I decided to take today off. I’m only reading stuff that isn’t directly related to diagnostic pathology. So, I picked up the monthly newsletter from the MSMA (Missouri State Medical Association). It laid out the healthcare bill in a simplified format, and stated point by point why it doesn’t support it (in contrast to the AMA). They bring up some good points. I was on the fence before regarding if I want this bill to pass, but I’ve decided I hope it doesn’t. Regulating insurance companies and requiring people to have health insurance are good things, and I think laws need to be passed to make this stuff happen. There are a bunch of problems though: (1) It does nothing for torte reform. Obama said frivolous lawsuits only account for like 1% of healthcare spending. That doesn’t take defensive medicine into account. (2) It doesn’t eliminate SGR (“sustainable growth rate,” a built in system in medicare that decreases spending by decreasing the amount physicians are reimbursed for services). (3) It creates a new bureaucracy with power to independently control medicare at a pretty extreme level. (4) According to the newsletter, the bill would “effectively ban” the development of physician owned hospitals. Read more...(219 words, 1 image, estimated 53 secs reading time)
Overall I don’t think the specific concern (“if doctors would be required to accept forced-on-us healthcare plans”) would become a huge problem. I know what this argument is getting at though. Medicare doesn’t pay doctors as much as private insurance. If their was a government option, it would pay as much as medicare. Cuts in medicare spending are a constant threat to control costs. “Cuts in medicare spending” translates exactly to paying physicians less for specific services. I’d be a lot more concerned if the government option was still part of the bill. Read more...(261 words, 1 image, estimated 1:03 mins reading time)
This is an example of one of the worst conditions ever. Parts of the brain that allow a person to move are damaged, but parts responsible for sensation and cognition still function to a degree. It can be hard to diagnose, but this fMRI stuff will probably make the diagnosis a lot easier. As far as the ethical stuff is concerned…we’re standing on the doorstep of a catastrophe in the healthcare system, directly related to rising costs. This condition is rare compared to the number of people who truly become vegetables because of less selective brain damage. I cared for armloads of them at St. Joe’s. It costs ungodly amounts of money to keep someone with either condition “alive.” Costs have to be cut somewhere. Metaphorically speaking, we either cut mammography for 40 year old mothers with early breast cancer, or we stop keeping vegetables “alive,” even if there is the off chance they have a spark of consciousness somewhere. Read more...(307 words, 4 images, estimated 1:14 mins reading time)
I still don’t have much love for the Creationist movement, but this Ben Stein movie is hilarious. It, among other things, follows scientists who were blacklisted for being associated with “intelligent design.” It’s pretty well done. Made me laugh.
The problem I have with the word ”patriotism” is that it is inseparable from loyalty to ones country, and that (in general) it only comes into common use when we are at war. When we are at war, one is considered patriotic if one is willing to either go kill people for our country, or support those who go kill people for our country. Most wars in history (including those we have fought) are grossly immoral. Just read any book written by someone who served in WWI. As I said earlier, there were lots of great patriots in Nazi Germany. Read more...(162 words, 1 image, estimated 39 secs reading time)
Craziness. I actually don’t know how to feel. I’m totally behind increased health insurance regulation, but this bill was getting out of hand. This last deal with the unions was a bit much. The Nevada thing was somewhat forgivable. The senator was looking out for his constituency. That’s totally fair. But this deal with the unions (partially exempting their insurance from the status of “Cadillac health insurance”) was ridiculous even from my point of view. It was done to keep union financial support for the democrats. That’s really, really, really partisan. I don’t see how the country could possibly benefit from that. The American people can’t stand for that kind of politics. We’ve apparently spoken in Massachusetts.
Here’s some more Noisy Dove ranting for you. Since calling my honest conclusions a Noisy Dove rant seems to make you feel superior – or less threatened perhaps
Hey now. There’s no need to get offensive. You were ranting. You love ranting.Read more...(353 words, 3 images, estimated 1:25 mins reading time)
For Noisy Dove: Ok, that was a beautiful Noisy Dove political rant, but you’re missing my point. I’ll try to explain. Read more...(268 words, 1 image, estimated 1:04 mins reading time)
OK, so I’ve finally gotten a free minute to think about something other than cancer. I’m back in the conversation. Read more...(527 words, 5 images, estimated 2:06 mins reading time)
Obama’s no more of a left wing nut than Bush was a right wing nut (which he wasn’t). I’m not saying he wasn’t aterrible president. He just didn’t try Laissez faire capitalism or making unions illegal. No a right wing nut. Read more...(349 words, 2 images, estimated 1:24 mins reading time)
I decided to take today off. I’m only reading stuff that isn’t directly related to diagnostic pathology. So, I picked up the monthly newsletter from the MSMA (Missouri State Medical Association). It laid out the healthcare bill in a simplified format, and stated point by point why it doesn’t support it (in contrast to the AMA). They bring up some good points. I was on the fence before regarding if I want this bill to pass, but I’ve decided I hope it doesn’t. Regulating insurance companies and requiring people to have health insurance are good things, and I think laws need to be passed to make this stuff happen. There are a bunch of problems though: (1) It does nothing for torte reform. Obama said frivolous lawsuits only account for like 1% of healthcare spending. That doesn’t take defensive medicine into account. (2) It doesn’t eliminate SGR (“sustainable growth rate,” a built in system in medicare that decreases spending by decreasing the amount physicians are reimbursed for services). (3) It creates a new bureaucracy with power to independently control medicare at a pretty extreme level. (4) According to the newsletter, the bill would “effectively ban” the development of physician owned hospitals. 
Overall I don’t think the specific concern (“if doctors would be required to accept forced-on-us healthcare plans”) would become a huge problem. I know what this argument is getting at though. Medicare doesn’t pay doctors as much as private insurance. If their was a government option, it would pay as much as medicare. Cuts in medicare spending are a constant threat to control costs. “Cuts in medicare spending” translates exactly to paying physicians less for specific services. I’d be a lot more concerned if the government option was still part of the bill. 
This is an example of one of the worst conditions ever. Parts of the brain that allow a person to move
are damaged, but parts responsible for sensation and cognition still function to a degree. It can be hard to diagnose, but this fMRI stuff will probably make the diagnosis a lot easier. As far as the ethical stuff is concerned…we’re standing on the doorstep of a catastrophe in the healthcare system, directly related to rising costs. This condition is rare compared to the number of people who truly become vegetables because of less selective brain damage. I cared for armloads of them at St. Joe’s. It costs ungodly amounts of money to keep someone with either condition “alive.” Costs have to be cut somewhere. Metaphorically speaking, we either cut mammography for 40 year old mothers with early breast cancer, or we stop keeping vegetables “alive,” even if there is the off chance they have a spark of consciousness somewhere.
The problem I have with the word ”patriotism” is that it is inseparable from loyalty to ones country, and that (in general) it only comes into common use when we are at war. When we are at war, one is considered patriotic if one is willing to either go kill people for our country, or support those who go kill people for our country. Most wars in history (including those we have fought) are grossly immoral. Just read any book written by someone who served in WWI. As I said earlier, there were lots of great patriots in Nazi Germany. 
Here’s some more Noisy Dove ranting for you. Since calling my honest conclusions a Noisy Dove rant seems to make you feel superior – or less threatened perhaps
For Noisy Dove: Ok, that was a beautiful Noisy Dove political rant, but you’re missing my point. I’ll try to explain. 
OK, so I’ve finally gotten a free minute to think about something other than cancer. I’m back in the conversation. 
terrible president. He just didn’t try Laissez faire capitalism or making unions illegal. No a right wing nut. 
Raging Kitty Design