthcare issues on big graphics. We plotted their positions along two
axes: from left (i.e., federalphilic) to right (federalphobic), and from most
important to least important (to the candidate, not us).
By parsing the data carefully, we were able to find some
daylight between candidates, even within each party’s tight ideological clusters.
For instance, for all the fuss over comparing Clinton’s and
Edwards’s personal “mandates” that
people have insurance, when we dug into her plan we found her solutions more inclusive
of market forces than either Edwards’ or Obama’s. (This gets wonkish, but Hillary
gives small businesses incentives to
offer private insurance coverage to employees; Edwards and Obama depend more on mandates and
expanding public programs to fill that gap. Hey, it’s something.)
Joe Paduda points us towards the latest adventures of the scummiest holier than thou corrupt theocratic fascist in recent American political history, who’s now raking it in overseeing corruption “prevention” in the implant business. Zimmer has been forced by one of his former colleagues in the US attorney’s office to hire his law firm at a just outrageous rate. Joe raises legitimate points about the culture of pay-offs all round in the implants/devices business which are now infecting the regulators.
But I just can’t get past seeing that man and all the pain he caused, not to mention his shredding of America’s tradition of civil liberties. For more on his raking it in, see earlier THCB explosions. Sometimes I hope there is that afterlife that he preaches about, because if there is I know where Ashcroft is going.
I don’t understand why the Brocade CEO is convicted of back-dating options for others and sentenced to jail while former United Healthgroup CEO Bill McGuire is somehow able to pay a small-ish fine relative to what he made and apparently will face no charges. I was hoping that someone smarter than me would explain. Then I read this in former Republican Senator David Durenberger’s most excellent newsletter.
BILL MCGUIRE IN LIMBOIf there is such a place, Bill is in it for some time, thanks to U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum who has responsibility for the litigation arising around United Health Group’s stock options back-dating for directors and officers. A few weeks ago a couple of retired Minnesota Supreme Court Justices, whom Rosenbaum appointed to make recommendations relative to Bill McGuire’s alleged back-dating, did the "Minnesota Nice" thing and found a way for Bill and his corporate counsel, David Lubbens, to walk on water without drowning. Return $468 million and $24 million respectively in options without having to acknowledge any responsibility for actions to the public, shareholders, customers and community reputation. Rosenbaum wasn’t satisfied and the case goes on.
So I think I understand…(OK I don’t really). Can someone take a crack at it?
I am up at Spot-on ranting about how an endless beauty parade among candidates who agree with each other doesn’t help us figure out what we get come election time. Please read it and come back to comment if you like.
I’m up over at the Health 2.0 Blog talking about my favorite drug interaction checker. Meanwhile if you (yes, that means you) want to write on the Health 2.0 Blog, please *******@*********lt.net” target=”_blank”>email me and let me know.
Apparently in an interview I had with journalist Thomas Day from Medill reports news service which showed up in this article I said:
If you look at California and Blue Cross-Blue Shield, their biggest provider, they came out against the Schwarzenegger bill because it essentially said the same thing [as Democratic proposals],” said Matthew Holt, a San Francisco-based health-care advocate.
What I hope I meant to say was this:
If you look at California
andBlue Cross-Blue Shield,theirthe biggestprovider, insurer in the small group markettheycame out against the Schwarzenegger bill because it essentially said the same thing [as Democratic proposals], such as limiting underwriting in the individual market and limiting the amount of money insurers could make” said Matthew Holt, a San Francisco-based health-careadvocate.blogger/consultant/wise-ass
There’s that’s better!
Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a resident fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last week that returned to the much-exploited story of Nataline Sarkisyan, the 17-year-old Californian who died before receiving a liver transplant. Gottlieb used the story to make the argument that “the U.S. has the best health care in the world.”
Gottlieb is squaring off against John Edwards, who has been suggesting that if Nataline had lived in a European country she might have lived. Edwards blames CIGNA, her for-profit insurer, for refusing to cover the procedure. Dr. Gottlieb, who is a former FDA official, responds with a double-barreled argument: “Americans are more likely than Europeans to get an organ transplant, and more likely to survive it too.” He sounds confident, and at first glance, his argument seems persuasive.
But a closer look reveals that Gottlieb makes his case by carefully culling the numbers that fit his argument, while omitting those that don’t. Unfortunately, too many people involved in the healthcare debate play fast and loose with the facts. Everyone interested in reform should be on the look-out for those who don’t cite solid evidence for their assertions. If they don’t give you their source, it may be because they don’t want you to look it up—and because they realize that they are cherry-picking the numbers.
Before engaging Gottlieb’s argument, I should acknowledge that, as I have said in an earlier post, I think Edwards has picked a bad case to make his argument for healthcare reform. I am not at all certain that the transplant would have helped this particular patient. And while Edwards puts all of the blame on CIGNA, Nataline’s insurer, I am bothered by the fact that the hospital asked for a $75,000 down payment on the surgery and then refused to go forward without it. As one physician/blogger from the very same hospital where Nataline was treated asked: “Why didn’t the hospital simply perform the surgery and defer payment from the family or CIGNA [Nataline’s insurer] until later? If it was such a great idea, why didn’t they exhibit the outrage and strength of conviction to go ahead regardless of CIGNA’s assessment?”Continue reading…
THCB's Podcasts
Listen to them on Itunes or Spotify
