Here’s a link to the video. Ed’s opening op-ed is passionate—I would urge you to listen to it, along with Ed’s interviews with Senator Jack Reed and Congressman Earl Blumenauer, followed by my interview.
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Blue Dog Confusion—and Why We Need a Public Sector Insurance Option
In “Getting Better Value From Medicare” I have written about how Medicare reform could pave the way for health care reform.
The current House Bill would do just that. It includes many excellent suggestions for containing Medicare spending in ways that would lift the quality of care.
If health care reform includes a public sector insurance plan, that public sector insurer would incorporate many of Medicare's reforms, offering Americans better care at a lower price. We cannot count on for-profit insurers to do this. We need a strong public sector insurer. In light of the current debate, HealthBeat readers might want to take a look at my report.
DVD’s of the Documentary Based on Maggie’s Book Can Be Purchased and Rented On-Line
As regular readers know, Alex Gibney, the Academy-Award-Winning documentary film-maker who made Enron: The Smartest Guys In the Room and Taxi to the Dark Side has produced a 90-minute documentary of my book, Money-Driven Medicine.
Alex and the director, Andy Fredericks, did a superb job of translating the book to the screen. The production values are high, and the stories are riveting. I have now attended several screenings: people in the audience laugh—and they cry.
Who Is Douglas L. Elmendorf, and Why Is He Throwing Cold Water On Reform? ( And Why Does the Media Report CBO Guesstimates As Gospel?) Part 1
Last week, centrist Blue Dog Democrats and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman emerged from the White House with an agreement on giving an independent panel of physicians, rather than Congress, the ability to rein in Medicare spending. The agreement was heralded as a breakthrough for reform. It would set a model for reducing profiteering in our health care system, while insisting on care that provides the greatest benefit for patients.
But then, on Saturday, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas L. Elmendorf rolled a small hand grenade down the corridors of power, writing a letter to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer that said, in part: “In CBO’s judgment, the probability is high that no savings would be realized. There is also a chance that substantial savings might be realized. Looking beyond the 10-year budget window, CBO expects that this proposal would generate larger but still modest savings on the same probabilistic basis."
If you are confused, you should be. Notice how the statement see-saws back and forth; “probability is high that no savings. . . also a chance that substantial savings . . . . but still modest savings.” His analysis is muddled, in part because he is trying to talk simultaneously about short-term and long-term savings, in part because he is only guessing.
Listen to Interview on “Fresh Air” Today, Monday, July 27; Link To Video Interview on Air America Here
Thursday, I did an interview on “Fresh Air” with Terry Gross. They tell me it will air this afternoon ( Monday July 27 Check your NPR radio station. You should be able to listen to it at http://www.freshair.com I just learned that audio of the interview will be available, online at 5 p.m. on this link:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111063048&ft=1&f=13
You may also be interested in a video interview that Andy Fredericks and I did with Sam Ceder on “Air America’s “BreakRoom Live”. (Andy is the director of the documentary based on my book, Money-Driven Medicine.) Here’s the link to the video http://samsedershow.com/ You will need to scroll down the page to find it. Then fast-forward through the host's introductory remarks until you come to a picture of Seder, Andy and I sitting at a table.
To Readers: Catching Up With Replies to Your Comments
After traveling and doing some interviews, I’m have been catching up with replies to your comments. So if didn’t reply to something you said in the last week or two take a second look: you maywell find a response. (I still haven’t replied to the comments on the “Compensating Physicians For the Trust We Place In Them” thread. I plan to weigh in later today Saturday)
If We’re Able to Stop Obama On This . . . . It Will Break Him
(How Opponents Tried to Use the Mayo Clinic to Undermine the President)
What I find most troubling about the Senate’s decision to delay the healthcare reform bill until September is the fact that some believe that if they manage to slow the process, this could be President Obama’s undoing.
As Steven Benen writes over at the Washington Monthly’s “Political Animal,”:
“Remember, the Republican strategy, which they've openly acknowledged, has been to force the delay in order to improve their chances of killing the bill. Conservatives and other opponents of reform will see this as a tactical victory, and evidence that the larger effort is in peril. It will be up to Democrats and reform advocates to prove them wrong.”
Benen is referring to the statement that Sen. Jim DeMint (R, South Carolina’s) made on television last week, saying he’d like to see the push for healthcare reform slow down. Friday, he elaborated on what he meant in a "Conservatives for Patients Rights" conference call: "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him, adding “If we’re able to top Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”
Breaking News: The Senate Delays Health Care Reform
This afternoon Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters that the Finance Committee will act on its portion of the bill before Congress' month-long break. Then Sen. Reid will merge that bill with separate legislation already passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The Nevada Democrat says the decision to delay a vote was made Wednesday night in the hopes of getting a final bipartisan bill.
As I have suggested in the past, the odds of getting a “bipartisan bill” that would truly reform healthcare, providing sustainable, affordable care for everyone are slim to none. Most Republicans do not want true health care reform; certainly they do not want changes that cut into the profits of the for-profit healthcare industry. Polls show that Republicans see covering everyone as a secondary goal. Meanwhile less than 20 percent of all Americans now identify themselves as Republicans. So the Senate’s futile quest for a bipartisan solution would seem to be putting the interests of a minority ahead of the hopes of the majority of Americans who would like the security of healthcare reform as soon as possible.
As President Obama pointed out Wednesday night, the longer we delay, the higher health care costs rise –while more and more Americans lose their health insurance.
Nevertheless, the Washington Post continues to take a skeptical view of the reform process:
Truth Squad: Wall Street Journal Health Care Editorial Wrong on the Facts . . .
That was the headline on a memo prepared by the staff of the House Education and Labor Committee and released by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office yesterday evening. The amount of misinformation circulating out there about the House bill is growing—I’ll be writing another post about this soon.
Clearly, the conservatives are running scared. It’s not surprising when a Wall Street Journal editorial offers a unique interpretation of what is happening in Washington. The paper’s editorialists are known for their distinct perspective on American politics. But now, they are resorting to outright lies. Below, the text of the memo:
"The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial today [Tuesday, July 21] that advanced false and misleading information regarding the House’s health reform bill, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3200).
While most Americans are satisfied with their health insurance coverage now, most Americans are concerned that they will either lose their insurance or face staggering increases in premiums, co-pays or other costs. The America’s Affordable Health Choices Act is about giving all American families more choices of quality, affordable health care and the peace of mind that they will be covered with quality, affordable care no matter of their job or economic situation.
Compensating Physicians for the Trust We Place in Them
As always, Princeton economics professor Uwe Reinhardt brings a provocative perspective to a sensitive subject: physician pay.
Turning to Adam Smith’s An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), Reinhardt focuses on Chapter 10 of Book 1, titled “Wages and Profit in the different Employments of Labour and Stock” as the text for an Op-ed published in Friday’s New York Times.
Reinhardt observes that, when it comes to physicians and lawyers, Smith “appeared to lean on the medieval doctrine of ‘just price.’ Thus he wrote:”
“We trust our health to the physician: our fortune and sometimes our life and reputation to the lawyer and attorney. Such confidence could not safely be reposed in people of a very mean or low condition. Their reward must be such, therefore, as may give them that rank in the society which so important a trust requires. The long time and the great expense which must be laid out in their education, when combined with this circumstance, necessarily enhance still further the price of their labour.”
Reinhardt, who is a health-care economist declares that he finds “Adam Smith’s perspective persuasive. But,” he asks, “what income would give physicians ‘that rank in the society which so important a trust requires’?”