Video: Times Square Obama Afghanistan Protest Arrests
New Photo Brings Flying Overweight Debate Back
AA's "Fat Flier" Got Whole Row
State Sen. Savino Gets Noticed For Impassioned Gay Marriage Speech
Teen Gets Two Years For Killing Kitten
A marketing effort, protesting Governor Paterson's proposed health care cuts, from Greater New York Hospital Association and health care union 1199 is blasted as a "low blow" by the NY Post and gets a NY Times editorial. Referring to how a wheelchair-bound blind man asks the governor, "Why are you doing this to me?" in a TV ad, the Times writes, "A better question should go to the health unions and hospitals paying for these ads. Mainly, why are you doing this — again? Frightening citizens and trying to intimidate officials working to make sense of health care spending and balance the state budget fairly?" State Department of Health Commissioner Richard Daines wasn't amused by the ads, "There's a passage in Jeremiah that says something like, 'Foolish people who even having eyes do not see.' I think we're really concerned about people who have the eyes to see the problem and aren't choosing to see them."
Criticism Over Health Care Ads Targeting Paterson
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookComments (9) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Tips
Newsmap
Contribute
Latest Tip:
Crazy woman on the subway. This is too great not to post!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOCbij4lgl
[more]
Everybody will benefit when the health care debate tackles the issue of why it's so damn expensive in the first place regardless who pays for it, the state, the employer or the individual. A huge step in the right direction would be some sensible tort reform but that's not likely to happen as the trial lawyer lobby has Washington in a headlock.
Referring to how a wheelchair-bound blind man asks the governor, "Why are you doing this to me?" in a TV ad
what's the big deal? patterson won't be able to tell the guy is blind.
A huge step in the right direction would be some sensible tort reform
Wow, what a surprising recommendation. You're really thinking outside the box there, Ides.
My take would seem to be even more Republican - by blinding both physicians and patients to the cost of everything, people make wasteful decisions. They think that if insurance is paying for it, it's "free" for them (or more accurately, that they paid for it already so they might as well get their money's worth.) There are many ailments Americans suffer from that are preventable, but people are not motivated to do the inexpensive preventive work of diet, exercise, quitting smoking etc.
What I said above only covers consumers, but the effect of cost-blind care gives doctors a HUGE incentive to keep the cash register ringing at the expense of common-sensical care. If you are a heart surgeon, you'll be rewarded for cracking people open, even if their illness can be effectively treated with drugs. If the insurance companies lower payments for simple things, doctors just gravitate to the practices that pay.
Speaking of costs: the doctors are obliged to waste a lot of time and resources on tests that aren't really necessary just to cover their asses in case of a lawsuit. That also gets passed along to the patient.
I'm not that old but I remember the days (as recently as the late 80's) you just went to your family physician, more often than not, he took care of what was wrong and you paid his bill which was reasonable, and usually about what a co-pay is now. I remember having minor surgery right there in the examining room costing about 300 bucks. No outrageously expensive middleman to pay and torment you with endless paperwork.
I knew you were going to cite the ass-covering tests. I think that's a canard. If anything, they run lots of test because, guess what, that makes the cash register ring. You'll be back for your follow-up, then another, then another. (Meanwhile, if your chart was computerized and passed from physician to physician, they would have a better big picture. How many *redundant* tests have you had?)
What's the difference between the "good old days" with your trusty GP and now? Everyone's a fucking specialist, and they push their specialty. Ka-ching.
I'm far from an expert on this, as someone will no doubt point out, but I can see it from my direct experience with the industry (rather than pushing some party line.)
If the doc in question is pushing for a battery of tests in a facility in his office, yes, he's likely padding his pockets. If he's getting kickbacks from another source, that's a federal offence.
Otherwise, he's either covering his ass, dumb, lazy, placating a demanding patient, or a combination of the above. The latter is much more common.
Bottom line is that the insurance companies of today are basically the mafia of yesterday... pay up or else something might happen.
Health care reform isn't going anywhere with the trial lawyers and insurance companies entrenched as they are.
Single payor and indemnification are mandatory for any national health system to work as intended.