PAs for Health Freedom

Source: Boston Globe, March 26, 2008

In 2007 Massachusetts became the first state to pass a law requiring health insurance coverage by every citizen. It’s been less than two years since this legislation took effect, and already the state government is looking to cut costs which will allow it to provide more people with more care…..for today. As stated in the article, almost 350,000 people now have some form of coverage that they did not have before the law took effect. Of these, nearly half have been signed up for government sponsored care (medicaid, medicare, etc). So, the amount of money the state is spending on health care has of course drastically increased in a very short period of time.

Rather than re-thinking whether or not they are able to provide people with coverage, the governement is instead seeking a different, and unfortunately predictable, approach: cut the cost of health care. Nevermind controlling the number of people you have promised care to–instead seek to tamper with the market until it works to your advantage. Then when costs (and quality, as we’ve learned) are rock bottom there just might be enough capital to support the people you have promised coverage…for now. Nevermind that the mean and median ages of the state is growing older, or that there are still roughly 300,000 people who haven’t signed up for coverage yet (ie it’s likely there will be at least another 100,000 people seeking government sponsored care). Forget that new technologies cost more, often equate to better, more reliable care, and often cannot thrive in a government-controlled market. Fix the market, raise taxes on things that are “bad” for us, and milk the federal government for financial support appears to be all that they can come up with for solutions.

The most important statement in this article is the last sentence: “Nobody has to give much up to expand coverage, but in controlling cost there will always be losers.” Couldn’t agree more. It would be wise for a few lawmakers to look critically at what has happened to other nation-states (Oregon, Canada, England, etc) who have sought to expand coverage by cutting costs…

Source: NYT May 3, 2008

A NYT article faults McCain for:

repeatedly suggesting that his Democratic rivals are proposing a single-payer, or even a nationalized health care system along the lines of those in countries like Canada and Britain.

The article then tries to show how Clinton & Obama are not proposing an actual single-payer system. Nonetheless, after essentially labeling McCain as a liar, the article confesses:

Some opponents — and even some supporters — of such universal health care proposals believe that they could eventually lead to something like a single-payer system.

I agree. Incrementalism towards a single-payer, full-blown, socialized health care system has been the Democrat’s self-confessed strategy for years.

The NYT then quotes this Harvard article showing how voters are divided on the Socialize Medicine issue and emphasized that the expression “socialized medicine” means different things to different people. OK, so, maybe McCain should have said, “Clinton and Obama are proposing yet another stepping-stone on the planned agenda to get us socialized medicine”? But I don’t think that sound bite would work. McCain is essentially correct about Clinton and Obama, why mince words.

Note: In the coming election, more is at stake than just our direction in Health Care — but this blog is just aimed at the discussing health freedom. Our members differ strongly on their prioritizing of issues and voting styles. Go to our Forums/Election 2008 to read & discuss these differences.

Source: May 15, 2008 AAPA News

From the article on “Clinical Resolutions on 2008 HOD Agenda:

“Genetic testing by private non-clinical companies is addressed in a resolution proposed by the Clinical and Scientific Affairs Council (CSAC). The resolution states that “AAPA believes that genetic testing for the presence of or susceptibility to disease should be available to the public only through the services of a qualified health care provider.”

My read of this statement: “The AAPA feels the public is not smart enough to be allowed a choice (free market) in who provides them with genetic information. The AAPA and other health industry stakeholders will decide what is good for people. Further, the AAPA will accept the opinion of the few PAs on the Clinical and Scientific Affairs Council’s (CSAC) as speaking for all PAs. After all, the CSAC knows better than any of us what we Americans need.”

Source: Medical Watch (for AAPA Members) May 1, 2008 (below)

MW Bias alert ! MW today subtley put down Health Savings Accounts (AKA: Consumer Driven Health Care -CDHC). The article alludes that CDHC is “pushed” by Bush administration as tax shelter for the rich. The counter quoted is put forth weakly and not the best counter.

Goodman, a supporter of CDHC, reports on a study which shows that CDHC patients were twice as likely as patients in traditional plans to ask about cost and three times as likely to choose a less expensive treatment option, and chronic patients were 20 percent more likely to follow treatment regimes carefully. (Goodman, John (2006), “Consumer Driven Health Care“, Networks Financial Institute Policy Brief, Indiana State University)

Bottom line: Costs have to be curtailed and this can be done in two ways, consumer-driven (we decide individually what we want to spend money on) or government-driven (the government curtails everyone’s health care and decides exactly what we can or can not have) — mixed model exist (as we have today) but history shows that government inevitably bureaucracies grow unchecked until economic disaster demands it).

——————————————-

I am sure all of you AAPA members enjoy scanning recent articles in “Medical Watch” as it comes in your e-mail each morning. But have you notice the section entitled: “Access to healthcare”? When you hear the word “Access” is can be assured you are hearing a call for socialized medicine. The word is packed with all sorts of assumptions. Heck, even wiki has a section on it in their article on Socialized Medicine. It is these subtle things that slowly influence opinion. Before you know it, people have come to think that “Access” (and all the baggage that comes with it) is just common sense.

So, I will write to the editor’s of the Service and see if I can get “Access to healthcare” changed to something politically neutral like “Healthcare economics” . I will keep you posted on my progress, though I sure this will be tough.

You will notice that there is another category called “Legislative news”, at least that category is politically neutral. But when scanning the Medical Watch, watch for their bias especially in these two columns.