We at USDemocrazy know this health care debate is important and all… but it can get awfully confusing…
For example… many conservatives are opposing health care reform… but Dr. Andrew Weil, a Huffington Post blogger says the health care reform being offered IS CONSERVATIVE!
In fact it is three times more conservative that you think!
In his words, Weil labeled current health care reform as …
1. “…philosophically conservative in that it aims to restore core values of medicine that were strong in the past, such as a reverence for the healing power of nature and the importance of the therapist-patient relationship.”
2. “…medically conservative in stressing prevention and advocating lesser rather than greater intervention — the least invasive, least harmful, least expensive treatments that the circumstances of illness demand. IM practitioners always observe the Hippocratic precept of “First, do no harm,” relying in simpler interventions whenever possible and turning to more drastic ones only when the former fail to produce desired outcomes.”
3. “…fiscally conservative in its willingness to look beyond the blinders of high-tech medicine to identify inexpensive therapies that may be useful and in its insistence that they be held to the same standard for clinical- and cost-effectiveness in well-designed outcomes trials.”
What are your thoughts on Dr. Weil’s interesting take?
Like his points, but it’s not quite so simple.
Nobody will argue that outrageous lawsuits are an American tradition. Upholding the legal terror medicine is subject to is conservative in that it preserves this status quo.
While the fiscally conservative point is key, it depends on whose point of view you take. Fiscal conservatism on the behalf of pharmaceutical companies and the people who profit currently is the flip-side of that coin. Unfortunately, some of those people are pretty clever, and can make people think that the public will benefit if they benefit (trickle-down).
Unfortunately, the majority opinion seems to be that politicians, news outlets, and public beliefs can be trusted to deliver accurate information about health care reform. This is obviously not the case, what with euthanasia, elimination of private option, etc. Until people start thinking for themselves and scrutinizing EVERY piece of information they’re presented with, the bizarre pendulum will continue to swing.
From what I’ve heard all around, there is a problem and people want ‘reform’ but yet I find no one has, for themselves, investiged the source of the problem, let alone taken it upon themselves to even learn themselves in the fundamentals of economics. Instead they listen to pundits who are payed to foment BS.
Merely declaring there exists a problem without identifying the source except to arbitrarly say ‘there is a problem and this is what we should do’ is ‘pissing in the wind’, as they say. Any action that is taken not in accordance with the root of the problem will solve nothing.
All ‘public’ (ie. governmental/corporate) solutions are based on the premise that there exists a free market when no such thing exists. Therefore, no fault can be placed on a free market because it does not exist.
I’ve yet to understand why people want and expect an equitable solution from a body of men that, by their actions, can be invariably concluded as nothing more than a bunch of robbers, murderers, and thieves. To seek a solution from the corporate state is as if to go to the highwayman whom stole your property, ask him to promptly return it, turn himself in to have justice rendered upon him, and expect him to actually do it.
The insanity….
If anyone actually believes the healthcare bill is conservative then hell has frozen over.
It should be noted that most conservatives are not against reform, just the way the reform is currently being presented. If you look at most issues, the argument isn’t the end but usually the means.
unfortunately Dr. Weil is being a bit dishonest if he is suggesting that the reform being suggested would lead to any of these things.
we need to promote preventative care, limit malpractice awards, and promote cheaper solutions that are proven to work. Insurance companies have the right to refuse coverage for preexisting conditions but it’s not good business to drop people when conditions occur. One way to prevent this is to look at what is allowing medical expenses to soar. Some of these costs are just out right ridiculous.
The surest way (and I’ll say only) to drop prices is to increase the number of providers. To do that means to remove the tax burden completley and keep it that way off of all business (will do wonders) and allow more resources to enter the market and drive prices down through competition. Remove the ‘licensing’ requirement to introduce more physicians, etc… as well.
For those that would say ‘you want to remove licensing?’, you might understand how such systems are designed to work. These things are hardly ever for the common good. By giving control over who becomes of doctor, healthcare provider, etc.. you have already cornered the market and created a monopoly.
I can set the bar so high and limit the number of providers as to increase the demand relative to supply of doctors, etc… Prices have to go up as a resulting natural market force. Not all doctors, etc.. have to meet such broad requirements for certain professions and the cost of unnecessary education and other fees is transfered to the consumer (where it does not have to be that way). I (and I imagine others) would not trust their health with just anybody and so an individual can actually ’shop’ for the best healthcare provider, etc..(personal responsibility). Those that do not meet consumer demands fall by the wayside and so natural market forces can take care of the bad doctors, vote with your money folks. But you don’t have a choice now since United States has their tentacles in everything.
This same problem is everywhere including college tuition. Forget the ‘well rounded student’ cop out. If you don’t need it for your profession why raise cost higher than what is necessary, especially if you can’t afford it? It keeps out those of lower income out as well. If you need some of these classes later on, take them when that time comes. The emphasis here folks is that of the necessities. Your profession will dictate what you need to learn, not some beaurocrat who’s buddies stand to benefit financially at your expense.
The same applies to the Bar but don’t get me started on that. If ever an institution met the criteria of RICO, the Bar and every institution its products have infested (especially United States) are deserving of such title. Vermin…