• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Where's the health care benefit in health insurance "reform?"

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Even as the Obama Administration and the Congress have abandoned their talk about health care reform and are now saying they are only interested in health care insurance reform, most of the debate on this forum is about some kind of cost benefit to having some kind of government health care.

It is almost impossible to figure out what is actually being proposed at what cost, that is part of the shell game. But what is now being gleaned by those responsible for the delivery of quality health care to Americans is that we are being sold a pile of manure with a covering of perfume.

While everyone can agree that the system can be improved (what system is so perfect that it cannot?) the questions remain - what is the best approach to retaining the world's best health care?

Are you willing to bet your life and the life of everyone you know on the government delivering the quality of health care that you want and need?

Where's the benefit?

Where's the benefit?


Scott W. Atlas
The Washington Times
Sunday, October 25, 2009

Dr. Scott W. Atlas is a professor and chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center and a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution at the university.

Regardless of the facts, most of the media seem to focus on one aspect of the proposed health care legislation - cost - as if it is a given that the Democratic reforms are desirable, except for the quandary of how to pay for them. Heart-warming stories from Europe about in-home visits to assist with healthy newborn babies receive the spotlight, while restricted access through family practice gatekeepers is stated as a goal. The media then pose questions like "how can we achieve such great care?" - as if the only dilemma is how to pay for it.

Inexplicably, the facts published in the world's top medical journals about our system continue to be ignored:

* Americans have the best survival rates from cancer and most serious diseases, and the most rapid decline in breast and prostate cancer deaths despite being hindered with severe obesity and the largest burden of smokers over 50 of any Western nation.

* Americans have the most successful, most available treatment for chronic diseases like high blood pressure and high cholesterol.

* Americans have the shortest wait times for life-changing surgeries, like cataract and hip replacements, that may not increase survival but greatly impact quality of life.

* Americans have the best access to the newest, most effective drugs.

* Americans have the quickest access to the safest, most advanced medical technologies.

* Americans have the easiest access to specialty doctors, doctors of their choice, doctors who lead the world in health care innovation, regardless of what metrics are assessed.

Instead of solely considering costs, shouldn't we ask if Americans are willing to die sooner from cancer, to give up access to specialists, to be refused safer, more accurate diagnostic imaging, to lose the most accessible screening programs, and to lose their autonomy in pursuing treatments for their families? Shouldn't we ask if Americans want to replace the most advanced and successful medical care in history with the restricted care and lower cost social programs of Europe, and insure the less than 5 percent of people who don't buy insurance but receive care anyway?

How quickly we forget. Americans have already soundly rejected gatekeepers limiting access in our own disastrous experiment with managed care in the 1990s. The backlash against that grand failure should be a strong reminder of what Americans value - yet our government either forgot or doesn't care.

Despite all that, most Americans want reforms to bring costs down if they maintain quality.

So our president and his Democratic allies - possibly in another teaching moment - filled our news media and Congressional Budget Office with a pile of proposals. And because Americans are optimistic, we jumped in and started digging through the pile, even though that pile looked and smelled like manure. But we figured that with all that manure, there had to be a pony in there somewhere.

We kept digging through the Democrat proposals in search of the pony. But there was no pony.

The Max Baucus plan is paid by massive taxes on existing insurance plans that exceed our government's arbitrary threshold and by significant cuts to Medicare. Its Federal Exchange overtly skews the playing field by subsidizing - directly or indirectly - insurance plans that meet government definitions, and by penalizing existing plans that don't, plans already held by millions of Americans. The House proposals force a government-run "public option" - an option that shifts huge numbers of privately insured Americans to become the burden of an already unsustainable, taxpayer-funded entitlement program that ultimately eliminates private insurance choices.

A public option would interpose bureaucrats between doctors and patients, restricting access to new drugs, to innovative new cures, and to choice of doctors. It is already proven a failure the world over, even by our own Medicaid program, where government-imposed, below-cost payments have created patients who cannot even find doctors to care for them. While Congress and the administration claim otherwise, costs to the taxpayer increase, and choice and access disappear with a public option.

Meanwhile, serious alternative solutions that reduce costs but do not harm the excellence already in our health system are totally ignored, including:

* Allowing people to shop for insurance across state lines at competitive prices.

* Stripping back on costly coverage mandates that most Americans may not value, like acupuncture, massage therapy, in vitro fertilization, and wigs.

* Expanding the availability of high-deductible plans for catastrophic coverage with health savings accounts, making insurance a good value for the millions of Americans who can afford insurance but (perhaps wisely) don't buy it.

* Bold tax reforms like refundable tax credits, cash even for those who pay no income tax, or vouchers instead of tax deductions, to foster personal ownership and control of insurance, creating millions of value-seeking shoppers.

* Forcing doctors and hospitals to post prices, qualifications and outcomes - information that is essential to value-based purchasing and fundamental for stimulating competition.

The American public is beginning to see the threat. We see their emotional displays at town halls, individuals trying to preserve some of the most personal and important decisions in their lives.

Americans who value control of their own health decisions, access to sub-specialty doctors of their own choosing, and access to safer, more effective treatments are beginning to recognize what they are about to lose. America's health system, the most advanced in the world, is about to be destroyed, and most of the debate is about how to pay for it.

The unspoken truth is that the president and the Democratic Congress are fundamentally wrong about their radical plans for health reform. And even a speaker as articulate and persistent as this president - holding a monopoly of congressional power, and despite all the repetition, the distortions and the deceptive rhetoric - cannot hide that fundamental reality from the American public.

Dr. Scott W. Atlas is a professor and chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center and a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution at the university.
 

GuitarDaddy

Lifer
Nov 9, 2004
11,465
1
0
I'll sure be glad when a bill gets signed, maybe we will see a reduction in the faux GOP outrage troll posts:)
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
In trying to keep the Wall O' Text effect to a minimum while citing authoritative sources in any topic I post on, I did not include the author's full biographical profile. Maybe, in this case, I should have...

********

Scott W. Atlas is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, senior fellow at the Freeman-Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University and a professor of radiology and chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical School.

Atlas's research interests at Hoover center on issues pertaining to public policy in health care. He is investigating ways of reducing the shielding of patients from cost considerations by increasing direct patient payments for health care, so that free market effects can play out on prices. He also investigates the effects of the changing health care marketplace on technology-based innovations in medicine. Atlas's research also includes collaborations with China on the structure of the health care system there. Some of Atlas's recent publications on health policy include "Relationship between HMO Market Share and the Diffusion and Use of Advanced MRI Technologies" (Journal Amer Coll Radiol, 2004), with LC Baker, and the book Power to the Patient: Selected Health Care Issues and Policy Solutions (Hoover Institution Press, 2005).

Atlas is also the editor of the leading textbook in the field, the best-selling Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain and Spine, now in its 3rd edition. He is also editor, associate editor, and a member of the editorial boards of numerous scientific journals and has been a member of the boards of many major scientific societies over the past decade. Atlas has authored more than 100 scientific publications in leading journals. He has lectured throughout the world on a variety of topics, most notably advances in imaging of the brain and the key economic issues related to the future of such technology-based advances.

Atlas has received numerous awards and honors in recognition of his leadership in the field. He was named by his peers in The Best Doctors in America every year since its initial publication, as well as in regional listings, such as The Best Doctors in New York, Silicon Valley's Best Doctors, Top 500 Doctors in the Bay Area, and other similar publications.

Before his appointments at the Hoover Institution and Stanford University, Atlas was on the faculty of University of California at San Francisco, University of Pennsylvania, and Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City.

Atlas received a B.S. degree in biology from the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign and an M.D. degree from the University of Chicago School of Medicine.
 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
Hey look. I havent been here in over a month - just popped back in because its a slow morning at work and look!!! THE FORUM IS STILL LITTERED WITH PJABBER's AGENDA BASED THREADS!!!

ack. Dood you need to get a life, seriously get a life and gain some perspective on the reality of living on planet Earth.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,990
853
126
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Hey look. I havent been here in over a month - just popped back in because its a slow morning at work and look!!! THE FORUM IS STILL LITTERED WITH PJABBER's AGENDA BASED THREADS!!!

ack. Dood you need to get a life, seriously get a life and gain some perspective on the reality of living on planet Earth.
lrn2read
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
639
126
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Hey look. I havent been here in over a month - just popped back in because its a slow morning at work and look!!! THE FORUM IS STILL LITTERED WITH PJABBER's AGENDA BASED THREADS!!!

ack. Dood you need to get a life, seriously get a life and gain some perspective on the reality of living on planet Earth.
See you in a month. Oh hell, make it two.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Originally posted by: boomerang
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Hey look. I havent been here in over a month - just popped back in because its a slow morning at work and look!!! THE FORUM IS STILL LITTERED WITH PJABBER's AGENDA BASED THREADS!!!

ack. Dood you need to get a life, seriously get a life and gain some perspective on the reality of living on planet Earth.
See you in a month. Oh hell, make it two.
L8tr, dood.

:D
 

Cuda1447

Lifer
Jul 26, 2002
11,757
0
71
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Hey look. I havent been here in over a month - just popped back in because its a slow morning at work and look!!! THE FORUM IS STILL LITTERED WITH PJABBER's AGENDA BASED THREADS!!!

ack. Dood you need to get a life, seriously get a life and gain some perspective on the reality of living on planet Earth.
Did you read the article? It makes some very good points about things that DO need to be changed in our healthy industry. The only thing you Dem's don't like about the suggestions is it doesn't give you control over our health care system.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
9
0
* Americans have the best survival rates from cancer and most serious diseases, and the most rapid decline in breast and prostate cancer deaths despite being hindered with severe obesity and the largest burden of smokers over 50 of any Western nation.
What factor does preventative screening and early detection play into this figure?

* Americans have the most successful, most available treatment for chronic diseases like high blood pressure and high cholesterol.
We're probably tops on the number of cases per capita for HBP and high cholestrol too.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
639
126
The best thing every voter in the land could do right now is to let their Representatives know that they expect at the very least the final version (all should be available IMO) of this bill to be available for public scrutiny. We've been promised this since our leader was on the campaign trail and make no mistake about it, he has the power to make that happen.

Let them know that this is a requirement. No one, regardless of their leanings should be against transparency.

Then, after the bill has been scrutinized, let those same Reps know which way you expect them to vote. Remind them that our system of government is still from the bottom up, not from the top down.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
This article contains a lot of opinion, backed up by very little support. By that I mean he has made a lot of statements, but presented no evidence supporting them. In fact I object to about half of his "America has the best" statements. I know that many studies have demostrated that we have worse cancer survival rates for the 18-40 age group than many other countries.

His opinion is unsurprising given his political leanings. The things he proposes are solutions are verbatim from McCain's healthcare proposal, which was shown to cost $1.7 trillion dollars while reducing the amount of insured Americans by about 25 million.

A public option would interpose bureaucrats between doctors and patients, restricting access to new drugs, to innovative new cures, and to choice of doctors.
We have this already, it's called health insurance. Nothing Republicans/Libertarians/Conservatives have proposed would remove the middle man.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Originally posted by: Carmen813
This article contains a lot of opinion, backed up by very little support. By that I mean he has made a lot of statements, but presented no evidence supporting them. In fact I object to about half of his "America has the best" statements. I know that many studies have demostrated that we have worse cancer survival rates for the 18-40 age group than many other countries.

His opinion is unsurprising given his political leanings. The things he proposes are solutions are verbatim from McCain's healthcare proposal, which was shown to cost $1.7 trillion dollars while reducing the amount of insured Americans by about 25 million.

A public option would interpose bureaucrats between doctors and patients, restricting access to new drugs, to innovative new cures, and to choice of doctors.
We have this already, it's called health insurance. Nothing Republicans/Libertarians/Conservatives have proposed would remove the middle man.
I am sure you can do a bit of research and provide the facts yourself. Rather than post my trademark Wall O' Text of documentary evidence, I am going to refer you to an earlier elaboration by the OP -

Here?s a Second Opinion - Ten reasons why America?s health care system is in better condition than you might suppose.

This essay appeared on the website of the National Center for Policy Analysis on March 24, 2009.

Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Economists, government officials, insurers, and academics beat the drum for a far larger government role in health care. Much of the public assumes that their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. Before we turn to government as the solution, however, we should consider some unheralded facts about America?s health care system.

1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality in Canada is 9 percent higher than in the United States, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher, and colon cancer among men is about 10 percent higher.

3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit from statin drugs, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease, are taking them. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons, and 17 percent of Italians receive them.

4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate, and colon cancer:

* Nine out of ten middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to fewer than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).

* Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a Pap smear, compared to fewer than 90 percent of Canadians.

* More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a prostatespecific antigen (PSA) test, compared to fewer than one in six Canadians (16 percent).

* Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with fewer than one in twenty Canadians (5 percent).

5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report ?excellent? health (11.7 percent) compared to Canadian seniors (5.8 percent). Conversely, white, young Canadian adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower-income Americans to describe their health as ?fair or poor.?

6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long?sometimes more than a year?to see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In Britain, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.

7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and British adults say their health system needs either ?fundamental change? or ?complete rebuilding.?

8. Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the ?health care system,? more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared with only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).

9. Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain. An overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identify computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade?even as economists and policy makers unfamiliar with actual medical practice decry these techniques as wasteful. The United States has thirty-four CT scanners per million Americans, compared to twelve in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has almost twenty-seven MRI machines per million people compared to about six per million in Canada and Britain.

10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other developed country. Since the mid- 1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to U.S. residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past thirty-four years did a scientist living in the United States not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.

Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and care for the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
9
0
Originally posted by: Carmen813
This article contains a lot of opinion, backed up by very little support. By that I mean he has made a lot of statements, but presented no evidence supporting them. In fact I object to about half of his "America has the best" statements. I know that many studies have demostrated that we have worse cancer survival rates for the 18-40 age group than many other countries.

His opinion is unsurprising given his political leanings. The things he proposes are solutions are verbatim from McCain's healthcare proposal, which was shown to cost $1.7 trillion dollars while reducing the amount of insured Americans by about 25 million.
Here's what his Senior Fellow web page at the Hoover Institute website says:
http://www.hoover.org/bios/atlas.html

Atlas's research interests at Hoover center on issues pertaining to public policy in health care. He is investigating ways of reducing the shielding of patients from cost considerations by increasing direct patient payments for health care, so that free market effects can play out on prices. He also investigates the effects of the changing health care marketplace on technology-based innovations in medicine. Atlas's research also includes collaborations with China on the structure of the health care system there. Some of Atlas's recent publications on health policy include "Relationship between HMO Market Share and the Diffusion and Use of Advanced MRI Technologies" (Journal Amer Coll Radiol, 2004), with LC Baker, and the book Power to the Patient: Selected Health Care Issues and Policy Solutions (Hoover Institution Press, 2005).
Here's an expanded list of Dr. Atlas' reasons why the US has the best health care system.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/49525427.html

Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Economists, government officials, insurers, and academics beat the drum for a far larger government role in health care. Much of the public assumes that their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. Before we turn to government as the solution, however, we should consider some unheralded facts about America?s health care system.

1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality in Canada is 9 percent higher than in the United States, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher, and colon cancer among men is about 10 percent higher.

3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit from statin drugs, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease, are taking them. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons, and 17 percent of Italians receive them.

4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate, and colon cancer:

* Nine out of ten middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to fewer than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).

* Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a Pap smear, compared to fewer than 90 percent of Canadians.

* More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a prostatespecific antigen (PSA) test, compared to fewer than one in six Canadians (16 percent).

* Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with fewer than one in twenty Canadians (5 percent).

5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report ?excellent? health (11.7 percent) compared to Canadian seniors (5.8 percent). Conversely, white, young Canadian adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower-income Americans to describe their health as ?fair or poor.?

6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long?sometimes more than a year?to see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In Britain, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.

7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and British adults say their health system needs either ?fundamental change? or ?complete rebuilding.?

8. Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the ?health care system,? more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared with only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).

9. Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain. An overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identify computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade?even as economists and policy makers unfamiliar with actual medical practice decry these techniques as wasteful. The United States has thirty-four CT scanners per million Americans, compared to twelve in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has almost twenty-seven MRI machines per million people compared to about six per million in Canada and Britain.

10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other developed country. Since the mid- 1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to U.S. residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past thirty-four years did a scientist living in the United States not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.

Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and care for the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.

This essay appeared on the website of the National Center for Policy Analysis on March 24, 2009. An earlier version was published in the Washington Times.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Some additional, enlightening reading -

Power to the Patient: Selected Health Care Issues and Policy Solutions

Editor: Scott W. Atlas, M.D. Authors: Daniel P. Kessler, Mark V. Pauly
ISBN: 978-0-8179-4592-3
Pub Date: February 25, 2005
Product Format: Paper
Availability: In stock.
Price: $15.00

But, looky here, you can actually click through to this kind of stuff for FREE!

Power to the Patient: The Right Choice to Control Health Care Costs

The Medical Liability System: Current Debates

The Realities of the Growth in Medical Spending

You already have Dr. Atlas's biographical profile above. Who are these other guys and what the hell do they know?

Daniel P. Kessler is a professor at the Stanford University Graduate School of Business, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. He has a J.D. from Stanford Law School and a Ph.D. in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research interests include antitrust law, law and economics, and health economics. His current research, in addition to work on using claims data to detect Medicare abuse, focuses on the effect that organizational form in health care has on the cost and quality of care.

Mark V. Pauly holds the position of Bendheim Professor in the Department of Health Care Systems at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He received a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Virginia. He is professor of health care systems, insurance and risk management, and business and public policy at the Wharton School and professor of economics in the School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Pauly is a former commissioner on the Physician Payment Review Commission and an active member of the Institute of Medicine. One of the nation?s leading health economists, Dr. Pauly has made significant contributions to the fields of medical economics and health insurance.

His classic study on the economics of moral hazard was the first to point out how health insurance coverage may affect patients? use of medical services. Subsequent work, both theoretical and empirical, has explored the effect of conventional insurance coverage on preventive care, on outpatient care, and on prescription drug use in managed care. He is currently studying the effect of poor health on worker productivity. In addition, he has explored the influences that determine whether insurance coverage is available and, through several cost-effectiveness studies, the influence of medical care and health practices on health outcomes and cost. His work in health policy deals with the appropriate design for Medicare in a budget constrained environment and the ways to reduce the number of uninsured through tax credits for public and private insurance.

Dr. Pauly is co-editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Health Care, Finance, and Economics and associate editor of the Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. He has served on the Institute of Medicine panels on improving the financing of vaccines and on public accountability for health insurers under Medicare. He is an appointed member of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Advisory Committee to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: PJABBER
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: PJABBER
... what is the best approach to retaining the world's best health care?
You LIE!
Perhaps you should read the article?
YOU made the claim.

Perhaps you should read the WHO report on quality healthcare by country, in which the U.S. ranks #37. Are you suggesting we've moved from #37 to #1 in the years since the report?
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: PJABBER
her209 and I are on the same sheet of music! :laugh:
I'm not agreeing with you if that's what you're thinking.
We can read the same reports and studies and come up with different conclusions and different solutions, that's for sure!

:laugh:
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
Obama and his want something. That it may be worse than useless makes no difference. There is nothing that improves health care in these bills, but it does shift costs. That would seem to be enough for some.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Cutting through all the BS of Dr. Atlas, the undeniable, basic truths are:

1) America pays more per person for health care than any other country on Earth.

2) For all that expense, the life expectancy of Americans is not 1st in the world. Not 5th in the world. Not 10th in the world. Not 25th in the world. The life expectancy we get back for all that expense is 50TH in the world.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY