HealthCare debate — NewsHour
A lengthy but rational debate on the Nightly NewsHour. The seminal issue remains: how and why to fund this massive program?
Unsustained costs — temperature rising
Now it’s heating up. This should be a sensibility and economic reality issue. It should not be a partisan issue. Over the last few weeks I have developed a rationale for slowing this process based simply on the math and the daunting economic and financial limits that we must honestly confront. This must not be framed as a political football game. It is not about winning points, or vanquishing the opponent.
The goal should be truly charting a new course — finding new paradigms.
We are now coming into the closing moves. More frantic charges. More heated and vapid rhetoric. Aspire to something higher. That is not what we will see. This is how it degenerates. We are back to jousting and shouting and invectives. Can we avoid George Orwell’s admonition?
Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchist — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
Talk about personal responsibility. Moving to optimal health and wealth being for each and all. The Phoenix rising.
This is a glimmer of the end game … more Roman Circus …
unsustainable costs (cont)
Our thread seems to be gaining traction. Moderator David Gregory of Meet the Press was was questioning Kathleen Sibelius this morning on the economics of health care reform. She was not very convincing in her answers. Why? They still do not know how these “reforms” will be funded.
The Wall Street Journal has an opinion article tomorrow, July 20, on the politics of passing health care reform. I am not endorsing the Wall Street Journal and its editorials. But the formulation of the strategy bears scrutiny. In the last six months too much legislation has been passed “because the crisis demands an immediate answer.” Shock Doctrine evolves.
unsustainable costs (cont)
We were talking about unsustainable costs. I and many others have asked the question — how is this to be funded? Both the House and Senate have been struggling with this Herculean task. And now we have new headlines.
House formulating plans for a surtax on the wealthiest of Americans. Well it’s only 2.5% of the population. And it does hold true to the President’s pledge not to tax the middle class. And one could argue that the wealthiest of Americans have already benefited mightily from the Bush tax cut years. Whatever that was.
But … this is an unwise long term solution. It has a nice ring to it. A Robin Hood approach. Let’s all sharpen our pitchforks.
Medicine and Business
Our goal is not to save insurance companies money. A most nefarious lot. Our goal is to solve problems and make you whole again. Healthier and happy. That is the goal of functional medicine and Anti-Aging Medicine. Optimal Health and Well Being.
There is nothing inherently wrong with medicine as a business. There is nothing inherently wrong with any business in America. We still aspire to capitalist principles. What is immoral and repugnant is rapacious business.
First of all, physicians will tell you, “I’m a doctor, not a businessman.” But the very few of us dinosaurs left in solo practice are running a small business. And it is not an insignificant small business.
It is apparent why a fellow physician was so discouraged when he spoke with a number of Senators and Congresspeople on Capitol Hill recently. Politicians are clueless about medicine. Most people do not understand the complexity of medicine. Senators are absolutely clueless about related medical issues such as steroids and sports. In the end, most are only interested in self-aggrandizement and self-preservation.