The 2017 project
This looks like a very interesting website. I haven’t had time to peruse it, but just a glance indicates it’s worth studying.
One of the features is a proposal for a conservative alternative to Obamacare. Again, I haven’t read it so I can’t say what I think of it, but I plan to. Here’s a summary:
It would solve the three core problems that called out for real reform even before the Democrats passed Obamacare: getting more people insured; dealing with the problem of preexisting conditions; and lowering costs. In providing politically attractive and substantively sound solutions to these three core concerns, it would justify bringing an end to Obamacare, and thus would pave the way for full repeal.
Just as important as what our proposal would do is what it wouldn’t do. It wouldn’t force anyone to buy insurance. It wouldn’t auto-enroll anyone in any plan. It wouldn’t reduce the tax break for employer-based insurance (aside from closing the tax loophole at the high end). It wouldn’t cost anywhere near the $2 trillion over a decade that Obamacare would cost. It wouldn’t undermine religious liberty. It would allow Americans to keep their current plan if they like it.
I think that last horse (the final sentence of the quote) has already left the barn, though.
If “getting more people insured; dealing with the problem of preexisting conditions; and lowering costs” are the targets, they are fraudulent targets, selected to appeal to the emotive non-thinkers which are the majority among us, who have no clue as to moral hazard and adverse selection.
Getting more people insured only matters because of 1) lust for their premium dollars (The ever-caring Dems), and 2) the Federal unfunded mandate that Emergency Rooms see all comers regardless of ability to pay.
The ‘problem’ of pre-existing conditions is only a problem for those who wish insurance costs were not based on risk as all insurance must rationally be based, those that wish for an almost-free lunch.
‘Lowering costs’ appeals to the economically ignorant, the people who think MRs are too expensive, that biologic drugs should cost no more than aspirin, that inflation does not exist, that Big Government in the guise of the FDA is there only to keep us safely out of the hands of Big Pharma.
Reading about this crap makes me sick.
Skip the foreplay and go straight to lower costs.
That’s the game played by Silicon Valley.
If everything cost half as much as currently, the other issues would fade away.
BTW, many of the famous “pre-existing conditions” that the insurers are gagging on are TERMINAL illnesses. They are horrifically expensive because physicians can’t move change the outcomes and it’s a long (painful) ride to the end.
This situation will always be with us. Foolproof solutions will always run into bigger fools.
It’s impossible for Big Momma to legislate away our universal mortal tragedy: at the end, we all die.
Modern America — until now — has been of the weird luxury of throwing endless resources at hopeless situations.
%%%
Of those I know, I find it universally true that the most pleasant, moral compass accept their mortality quite well…
Those of strained, psychopathic impulses live in terror of final judgment, even hypochondriacal, I’d say.
%%%
As for hypertension:
Only at this late date, medicine is coming around to the comprehension that low grade infections are the dominant source of inflammation within the cardio system — the trigger for hypertension.
It’s actually a form of s l o w rolling shock. The injuries are non-obvious — yet chronic. So far, medicine is still working on bandage drugs.
The conceptual leap is only now coming into view.
http://www.newlinemedical.com/assets/images/gui/Gum%20disease%20is%20killing%20our%20patients.pdf
%%%
As for backaches:
Fully half of all low grade, chronic, lower backaches are now known to be cured by ANTIBIOTICS.
But, it’s a slow rolled cure. It takes not ten — but 100 days for the antibiotics to do their trick.
Like ulcers, this, once comprehended, will put many a back surgeon out of his practice.
The actual cause of the suffering was ALWAYS a low grade infection — via itsy-bitsy bacteria that are tiny by even the standards of plain vanilla bacteria. They are able to thrive in our cartilage… with a metabolism more akin to lichen. This slow growth tempo means that they come on as an ‘ache.’ No connection is made by the person or his physician to being suddenly infected.
Indeed, the entire field of medicine has NEVER gotten its mind around S L O W pathogens.
%%%
Which brings us to the big one, CANCER:
This is a cover for an entire phylum: the fungi which live in mammals.
These attack our bodies without let up. They live on our deaths, to include dead tissue, big and small.
This means that when alveoli are destroyed by a smoking habit they are opportunistically attacked by wafer thin fungi — that have wafted in on the wind. Once they can take foot in the lungs, they replicate. They feed and defend themselves by resetting the victim’s nearby DNA into total growth mode. This latch is a consistent trigger across mammalia. The resetting trigger/poison is emitted — and can travel off to distant organs. This is termed metastasis.
Pathologists persistently look straight past fungal infections — which are rampant in cancer cadavers — because they have an alternate explanation in their minds. In this they are replicating the H. pylori rationalization that blocked any cure for ulcers — for generations. The evidence was in their faces all along. The larger public was never informed of any of this. Unlike the serious sciences, medicine keeps secrets for the brotherhood.
BTW, some fungi are essentially invisible. They are that thin.
Like gum infections, the fungal attack is a S L O W one.
Whereas, ‘everything’ in medicine is expected to happen quickly… including threats to life. The speed-up mentality is taught in medical college. This is where and when all doctors are graded on how fast that they can rush to judgment. While useful in a MASH unit, it’s otherwise actually bad practice.
The human body is a very complicated place.
The primary difference between a hero and a villain is that the hero is perfectly satisfied by judged by his ethical authority system. The villain, however, would not be fine under the villain’s system and thus will need to escape it once the tables are turned.
It appears your attempt to spur dialogue on this topic is, oddly, stillborn, Neo. Three responses in 24 hrs, and two seem OT, at least to me.
“…many of the famous “pre-existing conditions” that the insurers are gagging on are TERMINAL illnesses. They are horrifically expensive because physicians can’t move change the outcomes and it’s a long (painful) ride to the end.”
I know of friends and coworkers (who became entrepreneurs – thus faced the individual market) where even minor conditions were enough to have the insurance companies deny them – so this statement misses an important segment of the issue.
Fact is, adverse selection is the nature of BOTH SIDES of the insurance equation. As we all age, we would ALL eventually lose our coverage were it not for some provision to prevent that.
Sure, a market based system that encourages saving over a lifetime can cover our needs in old age. The issue is, since we’ve never had an open market, how do we get from here to there. Politically it is impossible without some mechanism that deals with it.
Project 2017 talks all about ensuring pre-existing conditions cannot prevent one from moving from employer provided coverage to the individual market, AND from premium increases (presumably over a set limit). If that were all, there are all kinds of ways the insurance company can make up the difference. Project 2017 does not address those…deductibles, copays, co-insurance, in-network providers, etc.. If they don’t talk about these things, then they are leaving out a huge hole that the Dems will blast right through.
Rather than all these complications, why not simply offer a voucher for every person for catastrophic only coverage (with maximum annual out of pocket to prevent bankruptcy…not the mixed, prepaid healthcare that is today’s norm). If people want more, they can buy it with their own money. Insurance companies must accept the voucher, but can up-sell their plans. Open up insurance to a national marketplace vs state level (and selective counties/zipcodes) that participating insurance companies must offer (or make it regional). Eliminate tax incentives altogether for employer provided insurance, as the voucher covers the minimum.
Is this the perfect marketplace ideal we want to see…no. But it is closer than even the Project 2017 plan, and would be more market oriented without all the complications with tax, etc. that they mention. The real kicker is that it is probably more politically sellable.