Comments on: Wayne Root: Is Obamacare Willing to Sacrifice the Lives of Women?

By: Aroundtheblockafewtimes

Aroundtheblockafewtimes — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:57:36 +0000

Ms. Marbry, we will all die if we don’t eat and drink. But I don’t see any lack of free market in those commodities. What makes health care so different?

By: Carolyn Marbry

Carolyn Marbry — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:16:11 +0000

Susan,

Indeed, that seemed to me the point Root was trying to make. Between all the bickering over statistics about breast cancer and whether or not mammograms are effective at early diagnosis and treatment, people seemed to have lost sight of the fact that he used this as an example, so it seemed appropriate to reinforce at least THAT aspect of what he was saying.

That point is worthy of debate on its own, and the point about insurance companies — whether government-run or private — making decisions about people’s care is also worthy of discussion. It’s one thing to discuss the problems with the present offering. It’s quite another to consider ways outside the box of fixing those problems.

Health care CANNOT BE a free market because the market is not rational on the demand side. That’s a critical element of the whole supply-demand balance — rational evaluation of any transaction. When the buyer may lose his life if he does not buy, he will pay any price the supplier asks. That’s why we can’t simply turn the whole ruddy business over to the free market. At the same time, the opposite extreme will have us all living with a medicare-like system or worse. I applaud any attempt at compromise and recognize readily that there can be no perfect solution. But we have to try.

By: Susan Hogarth

Susan Hogarth — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:33:30 +0000

Carolyn,

No, I’m saying they should let doctors and patients decide what is appropriate care, not bean counters.

This discussion was provoked by a *recommendation*, which is just that – letting ‘doctors and patients decide’.

By: Susan Hogarth

Susan Hogarth — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:31:17 +0000

I’m curious (mildly, not passionately, curious) as to whether Root gets yearly mammograms for his daughter. After all, even very young women get breast cancer, and I know Root wouldn’t be so callous as to ‘ration’ healthcare costs for his family…

By: Carolyn Marbry

Carolyn Marbry — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:06:48 +0000

My read of Mr. Root’s article is admittedly canted in a more Libertarian light than perhaps even he intended. It seems to me that he is pointing out the fact that this program is a failure before it’s even out of the gate, having to resort to cutting obviously life-saving screenings in order to be financially viable, and that it should be abandoned wholesale.
The simple truth about government-run medical care is that yes, if the program doesn’t pay for it, in some cases, it IS prohibited, of not because the cost for a private citizen is too high, because a doctor caught stepping outside the system is penalized.
True story: My father was a heart surgeon (before he became an attorney), and he invented a procedure in the 80s that used a tiny blade to scrape out the insides of arteries. They’d been using a laser to do so, but the laser tended to burn through the arterial walls. This little blade cleared arteries and gave a lot of people the ability to walk again.
Medicare said no, you can’t do that procedure because it’s cheaper to simply cut off the limb. Cheaper operation to cut off the leg, resulting in lower mobility (meaning less likelihood of further injury) and earlier death according to their tables, which further reduced their costs. As they put it in one letter to my dad, “If you clear the arteries now, you are likely to have to do it again later.” Gee, not if you cut off the leg. How frugal of them.
They tried to stop him from being able even to offer the procedure to patients who could pay for it because he was a “participating physician” and could lose that status if he stepped outside “procedure.”
Fortunately, he retired from medicine after that and went to law school.

That, my droogs, is what you have to look forward to with government run health care. Am I saying they should spend more money? No, I’m saying they should let doctors and patients decide what is appropriate care, not bean counters. It’s bad enough to do this to our elderly and our poor. It’s quite another thing entirely to mandate DMV-style care for everyone.

By: paulie

paulie — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:12:25 +0000

I remember thinking of the liberty train analogy independently. That is, before I read it anywhere. I know I wasn’t the first to do so, though.

By: Robert Capozzi

Robert Capozzi — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:51:20 +0000

around, yes, yes I have. Coiner of the Liberty Train may’ve been Gene Burns….

Sounds like you may be a supporter of the St. Louis Accord…

By: Aroundtheblockafewtimes

Aroundtheblockafewtimes — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:05:49 +0000

Always must be advocating in the direction of less net coercion. How fast, when to stop, etc. are all debatable but the direction isn’t. I’m sure you’ve heard the Liberty Train analogy.

By: Robert Capozzi

Robert Capozzi — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:20:00 +0000

around, surely the “switching” part is contra-indicated. Advocating more liberty on net and then promoting more coercion is not something I care to be party to.

However, the Grand Conversation between Ls who are absolutist, abolitionist, anarchists and those who are not very much revolves around 2 keys issues:

- How specific must an L vision be?
- Is someone NOT L if he or she advocates (or opposes) the “doable” over a certain timeframe?

For ex., if an L candidate criticizes ObamaCare (as Root and Kennedy are doing now) and, say, advocates increasing HSAs, if he or she NOT a L?

Or, put another way, is it IMPERATIVE that a L candidate MUST have an X-year plan to abolish Medicare and Medicaid, for ex.?

If not, why not?

By: Aroundtheblockafewtimes

Aroundtheblockafewtimes — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:14:37 +0000

Yes, because one has to avoid “bait and switch” tactics. (Obama is a master at this.)

I see nothing wrong with Libertarians taking a realistic position: “We have to get government out of providing health care issues in the long run and here are our concrete doable ways of winding it down over the next generation…”

By: Robert Capozzi

Robert Capozzi — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:24:59 +0000

Around 27: If you don’t like government rationing or an open-ended budget for Medicare, then one has to advocate the abolishment of Medicare.

Me: Has to? This is an imperative? Wow! What if, for ex., you had a time machine and you could test your theory.

Scenario A: Advocate abolition of Medicare today. Flash forward 30 years, and find nothing changed.

Scenario B: Advocate unwinding government from health care. Flash forward 30 years, and government is largely out of health care.

With those results, Around, would you STILL hold to your imperative? If so, why so?

By: me

me — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:23:09 +0000

“Most women hear only about the benefits of mammograms, and few realize that doctors have been hotly debating their use for more than a decade, says Steve Woloshin, a physician at the Veterans Affairs Outcomes Group in White River Junction, Vt.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-11-24-mammogram24ONLINE_ST_N.htm

By: Michael H. Wilson

Michael H. Wilson — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:59:46 +0000

Hope this puts an end to this story.

“Dr. [ Susan]Love noted that not all medical groups agreed with the cancer society’s guidelines. Some recommend no screening for women under 50 or over 70, and some advise mammograms only every other year. In European countries that screen every other year, she said, the breast cancer death rates are no higher than in the United States.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/health/03second.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Dr.%20Otis%20Brawley,&st=cse

By: me

me — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:15:36 +0000

“Would I put it pass either of the two political parties to put womens’ health in danger to appease BIG PHARMA”

Should Read: “Would I put it past either of the two political parties to put womens’ health in danger to appease the FOR-PROFIT HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY?”

Long day.

By: me

me — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:01:44 +0000

“The Federal Government’s decision to not fund mammograms for 40 to 50 year old woman is for one reason only”

This quote from Dr Lieberman is false: no government official has not stated at all anywhere that they will not fund mammograms for women 40 to 50 (except Repubicans who are trying to spread this conspiracy). Please cite your source for this, Dr Lieberman.