New School Politics

School’s out. The New School is in session.
  • rss
  • Home
  • About
  • Links
  • Contact Us!

John Edwards’ Universal Healthcare Plan

Chou | 5 08 2007

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

This is John Edwards’ Universal Healthcare Plan. I have added some comments about each of his solutions (they appear italicized).
• Promote Evidence-Based Medicine: Effective new treatments can take years to be widely adopted. For example, many patients do not receive beta blockers after heart attacks even though they are cheap and highly effective. Similarly, doctors sometimes prescribe name-brand drugs despite the availability of equally effective, less expensive generic drugs.

~Has it occurred that maybe, just maybe, there’s a reason for this? If I was a biotech company, and I had discovered a cure after spending millions on research, how would generic drugs created by some other organization/the government encourage me to do so, by siphoning my research to further their profits? I would have no incentive to find no cures if I can’t make money doing so. That’s why we’re losing out on anti-biotic research.

•  Disseminate Objective Information on Medical Advances: Edwards will establish a non-profit or public organization – possibly within the Institute of Medicine – to research the best methods of providing care, drawing upon data from Medicare and the Health Care Markets and medical experts from across the nation. ~This is such a bad idea, because it will have more bureaucrats involved whom have no idea what medicine is. We don’t have an infinite amount of doctors for this kind of low-paying, low-IQ, desk jockey work.

•  Help Doctors Implement New Advances: Edwards will support new technologies, such as handheld devices and electronic medical records, to give doctors the latest information at their fingertips.

~My local hospital already has these “new, latest technologies,” because it’s a privately run, not government baesd, hospital. Get with the program please.

•  Improve the Health Care Delivery System: Edwards will develop partnerships among academic medical centers, Medicare, and other federal agencies to make sure high-quality medicine is practiced everywhere. Improving quality is an important key to making universal health care affordable in the long run.

~As a to-be medical student, I ask you this: Why would I want to attend medical school for an extra 4 years, only to get paid the equivalent of, say, a DMV worker? I could just as easily use my skills, get an MBA in one year, and go to wall street, and make much more money. As such, why would our best students want to become doctors without any future realistic gain?

• Pioneer New Ways to Pay for Health Care: Our health care system is predominantly fee-for-service: providers are paid for each treatment, regardless of its necessity or quality. For example, a hospital that botches a surgery is often paid for the error and then paid again to fix it. Our system should pay doctors for results, encouraging better, more efficient care. Under Edwards’ plan, Medicare and the Health Care Markets will lead the way, paying higher rates to plans and providers that provide the very best care, lowering premiums for high-quality plans, and penalizing plans that fail to meet critical, easily quantifiable goals such as childhood immunization rates.
~Instead of having a federal bureaucracy ruin things by putting excess paperwork and waste time, why not just stop subsidizing the health insurance industry and let competition take its course? If an insurance agency is going to be stupid, the customers can get another insurer easily.

• Prevent Medical Errors: At least 100,000 patients die each year due to medical errors, according to the Institute of Medicine. Many other errors seriously injure patients and add to health care costs. Edwards will support public-private collaborations to reorganize patient care, improve internal communications, reduce errors through electronic prescribing, and establish basic quality benchmarks.

~Great, so now it’ll be easier for Mr. Edwards (a lawyer) to be ambulance chasing for malpractice lawsuits. And these are coming from generally our better doctors. What happens if they leave for China or Russia?

• Promote Preventive Care: Health Care Markets will offer primary and preventive services at little or no cost. Incentives like lower premiums will reward individuals who schedule free physicals and enroll in healthy living programs. Edwards will also support community efforts to improve health, such as safe streets, walking and biking trails, safe and well-equipped parks, and physical education programs for children.

~So not only are physicals free (hurting doctors and nurses), but maybe we should just give people free everything. After all, doctors would be willing to work without pay. Right?

• Improve the Treatment of Chronic Diseases: When chronic diseases are not routinely treated, they can cause emergencies that threaten patients’ health while raising costs. Health Care Markets will encourage plans to monitor patients’ health to keep them out of the emergency room. For example, plans can pay for nutritional counseling for diabetic patients to help them make healthy choices and control their blood sugar levels.

~More incursion into peoples’ lives. You can’t eat this, you can’t eat that, you need to take your pills. Give me a break. If I want to die from MDR-TB cause I hate needles, I have the right to do so. You have the right to prevent me from getting you sick. But they can’t tell people how to live their lives. That’s Soviet.

•  Empower Patients through Transparency: Finding reliable information comparing doctors and hospitals on price and performance is harder than finding it for a new car. Edwards will create a “Consumer Reports” for health care, a universal and easy-to-use report card to help Americans evaluate hospitals’ effectiveness in treating injuries and diseases. Informed patients will make better choices and drive health care providers to offer better services for lower costs.

~ Consumer Reports for doctors are like U.S. News Reports for Colleges. They use random statistics that are easily inflatable and will obviously favor those doctors whom have more connections, regardless of their capabilities. This is plainly “No Child Left Behind” for hospitals.

•  Reduce Health Disparities: People of color are more likely to be diagnosed with cancer and less likely to receive timely and effective treatment. Children of African-American mothers are twice as likely to die within their first year. In California, low-income minority neighborhoods have one-third as many doctors, as a share of their population, than other neighborhoods do. Edwards will support medical research into disparities, reduce the pollutions and toxins that disproportionately harm communities of colors, and support translation services to address language barriers. By helping all Americans get insurance, Edwards will also address disparities in health caused by disparities in insurance. [ACS, 2003; KFF, 2003; Kormaromy et. al. 1996; KFF, 2007]

~ Maybe it’s because doctors are afraid that they’ll get sued by ambulance chasers like Mr. Edwards here. Has it occurred that religion, among other things, may be affecting what doctors can do? Has it occurred that doctors, having spent thousands of dollars and years in medical school, not to mention hell via the pre-med process, might influence where they want to work? Why do you think hedge fund managers live in suburbs?

•  Improve Productivity with Information Technology: Health care administration costs more than $1,000 per American. It may be the fastest growing part of health care costs. [Woolhandler et. al., 2003]

~Exactly! Let’s exacerbate the costs even more by adding a bureaucracy.

• Adopt Electronic Medical Records: Many insurers and hospitals still rely on cumbersome paper systems and incompatible computer systems. The outdated “paper chase” causes tragic errors when doctors don’t have access to patient information or misread handwritten charts. It creates needless administrative waste recreating and transporting medical papers, performing duplicative testing, and claiming insurance benefits. Edwards will support the implementation of health information technology while ensuring that patients’ privacy rights are protected. Savings from electronic records could be as great as $160 billion a year, according to a RAND study. [RAND, 2005]

~This is of course all going to be paid by who?

• Support Local Infrastructure: Edwards will provide the resources hospitals need to implement information systems that improve patient safety and hospital efficiency. Steps include:

~Except, at this rate, we won’t have any hospitals left. In my region, three hospitals have closed down due to expensive malpractice lawsuits, leaving the hospital I attend very busy and crowded.

• New Methods of Distribution:  Adopting automated medication dispensers that can quickly and accurately fill prescriptions, freeing pharmacists to work more with patients and reducing the risk of prescription errors.
~Who’s going to pay for this?

•  Improve Communication:  Developing systems to promote patient-doctor communication, such as email and group consultations and support groups for individuals suffering from the same disorder.

~It’s called “alcoholics anonymous.”

• Creating computerized physician order entry to eliminate lost paperwork and illegible writing.

~Who’s going to pay for this?

o Developing computerized patient reminder systems to improve compliance with treatments, such as automatic phone calls home to remind patients to take needed medication to help keep them healthy and out of the hospital.
~Who’s going to pay for this?

o Using handheld devices to allow hospital staff to communicate results directly to physicians, instead of wasting time trying to find a doctor with urgent information.

~Who’s going to pay for this?

•  Protect Patients against Dangerous Medicines. Recent drug recalls such as Vioxx have raised concerns about drug safety. Edwards will restrict direct-to-consumer advertising for new drugs to ensure that consumers are not misled about the potential dangers of newly marketed drugs and strengthen the Food and Drug Administration’s ability to monitor new drugs after they reach the marketplace. He will also ensure that researchers evaluating medical devices and drugs are truly independent.

~Likewise, evolution is a “theory,” not a fact, and we need “independent, non-atheist devil-worshippers” to analyze this theory with evidence. Das Kommisar, anybody?

Last 5 posts by Chou

  • Fishy Business in Florida - January 29th, 2008
  • Eftychis's Last Stand: Michigan and What it Means - January 17th, 2008
  • A Government Program Idea That Even I Support - September 15th, 2007
  • The Problem with Socialists, Populists, and Their Derivatives - July 2nd, 2007
  • America: Land of the Double Standard - June 5th, 2007

Popularity: 89% [?]

Sphere: Related Content

Creative Commons License
The John Edwards’ Universal Healthcare Plan by New School Politics, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Categories
2008, Chou, Domestic Politics, entitlements, healthcare
Comments rss
Comments rss
Trackback
Trackback

« Rudy On Healthcare Perhaps the government has contributed to income inequality… »

9 responses

As i read through the specifics of Edward's health plan

Ryan | 6 08 2007

As i read through the specifics of Edward’s health plan it becomes pretty simple to reduce what it is all about…

There are a lot of specifics in the plan, as if he was the CEO of a healthcare company enumerating what he would do as the Chief Executive. The only difference is he is not a CEO of a private health service provider–he is a politician who wants to be able to control an entire industry of health service providers.

Essentially, Edwards wants to replace market forces in healthcare with political forces. The question of practicality in this case is whether you believe that the government or free market will create better incentives for the expansion and innovation of medicine.

The answer to me is simple…

[...] New School politics on John Edwards’ plan [...]

The EU-US healthcare divide « Public Affairs 2.0 | 13 08 2007

[...] New School politics on John Edwards’ plan [...]

A few comments from a European health policy wonk: (1) If

Rebecca Taylor | 13 08 2007

A few comments from a European health policy wonk:

(1) If the US healthcare system is so good, why does no-one else copy it?
(NB: the USA is the ONLY developed nation with no universal system of healthcare).

And don’t use the “many people come to the US for first rate medical care argument” because it really should be “many RICH people come to the US for first rate medical care”.

(2) Healthcare is what economists call a “public good”, the same as education, police and fire fighters; this means it will never be fully catered for by the market. In other words there will always be an element of market failure; the question is how to deal with the market failure.

Apparently Singapore has a good system whereby the market & the state come together, see:

http://rru.worldbank.org/Discussions/Discussion.aspx?id=23
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/05/18/singapores-healthcare-system-uniquely-singapore/

(3) Universal healthcare systems don’t have to be monolithic soviet style state run bureaucracies, the healthcare systems of Belgium, Germany, Sweden, France or Finland (and probably many others) certainly couldn’t be described as such, and yet all offer universal healthcare provision and all are cheaper (in terms of GDP per capita spent on healthcare) than the US.

(4) This article implies that a universal healthcare system will incur high bureaucratic costs, but from what I’ve read about the US healthcare system, the huge bureaucractic costs are in a large part due to healthcare providers having to deal with so many different insurance schemes. Another example of market failure?

1) The US Healthcare system is complete garbage. I'm

Chou | 13 08 2007

1) The US Healthcare system is complete garbage. I’m not disputing that. I’m just saying that this proposed solution is only going to exchange one set of problems for another.
2) Healthcare is not neccessarily such a public good. Heres a comparison. Firefighters all put out fires. There’s no major difference between each kind of fire, and they don’t need a complex degree. Same with policemen. Education is not a public good either-many people choose to send their children to private schools that don’t recieve a dime of taxpayer money. They questionably may have more opportunities, than, say, a poor student attending a standard public school. Doctors, likewise, have many specialties, and unlike these other jobs, requrie a lot more money and time spent in schooling. I for one intend to be a doctor, but if I wanted to be a federal employee, I would’ve signed up for the DMV. If I go into internal medicine, that is different, from, say, a brain surgeon.
3) The United States Congress created a law that forced all employers to have HMO’s for their workers. Although this is seemingly a good thing, this resulted in the mess we have today. A much better solution would to not require HMO’s, because this would encourage competition and smaller HMO’s, rather than large, beauracratic messes that feed off of Congress’ excesses. Easy come, easy go, as they say. It’s how incentives work.
4) This is not market failure because this is not a free market. It is a protective, nearly monopolized system that excludes outside competition or alternatives, and such cannot be considered as being an example of the free market.
The overall scheme is, out of the frying pan, into the fire.

I remain to be convinced that a health care system

Rebecca Taylor | 13 08 2007

I remain to be convinced that a health care system run PURELY on market terms would work. It would ALWAYS exclude some people, mainly on the grounds of ability to pay, so how do you cover those people? Or is it OK that some people can’t have access to healthcare because they’re not rich enough or perhaps too sick already (making them uninsurable or insurable at a ridiculous cost)?

Look at the social health insurance systems like Germany, France & Belgium which combine public & private health insurance. In Belgium for example (where I live), you don’t have the problem of losing your insurance/having to pay higher premiums when you change jobs or even if you lose your job because the mutual (non-profit) health insurance funds are not linked to your job (but do get funding via your social security contributions). This means that if you have the misfortune to be unemployed or too ill to work, you still have access to healthcare.

Also in a social health insurance system, funding & risks are pooled, so the “unused” contributions of healthy people help pay for the healthcare of the not so healthy, rather than making profit for the insurance company. Sometimes they even give extra benefits to all members of a fund, for example, my “mutuelle” (mutual health insurance fund) increased the annual number of physio/osteopathy sessions reimbursed without doctor referral.

Those European countries that you all mentioned are very different

Chou | 14 08 2007

Those European countries that you all mentioned are very different from the United States in 3 different ways: Firstly, they are a lot more homogenous than the United States, allowing several social programs to be more effective.
I also do not believe it would exclude people. Consider: before the 1970 implementation of HMO’s, many people were able to simply visit the doctor and pay a fee, one that is more easily obtainable. There is also a difference: the system that our country wants to implement is a single-payer system: that is, each time a patient visits, regardless of treatment, the doctor gets paid a set fee through the government. Insurance companies are like loans in this case: they promise easy money, but charge extravagently and force people out. In a purely, non-government intervention capitalist system, insurance would not be synonymous with healthcare. Some people can choose to purchase it, while others can choose not to. In our society, all businesses must purchase it, and thus it is unfair.

Here’s another thing. Suppose two people are paying into the system. Lets say they both have tuberculosis. One of them takes their pills and follows their doctor’s instructions, and are cured in 6 months. The other fails to do so, develops MDR-TB, and requrires an expensive regimen of drugs over a longer period of time. How is this fair to the first person, that he/she would have to pay for someone else’s stupidity? Now lets imagine this on a grander scale. People whom choose to smoke do not have the right to impose their terminal lung cancer charges on my status. People whom choose to devour large amounts of cholestrol beefsteak do not have the right to impose their coronary triple bypass on my taxes. In Europe, people are more conservative and healthy because they choose not to do things that would result in a prevelance of easily preventable disease. Not so in America: thus, our systems are not as compatabile as the Democrats may suggest.

I think it is time we stopped taking middle ground

Arthus Erea | 15 08 2007

I think it is time we stopped taking middle ground on these issues. Seriously, we have the mess today because government tried to impose laws upon the market. Actually, I think the worst policy is employer provided insurance - it just doesn’t work. Many businesses cannot afford to provide it and it is hard to negotiate the bureacrcacry. It also forces people to stay in lousy jobs because they provide insurace. This in turn makes the free market less competitive since people don’t truly have the freedom to switch jobs at will.
However, I don’t support universal health care either. If I am a poor student who has never gotten sick in my life, I should not have to pay for the “best care” for everyone around me. It should be my choice to negotiate how I want to get my own health care - if I am a healthy person who can afford to pay out of the pocket for anything I might develop, that can be my choice.
However, I do agree that health care prices are outrageous. It should not be a choice between heating your home and getting decent health care. Therefore, I think the government should enter the insurance industry on a greater level. Not with tax payer dollars, with subscriber dollars - just like a typical insurance agency. Except, the government wouldn’t need to make a profit. The program would just be able to pay for itself.
In terms of creating this program, I think Edwards has a couple of good ideas:

Our health care system is predominantly fee-for-service: providers are paid for each treatment, regardless of its necessity or quality. For example, a hospital that botches a surgery is often paid for the error and then paid again to fix it. Our system should pay doctors for results, encouraging better, more efficient care.

The government run insurance agency would pay doctors based upon how much work is done: no more paying for an hour of time when you only need 5 minutes. No more paying for a botched surgery. I wouldn’t pay somebody for a bad service in another industry, so why should I pay the doctor for a bad service?

• Creating computerized physician order entry to eliminate lost paperwork and illegible writing.

~Who’s going to pay for this?

o Developing computerized patient reminder systems to improve compliance with treatments, such as automatic phone calls home to remind patients to take needed medication to help keep them healthy and out of the hospital.
~Who’s going to pay for this?

o Using handheld devices to allow hospital staff to communicate results directly to physicians, instead of wasting time trying to find a doctor with urgent information.

~Who’s going to pay for this?

I disagree in your statements that these computerized services would necessarily cost more. They pay for themselves pretty fast by using fewer consumables and allowing greater efficiency.

In short, I think the government should enter the insurance industry as a non-profit, ethical agency.

I fail to see why people continually equate healthcare with

Chou | 15 08 2007

I fail to see why people continually equate healthcare with insurance. Can’t it be possible, perhaps, for people to simply not have insurance? One can have non-profit charities and such to help pay for lower classes, but why not remove the middleman of insurance brokers and simply pay for treatments. This will discourage people from unhealthy lifestyles. HMO’s are basically like special loaning rates for poor people: they promise good things but almost always end up robbing you of everything. The government is responsible for HMO’s, fyi.

Health care is equated with insurance because it is a

Arthus Erea | 15 08 2007

Health care is equated with insurance because it is a risk not to have insurance. Even if you live a healthy life style, there are so many diseases in the world that you could randomly develop one. You can’t control your family history and such. And since these diseases usually cost exorbinate ammounts of money to treat, most people are willing to pay for insurance in case you should develop one.

I am not saying that savings plans would not work better, but health care for extreme diseases is so expensive that you have to be at least upper middle class to afford it without sacrificing quality of life.

Leave a comment

You can use these tags : <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Subscribe

Pages

  • About
  • Contact Us!
  • Links

Delegate Count

Category Cloud

Boys State/Nation objectivist Asides Drugs George PDF2007 Shea Sports space web2.0 personal democracy forum Blogroll Iacopo UK Chas New Hampshire Frank Liz race Israel gun control immigration France Book Reports Virginia Tech State of the Union recession Humor education tragedy poverty South Carolina Personal Alternative Energy History earmarks and subsidies Chou healthcare Darfur sociology Ron Paul Global Warming Paul Satire Florida taxes Trade philosophy Iran Oil Blog Maintenance monetary policy 9/11 Iraq entitlements Super Tuesday environment religion government spending regulation political philosophy Eftychis media Uncategorized GOP international Liberal Content Democrats culture Conservative Content Economics Domestic Politics 2008 Objectivist Content

-- Powered by Category Cloud

The New York Times

Translate

rss Comments rss valid xhtml 1.1 design by jide powered by Wordpress get firefox