Saturday, November 28, 2009

Senator joe lieberman twitter buzz

Senator joe lieberman: In the latest twitter buzz on Lieberman from his Yale roommate there is no mention that his independent stance on health care reform could also be used to stop the advertising of Pharma that drives up health care cost.

This is the kind of independent minded twitter buzz that I subscribe to. Perhaps Senator Lieberman's unsightly new lobbyist growth is a result of the latest hair or sex growth advertising that is driving up our health costs.

If we are to contain health care costs then we will need to curb advertising that is driving demand for unnecessary drugs.

Monday, November 23, 2009

Twitter and the health care of concrete

If Mr. Obama attempts to spend us out of this current recession he should consider the past attempts of the other presidents who have attempted this. Franklin Delano’s attempt was successful. It differed from our Presidents attempt in a very important way. FDR spent his way out of the depression by creating public works projects that moved our country forward by increasing speed of movement, providing more power, and making us healthier. Bridges, Roads, Power Plants, and Dams all have one thing in common. They are made of concrete. The concrete construction of the WPA, TVA and CCC camps had a lasting impact on moving us forward economically. They also were projects that had a set start and finish date. Chris Matthews likes to quote Pat Monahan who said the nice thing about concrete is that it cracks and needs to be built again. I do agree that these types of improvements are not perfect, but the progress has outweighed its cost in the long run.

If the Obama Administration gets its way, then a bureaucracy will be set up that will never end and will never crack. Bureaucrats excel at perpetuating their own existence. In my experience with organizations like the social security system this seems to be their top priority. The health care proposal in its current form could create a system that will sap the life out of the economic engine of growth. In addition if we move the decisions of health care to more uninvolved parties, then bad decisions and even abuse will likely follow.

I am not against health care reform. I applaud the president’s efforts. He has mobilized many people into the political process who at one time did not even vote. It is my desire to take twitter independent activists and unite them into a voice that our president will hear. I do not believe that we can separate treatment protocol in health care from the doctor patient relationship. I do not feel that the public option matters much as long as a bureaucracy of patronage is not created. I believe we must tie the cost of health care to the parties who are profiting from its expansion. This law of reciprocity will create a concrete health care structure. When this structure cracks it can be repaired by the people who are closest to the person in need of treatment.

Twitter activists must unite and independently fight for change that benefits everyone.

Both political parties must shoulder the cost to solve this problem. Republicans must realize that the advertising by pharmaceutical companies must be regulated or banned to limit the insatiable appetite for drugs. This appetite by consumers is driving up the cost of health care. Every time I hear “Ask your doctor” I grab my wallet and wonder how long health care will be affordable. The abuse of pharmaceutical drugs has climbed to an all time high. A coworker of mine was joking with me last week when she invited me to a skittles party. This is a party where everyone comes with their left over pharmaceutical medicine and dumps them into a bowl. The party starts when the guests start popping pills indiscriminately and giggle the night away. Pharmaceutical drugs are rapidly approaching their liability weighing more than their benefit.

Democrats must realize that defensive medicine practices are driving costs up, and causing doctors to leave the profession. Law suits must be capped to reasonable levels where patients assume some risk for agreeing to treatment. I know that the actual law suits are not driving costs up, but many people refuse to look at the horror most health care professional fear of being sued. I realize we must choose to trust a doctor if this is going to work. If we do not trust the doctors then they should be ethically tested and not allowed to practice medicine if they fail. Insurance companies also must be required to spread out risks across the entire population. The insurance companies, Health Maintenance organizations or Medicare should not be calling the shots for treatment protocol. To make decisions one step removed from the process does not usually result in good judgment. It is now time for Twitter users to exercise their own judgment and fight for real change in health care that makes sense.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Twitter health care reform

Health care should be about people getting the health care they need. Unfortunately, it is also about politics. Today’s debate in the Senate is very important. Individual preferences of a few may be re-shifting the political spectrum of our country.

When I say political spectrum I know that I lost most of you, but bear with me. Our American political spectrum is better looked at then read about. It is best described in the geometric figure of a diamond. The radicals establish a point on the far left side of the median line across the center of the diamond. The reactionaries establish a point symmetrical to the radicals on the opposite side of the line. The republicans fall to the left of the reactionary point and the democrats fall to the right of the radical point. The difference between republicans and democrats could be the emphasis of equality over liberty. However, many people overlook that there are at least two more points on the diamond that cause many people to differ. The other two points represent order and anarchy. Unfortunately, it will be difficult to find any two people exactly in the same place of these four quadrants. US party politics allows for more individual differences than most other parliamentary forms of government. So the debate today over health care is likely to come down to individual preferences of a few Senators that must be appeased to win their vote. The vote tonight, Saturday, November 22, 2009 is the second step of a process that will not conclude until the middle of January at the earliest. To the twitter community this period of time is very long and probably perceived as unnecessary. This post will discuss the process of United States politics reaching consensus. I will also discuss my opinion on health care and what can be done to fix a broken health care system.

This post will look at these Democratic and Independent Party Senators and their individual preferences. I have placed a twitter label next to their names to summarize their perspective. I have also placed a link on their names to look into the point on the spectrum where they fall. The aids of these Senators are reading your twitter posts, so please take 10 minutes to learn more about this debate.

Name .Wiki Descrip. Twitter label Abortion Stance

Blanche Lincoln of Ark. Centrist Democrat Favors partial birth abortion ban

Mary Landrieu of Lou. Conservative Dem. Supports Stupak-Pitts Amendment,

Ben Nelson of Neb. Conservative Dem Pro life


Joe Lieberman of Con. "Indep. Democrat" Pro choice

Bernie Sanders Democratic socialist Pro choice

Senator Harry Reid’s proposal of a "firewall" that would segregate private premiums from federal funding in the public insurance plan is an attempt to accommodate those democrats with a desire towards regulated order of the abortion debate. Harry Reid’s accommodation right now seems to focus on Medicare bookkeeping practices. The proposal does to its credit address paying for health care reform. However, it does this by adopting bookkeeping practices. Bookkeeping is not a solution. If this bookkeeping means that we are going to control the cost of health care by bureaucratic means then he should say so. Regulation pushes this solution toward the “State-ist” side of the political spectrum. In accepting this solution we should be aware that we are losing choice to gain more order in the health care delivery system. The details behind this strategy would include a powerfully divisive “R” word. Rationing is a very divisive word that could shift this debate to the “State-ist” side of the political spectrum.

Before you react to the word rationing you should be aware that most doctors would say that this is already happening in our current health care system. Most doctors would also say that the Hippocratic Oath that they take would demand that the doctor patient relationship maintain choices of treatment protocol. Most doctors are not pleased with our current health care system since the introduction of the DRG system. This system allowed for a private form of bureaucratic rationing creeping into our current health care delivery system. These private bureaucrats are HMO’s and insurance companies. The current public bureaucracy is Medicare and Medicaid. The current health debate would eventually create one big DRG system. If Harry Reid were to say that he is balancing the cost of health care on the rationing of senior health care, then this bill would be dead on arrival.

I believe that rationing senior health care is only one place to control the cost of a health care system that is out of our control. We should also tie cost control to pharmaceutical companies’ gains, lawyers’ actions that promote defensive medical practices, and open up restrictions on health care by expanding alternative medicine practices. For example, when people have the choice of using alternative medicine in a hospice scenario they become empowered to experiment with their own health care at their own expense. When people are forced to pay for technological breakthroughs out of pocket within a window of time limitations then they are empowered with choices that are tied to their initiative. Please read my previous BLOG post.

Monday, November 9, 2009

Health Reform Goes to the Senate!

I am a conservative that agrees with Robert Reich. :-) I absolutely hate the idea that the lawyers, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies are benefiting from this reform. The groups who are profiting from health care should be shouldering the cost. Restoring the doctor patient relationship, and cutting the profits of those who are profiting from health care would be a good start to containing costs. Here are some questions that I have that I would like senators to consider.

1. How did the country maintain costs for many generations before costs went out of control?
2. Since the percentage of uninsured in our country is similar to countries with a single payer plan how will that contain costs?
3. Will the growth of Health care reform become self serving when bureaucrats are making health decisions?
4. Why should lawyers be the ones to regulate health care when they are the one that are driving up costs due to defensive medical practices?
5. Why should pharmaceuticals companies be allowed to advertise new drugs when that increases health care and they benefit from them?
6. Why should experimental technology be covered by insurance when it represents an assumed risk on the part of the patient?

Health care costs are out of control!

Health care reform should be based upon containing costs not covering the 16% of people who are uninsured. Other countries with single payer plans have many people that do not contribute into the health care system that is a similar percentage to what we have in our country.

* Over the past decade, premiums have doubled, out-of-pocket costs have increased by a third, and deductibles have continued to rise.
* If there was ever a time for Washington to put partisanship aside and get something done, this is it.
* We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fix what’s broken with our system and build on what works.

We should consider cutting cost by re-instating the doctor patient tradition in our country. The watch dogs of HMO's and attorneys are only increasing costs. Will a bureaucratic watch dog do any better? The pharmaceutical industry is promoting cost increases. The patient or family should consult with his doctor to decide on a treatment protocol that works for everyone.

Doctors should be tested for ethical judgment as well as medical training. Alternative practitioners who pass the ethical treatment test should also be allowed to practice medicine restricted by the confines of their knowledge. Medical practitioners should be removed who violate ethical principals.

Limiting technology and its expense is also a way to contain costs. Technology is driving costs up. There should be fewer restrictions on the use of experimental technology. These decisions should be subject to the doctor patient relationship. In addition any procedure or drug deemed as experimental should not be covered by insurance. The people who take these kinds of risks should also assume the costs associated with these risks.

Alternative medicine practices should be regulated and covered under medical insurance. China currently uses a two prong system of health care that uses traditional Chinese medicine as well as modern pharmaceuticals, surgery and rehabilitation to help their people. Could alternative medicine practiced by US Chiropractors and health food supplement stores bring hope and relief to many people in our country as well? Alternative medical treatments could help contain costs by offering competition in the medical marketplace.

Congress must pass real health insurance reform in 2009. If we fail to act:

* Within a decade, one out of every five dollars we earn will be spent on health care.
* The amount our government spends on Medicare and Medicaid will eventually grow larger than what our government spends today on everything else combined.

The answer lies in containing costs. The health care system will not be solved by insuring an uninsured population that already is covered by emergency rooms.

Pat Parris