AP via Yahoo
Admittedly, I used to think very poorly of Gerberding b/c she was a prototypical water carrier for the Bush Junta. But much like some of the GOP in Congress, she's grown some ovaries as we enter the twilight of this administration.
1) public investment in new schools or expanding schools
2) reforms to channel new providers into primary care/preventive care
3) reforms to reduce the financial advantage of entering specialty fields
4) the various professional associations will be VERY 'resistant' to yielding any control over their fiefdoms.
1) SCHIP is an unmitigated success in both 'insuring' care for kids and doing it in an extremely cost-effective manner. Naturally, Bush is opposed to ANY expansion of SCHIP. In fact, he wants the program to shrink.
2) Labor unions are looking to get someone else on the hook to pay for their platinum retirement plans now that many of their employers are shedding that responsibility. Naturally, they expect something for nothing.
3) Some corporations are looking to pad their already fat bottom lines while others just want to survive by dumping health care coverage. Naturally, they would HATE a system that either forced them to provide a minimum level of coverage or made them contribute a fair share into a public system (insurance or single payer).
We can do better. Gerberding's basic premise is correct. We need fundamental reforms . . . not tinkering at the edges.
Admittedly, I used to think very poorly of Gerberding b/c she was a prototypical water carrier for the Bush Junta. But much like some of the GOP in Congress, she's grown some ovaries as we enter the twilight of this administration.
Personally, I would love it if we expanded the number trained health care providers . . . as long as it comes from expanding the capacity within US schools as opposed to stealing them from other countries (that often desperately need them). But it would require several actions that would be vociferously opposed by vested parties:
1) public investment in new schools or expanding schools
2) reforms to channel new providers into primary care/preventive care
3) reforms to reduce the financial advantage of entering specialty fields
4) the various professional associations will be VERY 'resistant' to yielding any control over their fiefdoms.
I still remember GWB claiming he would expand coverage by supporting community health centers. Curiously, these centers have seen some of the most significant cuts of ANY health sector. Regardless, the primary problem with all of the groups mentioned above is that they are only interested in reforms to the extent it affects them. They are likely to fight any reform that would help the overall system but not favor them:
1) SCHIP is an unmitigated success in both 'insuring' care for kids and doing it in an extremely cost-effective manner. Naturally, Bush is opposed to ANY expansion of SCHIP. In fact, he wants the program to shrink.
2) Labor unions are looking to get someone else on the hook to pay for their platinum retirement plans now that many of their employers are shedding that responsibility. Naturally, they expect something for nothing.
3) Some corporations are looking to pad their already fat bottom lines while others just want to survive by dumping health care coverage. Naturally, they would HATE a system that either forced them to provide a minimum level of coverage or made them contribute a fair share into a public system (insurance or single payer).
Think about that number when someone whines about how 'expensive' the various REAL health care reform proposals may be. Medicare and Medicaid are desperately in need of reform but the overhead in those programs is 3-6% (depending on who's counting). To the contrary, private insurance companies run 12-30%.
We can do better. Gerberding's basic premise is correct. We need fundamental reforms . . . not tinkering at the edges.
Facebook
Twitter