Okey-sounds bizarre, Health Care + Energy

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Clyde Childers on June 10, 2009 at 10:05am

The problem with this approach is that build another government agency to control and monitor in deciding who get coverage "freely" and those that don't

I would preferred a system where consumption was the driving force where more in which on medical issues, the less medical expense or resource were rewarded. Here the cost to eldery would be significant increase except there cost would covered by Medicare/medicad. This unfortunate would be moviated to seek prevent medicine with their children since they would be taxed as much. Another, for unfortuante people, give them a better incesive the seek prevent care verse a crisis that is costly.

Most European system simple make no issue regarding of weathly or sature. The system is pay for by all the people for all the people. The more wealthy who can afford better or quicker system have the capability to go after the system.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Robert Schultz on June 10, 2009 at 10:30am

I think that is where very basic coverage should be provided to all, but wealthy will be able to choose. The wealthy can get elective procedures, facelifts, implants, etc, as they do now. Employers should be able to get better deals from private insurance companies to use as incentives for hiring and rewarding their employees.

Everyone worries about "government czar" making decisions or reviewing medical records. Doesn't your insurance company do that already? If you have private coverage, or through employer, nothing should change. For those currently uninsured, someone will need to monitor what is provided responsibly.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dr. Gina M.-S. on June 10, 2009 at 12:48pm

A health czar is happening. Let's put it like this, non-smoking 34 y/o woman feels a breast lump. She sees her Primary care doctors checks and says, no lumps, and looks at chart and not indication of family history. Patient makes demands and gets a referral to another doctor to get mammography. But she has to come out of pocket because her retarded insurance has not read the latest regs and denies mammography to her. Meanwhile the lump gets bigger--stage 3. Still no mammography. Then they dayum insurance finally realizes that they can change the mammography rules and gives her one for free after a year. But by that time, she's at aggressive high level stage 3 and might not make it... Then there's the aftercare.

This, is bullisht! And these insurance companies have been "skip to my louing" to this trash that give HEALTH CARE!!!

A electronic records system will enable a minimum governmental standardization for all hospitals and can follow from Womb to Tomb... That's public health. If we do not look at health from a public health perspective--populations, then the efficiency of treatment will always be lax. It's nuts!

Another issue, healthcare office overhead is RIDICULOUS!!! THIS IS WHY I DID NOT GO INTO MEDICINE!! Because to run medical/dental office is CRAZY these days.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bill Meng on June 13, 2009 at 10:40am

Gina,
be careful what you wish for with electronic medical records.

As one who has spent 40 years in IT and engineering including a few years in DC, I don't want my medical records on some national network. This is nothing but an invitation for fraud, when 600,000 medical organizations that I will never do business with will have access to my medical records. The government will mine and aggregate the data and then sell/give it to insurance companies and HMO's to use against you when you apply for insurance. And us taxpayers will pay for the $4billion/year to operate this network which is promoted by IBM, EDS, Accenture and other corporate parasites who stand to make billions from it. A better solution is to put my medical records on a thumb drive, that I can carry with me, in case of an emergency.

I agree, a national network for hospitals is probably a good solution for public health purposes, as long as personal information is not on it.

I heard of a case in Illinois where a woman required surgery, the insurance OK'd it, she had the surgery - $200,000, then her husband received a 2nd letter from the insurance company denying service. Anyone would be better off by taking their insurance premium money to the local casino and having fun with it. It's a losing proposition either way. The only difference between the casino and the insurance company is the name on the door,

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dr. Gina M.-S. on June 10, 2009 at 12:37pm

The other issue is catastrophic health care has been outsourced with backing from major US medical schools like Harvard, Duke and UPenn--trained clinicians. There is no Tort in other countries. So if dudes EFF you up, you are SOL... Now, I'd like to go to Singapore or a Tropic Island for stellar treatment if I needed it. But, at what stake?

People who cannot afford catastrophic care and cannot be a medical tourist, then they will die. Maybe they'll get sufficient end of life care, or hospice... Then again, you can do physician assisted suicide.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Chandrashekar Tamirisa on June 10, 2009 at 6:47pm

I think the best way to proceed will be to critique the attached document released by the Congress as it prepares the reform legislation. It is an outline. I think the principles are fine, but the implementation of those principles may need substantial rework.

The connection between health care and energy is telecommunications to derive maximum benefits looking over the span of this century to steadily improve health care delivery.

Attachments:

• tri.pdf, 34 KB

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Robert Schultz on June 10, 2009 at 7:16pm

Chandrashekar, thanks for joining the discussion. At first glance the Health Reform Draft Proposal looks good.

Creates a new national health Exchange that permits States the option of developing a
State or regional exchange in lieu of the national Exchange.
-That sounds like an option that some states have been calling for.

The public health insurance option is self-sustaining and competes on “level field” with
private insurers in the Exchange.
-Will have to see what private insurers have to say about that, sure to be complaints.

I'm hopeful that the final proposal will be affordable for all, and provide a good base of coverage. Employers should be able to use higher levels of private coverage as part of employment benefit perks when competing for top level employees.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Chandrashekar Tamirisa on June 10, 2009 at 7:47pm

In the context of the Pickens Plan the connection we have to make is for broadband upgrades over the smart grid to expand the reach of health IT and to close the digital divide and the health divide at the same time. This ties health care in a forward-looking manner to energy policy and also leverages cost synergies.

The smart grid is critical from the standpoint of both energy efficiency (smart meters and homes and residences as both suppliers and consumers of energy if they can generate their own power) and national self-sufficiency in energy supply (wind and solar power redistribution), besides also serving as the backbone for broadband through power lines. Broadband access is essential for diffusing health IT services. Besides, more energy supply would be needed for a maglev high-speed train system which would also rely on the smart grid. These are all effective jobs programs to reduce unemployment from the current close to 10% rate back to 4% or so without risking inflation.

Thus, these infrastructure upgrades must be viewed as once-in-a-century upgrades as was the Eisenhower I-state system. Please see the videos and photos on my page.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Robert Schultz on June 11, 2009 at 3:16pm

Here's part of the latest newsletter from Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA).

Doctors Oppose Government Insurance Option

Congress is considering whether to add a government insurance option to our health care system. I have concerns that further expanding the government’s role into our health care system will jeopardize your doctor-patient relationship and lead to delays, increased costs and rationed care.

In case you missed it, this New York Times article explains why the American Medical Assocation opposes this proposed government intervention. The article states, in part:

"The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage to lower costs. The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans."


I replied to Rep. McMorris Rodgers by quoting the same NY Times article...

"The A.M.A., an umbrella group for 180 medical societies, does not speak for all doctors. One group, Physicians for a National Health Program, supports a single-payer system of insurance, in which a single public agency would pay for health services, but most care would still be delivered by private doctors and hospitals. In recent years, some doctors have become so fed up with the administrative hassles of private insurance that they are looking for alternatives."
###

Employers can offer private insurance plans as employee benefits and incentives to hire new employees. Public health care option is needed to provide basic coverage for all. Health care and preventive care for all will reduce long term issues caused by neglect.

I closed by asking "How does OPPOSING public health care SUPPORT the voters of Eastern Washington?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dr. Gina M.-S. on June 11, 2009 at 6:05pm

I have not seen the AMA's recent statements, but after the meeting with the POTUS, watch them change their tune... LOL...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bob Shultis on June 14, 2009 at 9:12pm

Hi Gina. Forgive my ignorance, what is POTUS? My field is wind power, not health care. I do think health care needs to be provided for all- we are only as strong as our weakest link. Globally, not just here in the US.

Also, I like your style. You don't hold anything back, which I think is great!

Best regards,
Bob Shultis IA-03

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dr. Gina M.-S. on June 15, 2009 at 4:47pm

POTUS = President Of The United States.

Mahalo!

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last