Heathcare Reform

[judgeposer]

The Atlantic featured this article recently, which I thought I'd share: [url="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care"]How American Healthcare Killed my Father[/url]

I put this on my "required" reading list... This article has to be among the most comprehensive I have yet read on the topic. The author, a former executive, details all the ways our system fails us, even us insured, and how government prescriptions for reform fall short of addressing the problem. The one thing he does agree on with those calling for reform is that reform is needed. He also suggests a solution that would at least begin to address our system's present infirmities.

It's lengthy, but definitely worth reading. I hope that it provides some background, which should eliminate some of the mindlessness some threads/posts espouse.

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='judgeposer' date='12 December 2009 - 02:02 PM' timestamp='1260648132' post='438350']
The Atlantic featured this article recently, which I thought I'd share: [url="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care"]How American Healthcare Killed my Father[/url]

I put this on my "required" reading list... This article has to be among the most comprehensive I have yet read on the topic. The author, a former executive, details all the ways our system fails us, even us insured, and how government prescriptions for reform fall short of addressing the problem. The one thing he does agree on with those calling for reform is that reform is needed. He also suggests a solution that would at least begin to address our system's present infirmities.

It's lengthy, but definitely worth reading. I hope that it provides some background, which should eliminate some of the mindlessness some threads/posts espouse.
[/quote]

Thanks... Not a bad read at all. I have to agree with the vast majority of it.

[Rani]

I heard the annnouncement that the Democrats are trying to pass health care reform before Christmas and the Republicans are trying to stop it. I don't know what's really going on in the legislature but something occurred to me when thinking about it. Why do they always attempt these sweeping reforms that try for massive fixes? Self-aggrandisement? So they can say "Hey look what we did?" and hopefully keep their death grip on their office? And they wonder why they can't agree on anything and get anything passed within reasonable time. As a writer my number one tool is my outline. I have a list of things I need to accomplish within the article or story. I lay them out and one by one I tackle them and include them. I don't understand why they don't do the same thing with the changes they're trying to make. If they did they might actually get something done.

Let's take the subject at hand : Health Care Reform. They may be seven things wrong with it the way it works right now. Or thirty-four. Or one hundred and fifty eight. So list them out and tackle them one at a time. Pre-existing conditions need to be covered. We all know this - it's logical. So resolve that one issue and then move on to the next. Some people living below the poverty line may never be able to afford private insurance. So maybe expanding coverage under Medicaid is the answer, maybe it's a public option. But handle it as a separate issue. One item that needs to be resolved to complete and improve health care.

Everytime they come up with these sweeping reforms, they come across sticking points. One side puts forward a bill and the other side disagrees with a couple points so they end up in stalemate and mucking around with it, trading deals and favors until we end up with a watered down half way worthless version that doesn't accomplish a tenth of what it should on the overall issue. And what could have been a combined series of bills that resulted in sweeping reform are gutted and everyone sits around congratulating themselves on what they accomplished. And once again the American people get much less than we deserve. I just don't get it.

'Rani

[KyleTheJustin]

I'll give it a read later on. I really like Rani's comment on the "outline," which I too believe is drastically lacking when pushing this "reform." A very probable and efficient way to deal with this issue, at least from a global perspective, is to identify the pros and cons from each NHS system and work accordingly--much like the aforementioned outline.

That being said, let me look at the article and see what I think. It still shocks me that people are against healthcare for everyone, especially when they would probably benefit more from the situation. Oh well, more on this later.

[Jacob Shock]

meh... i dont care.

[judgeposer]

[quote name='BohoWildChild' date='17 December 2009 - 03:54 PM' timestamp='1261083289' post='439868']
I heard the annnouncement that the Democrats are trying to pass health care reform before Christmas and the Republicans are trying to stop it. I don't know what's really going on in the legislature but something occurred to me when thinking about it. Why do they always attempt these sweeping reforms that try for massive fixes? Self-aggrandisement? So they can say "Hey look what we did?" and hopefully keep their death grip on their office? And they wonder why they can't agree on anything and get anything passed within reasonable time. As a writer my number one tool is my outline. I have a list of things I need to accomplish within the article or story. I lay them out and one by one I tackle them and include them. I don't understand why they don't do the same thing with the changes they're trying to make. If they did they might actually get something done.

Let's take the subject at hand : Health Care Reform. They may be seven things wrong with it the way it works right now. Or thirty-four. Or one hundred and fifty eight. So list them out and tackle them one at a time. Pre-existing conditions need to be covered. We all know this - it's logical. So resolve that one issue and then move on to the next. Some people living below the poverty line may never be able to afford private insurance. So maybe expanding coverage under Medicaid is the answer, maybe it's a public option. But handle it as a separate issue. One item that needs to be resolved to complete and improve health care.

Everytime they come up with these sweeping reforms, they come across sticking points. One side puts forward a bill and the other side disagrees with a couple points so they end up in stalemate and mucking around with it, trading deals and favors until we end up with a watered down half way worthless version that doesn't accomplish a tenth of what it should on the overall issue. And what could have been a combined series of bills that resulted in sweeping reform are gutted and everyone sits around congratulating themselves on what they accomplished. And once again the American people get much less than we deserve. I just don't get it.

'Rani
[/quote]

Now, keep in mind that I do agree largely with what you said, except let's look at it from the politician's perspective to see whether we can at least give a reasonable explanation for their less than incremental approach. One possible explanation I can offer is that compromise isn't an absolute virtue in politics. Inasmuch as politicians advertise this to be the case -that compromise is a virtue, if not even a desired approach to legislation - they seem to pay only lip service to it because they never seem to want it, if their actions are any guide. This conclusion also adds strength to the argument that Washington suffers from ideological entrenchment. Or, perhaps we can reason in the other direction then, that ideological entrenchment causes our politicians to refuse to compromise, or approach issues incrementally, as opposed to advocating large, sweeping reforms. But, as you aptly point out, their ideologies do give way to trade-offs and buying votes for pork. This speaks to my second observation.

What I don't necessarily agree with is that our politicians serve us less than we deserve. We elected them. We get exactly what we deserve. Perhaps if we thought of ourselves as more worthy, we would elect more worthy, more noble legislators.

[quote name='KyleTheJustin' date='17 December 2009 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1261084813' post='439869']
I'll give it a read later on. I really like Rani's comment on the "outline," which I too believe is drastically lacking when pushing this "reform." A very probable and efficient way to deal with this issue, at least from a global perspective, is to identify the pros and cons from each NHS system and work accordingly--much like the aforementioned outline.

That being said, let me look at the article and see what I think. It still shocks me that people are against healthcare for everyone, especially when they would probably benefit more from the situation. Oh well, more on this later.
[/quote]

Tell me...err, us, what you think of the article. I think the author's suggested solution seems awesomely promising, as it offers a balance of personal responsibility, fiscal soundness, and charity.

I don't think many are actually [i]against[/i] health care for everyone, they're simply against having to pay for it for everyone. While the debate doesn't often get expressed in this way, I do believe it centers on our commonly held notion of "rights," whether rights are those things government [i]protects[/i] or those things government must [i]provide[/i]. To argue that government must provide service X, we have to first agree, or at least a majority has to prefer, to want to pay for government's provision of that service. Defenders of some form of "nationalized" health care haven't offered, at least widely, persuasive enough arguments for the public's consumption that government should be in the business of providing health care or paying for it, in the least.