Fifty million Frenchmen -- or 895 Americans who voted in a New York Times/CBS News poll -- can be wrong.
The majority of those polled want a government-run insurance plan, say they'd be willing to pay higher taxes to support it, and think the government could do a better job of controlling healthcare costs than the private sector can.
Right. The way it's done a great job reining in the price of Medicare? The way Massachusetts has done such a great job of translating "health insurance for all" into actual care for all?
I love how "4 in 10 [said they were] willing to pay as much as $500 more a year" to make healthcare-for-all happen. I want to slap these people. WAKE UP! It's not going to be $500, it's going to be thousands -- for care rationed out by bureaucrats! Not to mention -- just because you would be willing to pay more for the rest of the country to have health insurance, doesn't mean I am. Yes, some people need health care and don't have it. Their need does not constitute a claim on my property. I need health care, too -- and I work my butt off to pay for it. Others who need care should do the same -- or rely on voluntary charity, not extortion.
And one more quote that steams me up: "Three of four people questioned said unnecessary medical tests and treatments had become a serious problem, suggesting that they would support calls by health researchers for a payment system that would better reward appropriate care." Such a system is easy to envision. It's called a free market. If consumers bore the full cost of their healthcare decisions, they would think a lot harder about whether they need this test or that pill. Bring the government into it, and decisions will be made not by what's best for each individual and what he or she can afford, but rather based on national averages (too bad for those who need more care than average) and pull-peddling (which healthcare company is in favor with Congress this week?). Make the government offer care to everyone, and you'll remove the incentive for an individual to decide for himself what level of care he needs and can pay for. When healthcare is "free," you can bet Americans are going to want even more tests, procedures, and drugs -- and then it's not you and your doctor, but a bureaucrat, who will decide whether your care is necessary or not.
Congress, Mr. Obama: The respondents to this poll don't speak for all Americans. There are those of us who know what our rights are and don't want you trampling on them even more than they have been already. Leave healthcare alone!
Monday, June 22, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
The next time you hear from me...
it'll be Mrs. Zawistowski, thankyouverymuch!
There's a lot to say about the health "reforms" Obama wants to push through before Americans have had a chance to figure out how bad they really are, but at the moment I truly don't have the time to comment. I'm getting married in two weeks, so blame it on bridal brain.
I'm getting HITCHED! It's ON, y'all!
There's a lot to say about the health "reforms" Obama wants to push through before Americans have had a chance to figure out how bad they really are, but at the moment I truly don't have the time to comment. I'm getting married in two weeks, so blame it on bridal brain.
I'm getting HITCHED! It's ON, y'all!
Friday, May 22, 2009
If you think doctors make too much...
Pauline Chen's latest column is food for thought. Lots of people resent doctors who drive around in BMWs or live in large houses -- why should they get to charge so much when people need their services?
Although I often disagree with Dr. Chen's policy views, her column this week eloquently illustrates one of the reasons doctors deserve to be paid well: They risk a lot more than most of us do.
Does your job put you at risk for swine flu? For hepatitis? For HIV? A doctor's job does. He is constantly around sick people, examining them close-up, often taking samples of their bodily fluids, using needles and countless other instruments that could put the doctor at risk of contamination. Even if a doctor manages to get through his career without contracting a serious illness from one of his patients, he has to deal with the added psychological stress that taking such a risk entails.
Dr. Chen describes the first time she stuck herself with a needle that had just been used on an infected patient: "And for a moment, I felt the floor beneath my feet give way, pulling everything — Jean, my heart, my work, my life — down with it." She further goes on to say that the feeling never goes away, no matter how many times she has come through another potential contamination unscathed.
Is a doctor supposed to go through this kind of psychological stress (never mind the stress of four years of medical school and additional years of postgraduate residency training) out of brother-love alone? If we expect doctors to do work that is not only highly skilled, but also psychologically stressful, for low pay just because patients need them, we shouldn't be surprised to find that fewer and fewer people want to be doctors. The fact that we need doctors -- and that we, as patients, put them through so much -- is precisely why we should be paying them well.
Although I often disagree with Dr. Chen's policy views, her column this week eloquently illustrates one of the reasons doctors deserve to be paid well: They risk a lot more than most of us do.
Does your job put you at risk for swine flu? For hepatitis? For HIV? A doctor's job does. He is constantly around sick people, examining them close-up, often taking samples of their bodily fluids, using needles and countless other instruments that could put the doctor at risk of contamination. Even if a doctor manages to get through his career without contracting a serious illness from one of his patients, he has to deal with the added psychological stress that taking such a risk entails.
Dr. Chen describes the first time she stuck herself with a needle that had just been used on an infected patient: "And for a moment, I felt the floor beneath my feet give way, pulling everything — Jean, my heart, my work, my life — down with it." She further goes on to say that the feeling never goes away, no matter how many times she has come through another potential contamination unscathed.
Is a doctor supposed to go through this kind of psychological stress (never mind the stress of four years of medical school and additional years of postgraduate residency training) out of brother-love alone? If we expect doctors to do work that is not only highly skilled, but also psychologically stressful, for low pay just because patients need them, we shouldn't be surprised to find that fewer and fewer people want to be doctors. The fact that we need doctors -- and that we, as patients, put them through so much -- is precisely why we should be paying them well.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
An open letter to President Obama
Mr. Obama:
So you want to force all Americans to buy health insurance, regardless of whether or not they want it, and help families who make less than $88K a year to pay for the premiums.
This idea hasn't worked in Massachusetts, not one bit. Once the mandate came down, plenty of Bay Staters got themselves insured -- but that didn't mean they got access to care. By government fiat, hundreds of thousands of people became insured -- but government fiat couldn't magically create all the doctors it would take to see all those new patients. So now Massachusetts residents face months of waiting to see a physician. How would your plan do anything but explode the same problem to a national scale, Mr. President?
This idea won't work for me or any of the other young, healthy Americans who take care of ourselves. You want insurers to quit charging more to the chronically ill. All that means is that we, the chronically healthy, are going to have to foot the bill for their care. I'm not interested in making that sacrifice. I suppose you think that's selfish of me, and that I should "do my part" to help others. Yes, it is selfish of me -- but unlike you, I know that selfishness is a virtue.
This idea won't work for insurers, whom you are going to force to provide ever-increasing coverage based on whatever lobbyist group wants to sell more of their goods and services. They will have to raise their prices to offer more comprehensive coverage, which will strain consumers' budgets -- or else they'll go out of business, as patients flee to the government insurance program you're likely to create. (And if you don't create one right away, voters will clamor for one, and you'll say yes.)
And oh, boy, is this idea not going to work for us taxpayers. Even if we don't create a government insurance plan right away, those of us who make more than $88K a year are going to start paying for the premiums of those who don't. Don't fool yourself that just asking for "a little more" from those who make $250K or more will solve the problem. As my fiance puts it, "there aren't enough millionaires for you to eat." Not to mention that...oh, yes, those supposedly evil rich people have a right to their money. And, of course, if you create a government insurance plan, who's going to pay when the premiums inevitably don't cover the costs of care?
Making Americans buy health insurance as a government mandate, rather than letting us decide freely whether or not we can afford it, will be a disaster. Don't go there, Mr. President.
Not your comrade,
Stella Daily
So you want to force all Americans to buy health insurance, regardless of whether or not they want it, and help families who make less than $88K a year to pay for the premiums.
This idea hasn't worked in Massachusetts, not one bit. Once the mandate came down, plenty of Bay Staters got themselves insured -- but that didn't mean they got access to care. By government fiat, hundreds of thousands of people became insured -- but government fiat couldn't magically create all the doctors it would take to see all those new patients. So now Massachusetts residents face months of waiting to see a physician. How would your plan do anything but explode the same problem to a national scale, Mr. President?
This idea won't work for me or any of the other young, healthy Americans who take care of ourselves. You want insurers to quit charging more to the chronically ill. All that means is that we, the chronically healthy, are going to have to foot the bill for their care. I'm not interested in making that sacrifice. I suppose you think that's selfish of me, and that I should "do my part" to help others. Yes, it is selfish of me -- but unlike you, I know that selfishness is a virtue.
This idea won't work for insurers, whom you are going to force to provide ever-increasing coverage based on whatever lobbyist group wants to sell more of their goods and services. They will have to raise their prices to offer more comprehensive coverage, which will strain consumers' budgets -- or else they'll go out of business, as patients flee to the government insurance program you're likely to create. (And if you don't create one right away, voters will clamor for one, and you'll say yes.)
And oh, boy, is this idea not going to work for us taxpayers. Even if we don't create a government insurance plan right away, those of us who make more than $88K a year are going to start paying for the premiums of those who don't. Don't fool yourself that just asking for "a little more" from those who make $250K or more will solve the problem. As my fiance puts it, "there aren't enough millionaires for you to eat." Not to mention that...oh, yes, those supposedly evil rich people have a right to their money. And, of course, if you create a government insurance plan, who's going to pay when the premiums inevitably don't cover the costs of care?
Making Americans buy health insurance as a government mandate, rather than letting us decide freely whether or not we can afford it, will be a disaster. Don't go there, Mr. President.
Not your comrade,
Stella Daily
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Shameless plug
I'm so often writing about what's wrong in health and healthcare on this blog that I'm delighted to share something positive: a success story!
Back in January, I'd set myself a New Year's resolution of getting down to 140 lbs. by June so as to start intense marathon training in a better place physically. I tried unofficially going on Weight Watchers, which lost me about three pounds and then I stalled. I simply wasn't being honest with myself about how many points were in the foods I was eating, and when you evade like that, you just don't get results. Surprise, surprise.
That's where the shameless plug comes in. Two months ago I got an iPhone. My fiance at first discouraged me from getting one -- he thought I couldn't possibly make use of it fully enough to justify the increased cost of the monthly phone plan over my previous plan, not to mention the cost of the iPhone itself. He's now in full agreement with me that my iPhone is worth every penny I am paying for it, in large part because of the free app Lose It!
Lose It! is a weight loss app -- you tell it your age, sex, current weight, goal weight, and how fast you want to lose the pounds, and it produces a daily calorie budget. It also has a database of calorie counts for lots of foods, and calorie burn rates for many different types of exercise. You can also enter calorie counts for other foods and exercises if you need to. Finally, you chart your progress toward your goal by entering your weight periodically, and the program shows you how you're doing on a neat little graph.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, in the two months since downloading Lose It!, I have gone from 154 pounds to 144. Looks like I am going to make my goal, and perhaps even lose a little more!
The reason Lose It! has worked so well for me is that my phone is always with me -- or, at least, always with me when I'm eating. I used to fool myself about how many calories were in a food I was eating, and then discover my error at the end of the day, if I did at all. Now, as soon as I finish a meal (or before I start eating, if what I'm about to have is calorically dense enough that I need to think hard about portion sizes), I enter the info into the app, and I know instantly how many calories I have left that day. Plus, before I decide on something to eat, I can look up nutritional values, so there aren't any surprises. It's much harder to evade the knowledge of what I am really eating, and it is much easier to make good choices.
I am stoked that it's working so well. Yesterday I tried on some size 8 dresses and pants, and they fit! I haven't been single digits since I was 17 years old. (Yes, I do know about vanity sizing, but I'm talking about places where, just this past winter, I was struggling to fit into the 10.) I even tried on a bikini for the first time in years, and I didn't look half bad. Yes, I started this process wanting to weigh less for the marathon, but I'd be lying if I said I weren't ecstatic that my success also means I will look hot on my honeymoon.
So, if you have an iPhone and want to drop some pounds, I wholeheartedly recommend Lose It! It's the best zero dollars you will ever spend on your phone.
Back in January, I'd set myself a New Year's resolution of getting down to 140 lbs. by June so as to start intense marathon training in a better place physically. I tried unofficially going on Weight Watchers, which lost me about three pounds and then I stalled. I simply wasn't being honest with myself about how many points were in the foods I was eating, and when you evade like that, you just don't get results. Surprise, surprise.
That's where the shameless plug comes in. Two months ago I got an iPhone. My fiance at first discouraged me from getting one -- he thought I couldn't possibly make use of it fully enough to justify the increased cost of the monthly phone plan over my previous plan, not to mention the cost of the iPhone itself. He's now in full agreement with me that my iPhone is worth every penny I am paying for it, in large part because of the free app Lose It!
Lose It! is a weight loss app -- you tell it your age, sex, current weight, goal weight, and how fast you want to lose the pounds, and it produces a daily calorie budget. It also has a database of calorie counts for lots of foods, and calorie burn rates for many different types of exercise. You can also enter calorie counts for other foods and exercises if you need to. Finally, you chart your progress toward your goal by entering your weight periodically, and the program shows you how you're doing on a neat little graph.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, in the two months since downloading Lose It!, I have gone from 154 pounds to 144. Looks like I am going to make my goal, and perhaps even lose a little more!
The reason Lose It! has worked so well for me is that my phone is always with me -- or, at least, always with me when I'm eating. I used to fool myself about how many calories were in a food I was eating, and then discover my error at the end of the day, if I did at all. Now, as soon as I finish a meal (or before I start eating, if what I'm about to have is calorically dense enough that I need to think hard about portion sizes), I enter the info into the app, and I know instantly how many calories I have left that day. Plus, before I decide on something to eat, I can look up nutritional values, so there aren't any surprises. It's much harder to evade the knowledge of what I am really eating, and it is much easier to make good choices.
I am stoked that it's working so well. Yesterday I tried on some size 8 dresses and pants, and they fit! I haven't been single digits since I was 17 years old. (Yes, I do know about vanity sizing, but I'm talking about places where, just this past winter, I was struggling to fit into the 10.) I even tried on a bikini for the first time in years, and I didn't look half bad. Yes, I started this process wanting to weigh less for the marathon, but I'd be lying if I said I weren't ecstatic that my success also means I will look hot on my honeymoon.
So, if you have an iPhone and want to drop some pounds, I wholeheartedly recommend Lose It! It's the best zero dollars you will ever spend on your phone.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Lovely...until you get sick
If a Massachusetts state healthcare commission gets its way, fee-for-service payment to doctors and hospitals will soon be replaced by a set fee per patient per year. This idea is supposed to discourage doctors from performing unnecessary tests and procedures.
Isn't it obvious what ELSE it will discourage doctors from doing -- from performing NECESSARY tests for those whose illnesses don't happen to be treatable with a pat on the back and a generic pill? Let's take a breast cancer diagnosis. That costs money for imaging and biopsies to tell how far the cancer has spread, surgery to remove the tumor, radiation and chemotherapy to keep it from coming back (not to mention the time of the highly trained doctors and nurses who deliver the radiation and the chemotherapy), several years of treatment with oral hormonal therapies, and regular follow-up visits to make sure the cancer hasn't come back. Is the amount spent on such a patient in one year anywhere near the average annual amount spent on healthcare for the whole country? Not even close. But given that a doctor is only going to get paid for treating her like the national average, what doctor is going to be willing to even let her in the door?
Hence, the saying, "Healthcare in (insert name of country with socialized medicine here) is great...until you get sick." Let's not turn America into such a place.
Isn't it obvious what ELSE it will discourage doctors from doing -- from performing NECESSARY tests for those whose illnesses don't happen to be treatable with a pat on the back and a generic pill? Let's take a breast cancer diagnosis. That costs money for imaging and biopsies to tell how far the cancer has spread, surgery to remove the tumor, radiation and chemotherapy to keep it from coming back (not to mention the time of the highly trained doctors and nurses who deliver the radiation and the chemotherapy), several years of treatment with oral hormonal therapies, and regular follow-up visits to make sure the cancer hasn't come back. Is the amount spent on such a patient in one year anywhere near the average annual amount spent on healthcare for the whole country? Not even close. But given that a doctor is only going to get paid for treating her like the national average, what doctor is going to be willing to even let her in the door?
Hence, the saying, "Healthcare in (insert name of country with socialized medicine here) is great...until you get sick." Let's not turn America into such a place.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Health insurers agree to raise premiums for men
Here we go again. Out of fear that Congress will create a national insurance program that will drive them out of business, insurers have made another concession: no more charging women more.
Which, of course, only means that premiums will rise for men. Insurers had a good reason for charging women more: We use more healthcare resources. We see our gynecologists once a year. We get pregnant. We go to the doctor more often, period. (How cliche is the story of the man who ignores a health problem until his wife nags him to see a medical professional?)
So, now men will be footing the bill for our heavier use of resources. They shouldn't have to.
And by the way, none of this is going to stop Congress from trying to create a national health insurance program. As long as people are unhappy with how much health care costs, there are going to be cries for the nanny state to take over. The defense against a national health insurance program is not concessions by insurers -- it's a principled stand for a free market in medicine.
Which, of course, only means that premiums will rise for men. Insurers had a good reason for charging women more: We use more healthcare resources. We see our gynecologists once a year. We get pregnant. We go to the doctor more often, period. (How cliche is the story of the man who ignores a health problem until his wife nags him to see a medical professional?)
So, now men will be footing the bill for our heavier use of resources. They shouldn't have to.
And by the way, none of this is going to stop Congress from trying to create a national health insurance program. As long as people are unhappy with how much health care costs, there are going to be cries for the nanny state to take over. The defense against a national health insurance program is not concessions by insurers -- it's a principled stand for a free market in medicine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
