Comments on Medicine, Orthopedic Surgery, the Orthopedic Industry, Informed Decision Making, and Health Care 2.0 -- consumer/value-driven healthcare. This section reflects my personal thoughts, experiences and interpretations of relevant scientific literature. This information should NOT be considered medical advice -- just an orthopedist mouthing off and trying to strike up an interesting conversation.
 |
|
Hot button in healthcare reform: U.S. as insurance provider
Two Senate panels are focusing on the toughest unresolved issue in healthcare reform: the scope of a public role in providing insurance. As the Senate reconvenes next week, though, they're not considering a government-run, single-payer plan, even though that option is backed by about 80 House Democrats.
According to a report by the Christian Science Monitor, President Obama favors having a government-run plan compete for customers alongside private insurers. But moving from an employer-based system of private insurance to a single-payer system run by the government “could be hugely disruptive,” he said at a town-hall meeting in Annandale, Virginia, last Wednesday.
“My attitude has been that we should be able to find a way to create a uniquely American solution to this problem that controls costs but preserves the innovation that is introduced in part with a free-market system,” he said.
If not single-payer, then what? Read the full report from the Christian Science Monitor [HERE]
Howard J Luks, MD
Post a Comment
Times Poll on Health Care Reform
50% of people believe the government will do a better job at providing coverage and holding down costs than the private sector... seriously?
Doctor and Patient - Taking Time for the Self on the Path to Becoming a Doctor
There is always this expectation that at some point things will turn around. The interns say, ‘When I finish internship and become a second-year resident, things will get better.’ The residents say, ‘When I finish training, I will finally have balance again.’ And doctors in practice may believe that they will find more balance once they have retired.
I imagine that most doctors have thought about this at some point in time in their careers.... perpetual(ly) delayed gratification. Unless of course it is your work that gratifies you???
Personally I find that committing myself to take the time to enjoy my family, hobbies and interests in part of what defines me as a physician...
Twitter on the Barricades - Six Lessons Learned
Collectively, however, the tweets can create a personality or environment that reflects the emotions of the moment and helps drive opinion.
Is Twitter's role in the Iran "revolution" over-estimated? Perhaps...but the mere fact that it is even considered to be vital to the cause of the Iranian people is phenomenal in and of itself.
Key Lawmakers in Health-Care Debate Reveal Investments in Health Industry
Almost 30 key lawmakers helping draft landmark health-care legislation have financial holdings in the industry, totaling nearly $11 million worth of personal investments in a sector that could be dramatically reshaped by this summer's debate.
The list of members who have personal investments in the corporations that will be affected by the legislation -- which President Obama has called this year's highest domestic priority -- includes Congress's most powerful leaders and a bipartisan collection of lawmakers in key committee posts. Their total health-care holdings could be worth $27 million, because congressional financial disclosure forms released yesterday require reporting of only broad ranges of holdings rather than precise values of assets.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), for instance, has at least $50,000 invested in a health-care index, and Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), a senior member of the health committee, has between $254,000 and $560,000 worth of stock holdings in major health-care companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck.
This legislation is simply too important to be tainted by potential conflict of interests. Our elected members of Congress need to be completely transparent about the investments they have in companies who could be affected by their votes.