How Tom Daschle Might Kill Conservatism

creation of a Federal Health Board

The creation of a Federal Health Board sounds somewhat reminiscent of DHHS' National Center for Health Care Technology (1979-82) whose charge was to assess the value of established and new technologies. Although its tenure was short-lived, one should learn from the reasons for its demise.

Dennis Cotter of MD @ Dec 30, 2008 10:30:22 AM

Landslide

yes it is 52.9% to 45.7% is pretty dam convincing.. there was more then 10 million vote differential between the two. America has spoken very very clearly. Furthermore he was refering to electoral vote.. I thought republicans didnt care much for percentage or popular votes after 2000 election..

of TX @ Dec 11, 2008 20:34:03 PM

Landslide?

When the previous President claimed a mandate based on a .5% lead, he proceeded to make drastic changes in our government which resulted in declining incomes and a declining economy attributable to a war of choice. I think it is fair for President Obama to declare this a mandate, and it is fair for this reporter to call this election a landslide. Republicans lost the election because of the economy, and health care is an essential need which is unavailable completely to many who can not seek treatment under current government mandated programs with strict standards. McCain's position on health care was bad. It was not bad because he could not explain it. When people do not have money, they do not want to hear a plan for saving those non-existent capital resources. As to the point of the article, the Republican party will have to either accept this systems or create a viable private alternative. Unfortunately with the recent rash of corporate ethics controversies, 401ks disintegrating, and looming bankruptcy, the private market doesn't look as appealing. Most of the conservative parties in Europe have become more liberal and accepting of social programs of this nature. Once you value life over money, perhaps you will too.

Paul of NC @ Dec 09, 2008 13:39:30 PM

Party first?

So... let me get this straight: You don't want Obama's health plans to go through because you're afraid that people might actually like them? Socialized medicine makes about as much sense to me as socialized fire fighting, oh wait we have that already... Would you like to suggest a privatized police force as well?

Just admit it: there are some things that the government can do far better than the market and healthcare is one of them. The example you give in regard to the UK's NHS is absurd for your purposes. They have a better health system than we do so we should be studying it to see which elements would work best here. I'm not saying that socialized medicine is a panacea or that existing systems across the globe are without fault. There is a huge difference between "better" and "perfect".

Tyler Nearing of NY @ Dec 08, 2008 14:59:02 PM

It is time for a change. Too many people are are dying (upwards of 25,000 a year) because they cannot afford health care/necessary medications. Over a two year period. about 70 million people are at some point without health care.

Basic issue: health care should be a right in a civilized country! If it up to us working class seniors, we are going to make it happen for us and our children(Checkout the CHAMP bill in Congress).

Aaron Beckerman of @ Nov 30, 2008 19:31:23 PM

Highest Costs, Poor Outcomes

Foreign doctors love to come here to practice because despite the reductions in compensation to physicians, they still make very good livings in the USA.

Doctors want to convince you that our system is better than in any other nation but the numbers suggest otherwise.

16% of the GDP is up from 10% a few years ago and the percentage is expected to grow to 20% by 2020.

Our life expectancy is roughly 21st among the industrialized world.

Our infant mortality rates are also roughly 21st among the industrialized world.

We deliver healthcare in much the same way it was delivered 40-50 years ago with care poorly communicated (lack of IT); much redundant care (misaligned financial incentives); physicians able to prescribe services in areas where they own the technology needed to fulfill the service (CT's, MRI's, nuclear medicine studies, surgery centers, etc.); etc.

Health premiums for a family of four now exceeds the federal minimum wage in the US.

If healthcare reform means that we can at last overcome all of the special interest groups so we can improve outcomes and lower costs, I'm all for it. I believe it's going to take a Federal Health Board (structured like the Federal Reserve Board) to keep politics out of the healthcare debate. After all, people from both parties would like to see costs controlled and fewer uninsured.

Andy of OR @ Nov 26, 2008 13:49:06 PM

Daschle Plan for a Federal Health Board

If we want healthcare spending and the inequities of the current system to continue at their present rate of change, we should perpetuate the current system of incentives and disincentives.

Special interest groups are extremely successful in maintaining the status quo. Any attempt to be proscriptive in communicating a detailed plan to change the existing systems is sure to be met with fear mongering. Why should the special interest groups (the AMA, the American Hospital Association, drug companies, insurance companies, and supply companies) articulate a detailed plan to change our existing system when all they have to do is attach a label like, "Obamacare" or "socialized medicine" and they can effectively dissuade millions of Americans from changing our system?

Daschle, in his book, "What We Can Do About the Healthcare Crisis," recognizes the power of these special interest groups and suggests that Congress is incapable of keeping politics from affecting their decisions on healthcare. He acknowledges the complexity of the issues and suggests forming a Federal Health Board insulated from the political pressures associated with the normal legislative process. He points out that the Federal Reserve Board was established for much the same reasons that we need a Federal Health Board . . . . that a higher level of expertise is needed as is insulation from the many special interest groups.

Daschle queries, can you imagine how political the setting of interest rates would be if Congress made decisions on the federal funds interest rate?

I've been in hospital administration for 26 years and the problems to be overcome cannot be solved without mandated changes. Many of the needed mandates will save money . . . . but the people who benefit may not be the people who are asked to expend the resources to derive the benefits, i.e., information technology expenditures by hospitals will benefit insurance companies and governmental payers directly through lower healthcare utilization. Thus, we need to have an oversight group who can function independently (but who is accountable to Congress) so that we can begin to make some of the changes that are easy to make but which have been virtually impossible due to our system of misaligned financial incentives.

We currently spend 16% of our GDP on healthcare and that percentage is expected to grow to 20% by 2020.

I'm a conservative who thinks Daschle is on-target with his plan for a Federal Health Board that begins to reshape our national healthcare delivery system with the objective of reducing waste, aligning incentives, retaining both private and public payer sources, identifying and communicating best practices, treating the uninsured population before their conditions become expensive and advanced, retaining provider choice, and reducing costs.

Andrew Rybolt of OR @ Nov 26, 2008 13:30:42 PM

Um, okay.

Where to begin?

73$ of the American people think the healthcare and health insurance systems in the United States are not working very well.

McCain's idea, to force everyone onto the free market with the aid of a $5000 tax credit, was roundly defeated with the election of Barack Obama. They liked his healthcare proposal better.

But hey, I'm sure you know what's best for all of us. And of course, you have no vested interest here, do you?

Too many lies going aroound about universal healthcare, and I would know. My fiance was born in the UK and has lived his life under the NHS. He doesn't wait for care. He is seen regularly and on time by his physician and his dentist. Their program was instilled after WWII and it's been chugging along just fine, thanks. As a large part of the population in the UK ages, they are trying to figure out how to save money - but it's hardly like people are just dying in the ER waiting room. (Like they do in America...)

However, universal healthcare isn't even what Obama is offering. That's another distortion. What he's trying to do is get everyone health coverage. It could be privately, or they could buy into the Federal Plan that President Obama and Senator McCain themselve enjoy. The main thing is to get people on a plan, so that they are receiving well care and will see a doctor instead of just turn up in an ER when things go horribly wrong. The latter is the reason that healthcare costs spiral out of control. Any health insurer will verify that.

I believe that every American has the right to good, affordable medical care. I believe that every American should be protected from bankruptcy by insurance. I believe that Americans get very, very little for their healthcare dollars - much less than in other countries. I believe we deserve better adult, child and infant mortality rates and lower instances of cancer, heart disease and stroke. Maintenance care will go a long way to early diagnosis and treatment.

That is why everyone should have affordable healthcare and insurance. Not the crap we have with ever-rising premiums, deductibles, co-pays, and the like.

This article, and those who claim that we should let the market solve each and every healthcare crisis, are dead wrong. I hope you, and your fellow citizens never have to find out how wrong you are.

xysea of FL @ Nov 25, 2008 15:20:35 PM