Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Proposition 101 in Arizona: Defeated?

With 100% of the precincts reporting, Proposition 101 in Arizona might die by the narrowest of margins:
For: 920,341 (49.8%)   Against: 928,452 (50.2%)   Precincts reporting: 100%
This is in stark contrast to few brave souls from the blog-o-sphere who voted here:
For: 9(81%)   Against: 2(18%)   Precincts reporting: 100%
Officially, the tally in Arizona is still considered too close to call.

Hey, if American Express and GM (not to mention half the financial system in America) can ask for a government bailout, why shouldn't everyone tap into the bottomless well of the US Treasury to supply their health care needs also?

-Wes

2 comments:

Keith Sarpolis said...

Wes,

The openless well is the ability of folks who produce products who give marginal if any benefit over their predessors and then convince insurers to cover these products. This includes several pharmaceuticals (think aspirin vs Plavix) and devices (Da Vinci robotic systems?) that are fueling the technological battle for hospitals to reign supreme with every cutting edge piece of equipment they can get their hands on and market to the public. One has to explain why our system of health care provides diminished results compared to other countries while costing in some cases twice as much. Otherwise, to limit the choice of considering single payer or mandated programs will continue us on our present path of self destruction. Health care is to some degree a necesity just like providing housing/food/heat (at least in Chicago) that requires subsiding some care (not all) for those in need. We can do it hapharzardly as we do presently, or it seems a more orderly and equitable way woudl be more in order The free market will not provide the answer you seek to our impending crisis. We need a basic package of care to provide all American citizens and those who wish more comprehensive coverage may obtain it (kind of sounds like Medicare; right?)

DrWes said...

Keith -

If only the politicians in Washington understood your reasoning. Instead, we are spun "health care for all" at "lower cost" without considering the implications of not fixing what is flawed in our current system. Instead, we see those that want to mandate employers and employees to buy even more heavily into the broken and ever-burgeoning bureaucratic system that is bankrupting our economy. Such a strategy will only promise bigger and bigger deductions in the future as we continue to wonder where the budget shortfalls are coming from. Meanwhile, all of the businesses and interests that gain handsomely from the current morass (be they device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, hospital systems, billing conglomerates, coding conglomerates, quality and credentialling interests, and IT conglomerates, etc.) are laughing all the way to the bank.

I agree a basic form of coverage is needed, but we still have not addressed many issues that are sensitive topics about who, specifically, we're covering. Take the illegal alien issue. Should we pay for their health care, too? What are their responsibilities to our system? Do they have any? Or do we just provide for all with no concern about the expense?

And that is just one portion of the "uninsured" no one wants to address.

But as you suggest, when people see a new huge deduction on their paychecks to pay for these expensive mandates, then maybe we'll get somewhere.