This is from the New York Times' The Conversation Blog:
Gail Collins: There have to be limits on what doctors can prescribe. The president pretends the only limit will be on useless tests and drugs that have an equally good, cheaper alternative. But useless and equally good are in the eye of the beholder.
David Brooks: As for your second point, that there should be limits on what doctors can prescribe, I say: "Amen to that."
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Wednesday pitted me (defending capitalism) against single-payer advocates Sidney Wolfe and Steffie Woolhandler. Rumor has it that, following my opening statement, fans across the country did The Wave. We haven’t been able to confirm that, though.
This isn't about principled reform, she says. It is about creating a single-payer system.
Alcohol found in the blood of one in five New York City bicyclists involved in fatal accidents. Only 3% were wearing helmets.
More than 30% of multivitamins differ significantly from the label. One provided only 50 percent of its claimed folic acid and the other was missing 30 percent of its calcium.
Food police to church bazaar: Selling homemade pies is illegal. Local paper calls it “piegate.”
In the debate over health care reform, there are six policies that should be opposed, says the Health Policy Consensus Group, a coalition of experts from market-oriented think tanks.
1. A new government-sponsored health insurance plan:
2. A move to force employers to provide health insurance:
3. A uniform, government-defined package of benefits:
The Boston Globe reports:
The state’s bill for providing healthcare to employees and their families who work for large companies increased 24.6 percent to $793.7 million in the last fiscal year.
The law requires large employers to pay 33% of the costs of 25% of their employees or pay a fine of $295 per employee. Those who meet that threshold don’t pay anything for the 75% of workers not covered. These workers are able to get subsidized care from the state.
The three employers who contribute the most workers to state-subsidized coverage are: Wal-Mart (4,796 workers), Stop & Shop (4,731 workers), and — ta-dahh! — the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (3,785 workers).
In a British Columbia Supreme Court document, the health minister, the attorney-general and Medical Services Commission of B.C. deny that there is a constitutional guarantee of access to medical care in Canada:
“There is no freestanding constitutional right to health care,” the government’s statement of defence says in contending that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn’t protect patients who wait long periods for care.
Lively put down of the Canadian health care system:
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gCnlc1iRPw
This is from an editorial in the New York Times:
Medicare has proposed not to pay for so-called virtual colonoscopies because there is not enough evidence that they would benefit people aged 65 and older. That may be disappointing for older Americans who would prefer a virtual exam to a real one. But those sort of judgments will be fundamental to any successful health care reform effort.
Lest I mislead, I'm not against Medicare making these decisions. As a taxpayer, I have a self interest in not seeing money wasted. What I'm against is a monopoly health insurer, which gives patients and doctors no alternatives.
That's $32,640 for a family of four, according to the latest Health and Human Services report. But average family medical bills are nowhere near that amount. Why? Because most of these costs are hidden. About half is hidden in the taxes you pay.
The burden of health care will become even more disguised if the Commonwealth Foundation and health advisors to Barack Obama have their way. They want to increase the hidden (tax) burden in order to limit the visible expense to no more than 10% of income [see here].
Of course, they have it exactly backwards. We should limit everyone's tax burden to no more than 10% of income and let people have direct control of everything else.
