Showing posts with label healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label healthcare. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
A good solution for the 27 or so "NHS" of the EU
A good solution for the 27 or so "NHS" of the EU is not to dismantle or privatise them but to merge them into one (economies of scale). That was in my opinion one of the rationales of the Single Market (merge national "utilities" into EU ones).
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
2012: Every vote and yard will count in the US political "running game"
These are my comments re "Obama 2012 Campaign Manager Paints Challenging Picture for Supporters", ABC News, April 25, 2011:
Obama would have much more to show for in his first had it not been for the destructive dogmatic wall built by the GOP esp in the Senate, certain US media as well lobbies, eg the ones that fought and econtinue to fight against Obamacare tooth & nail.
Obama would have much more to show for in his first had it not been for the destructive dogmatic wall built by the GOP esp in the Senate, certain US media as well lobbies, eg the ones that fought and econtinue to fight against Obamacare tooth & nail.
Thus 2013-2016 will simply be the 2nd half.. of a "Superbowl" political & policy battle that started in 2009. For US healthcare refom and many other policies that were delayed or blocked by the GOP et al in the "first half", 2009-2012, especially in the "first quarter" 2009-2010.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Economic immigrants will save the European Social Model
The way to address the aging population of EU effect on state finances in UK, Greece, France, etc, is not by dismantling their Social Models (eg see changes in the NHS) but by adopting a more open (realistic & humanist at the same time) policy (by EU & member states) on economic migration to the EU. Thus enrich the revenue base of the healthcare and other welfare systems instead of dismantling them.
Friday, March 26, 2010
healthcare dynamics in Europe and effect of Obamacare
Is US healthcare reform success going to discourage those who wish to dismantle universal healthcare in Europe and privatise it?
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Some comments on Obama's State of the Union Speech and his ability to "sell' his policies
Great speech but:
IMO Obama was right to partly blame himself for not explaining his healthcare reform to the people. But when will he do it? Can he (or anyone else, any policy)? IMO Obama is a victim of the fact that most policies, by design, are hard to explain. He's a great speaker but even he cannot sell them.
Obama should propose a national US referendum on healthcare reform and in general take his policies to the people, not Congress. But the problem, for any leader these days, again, IMO is: How can one "sell" or "explain" to the people complex and often over-complicated policies - bills such as the healthcare reform one?
PS. I agree with Obama's views on lobbying but how does he define "foreign" corporations? Plus: Are American corporations not lobbying "abroad"?
IMO Obama was right to partly blame himself for not explaining his healthcare reform to the people. But when will he do it? Can he (or anyone else, any policy)? IMO Obama is a victim of the fact that most policies, by design, are hard to explain. He's a great speaker but even he cannot sell them.
Obama should propose a national US referendum on healthcare reform and in general take his policies to the people, not Congress. But the problem, for any leader these days, again, IMO is: How can one "sell" or "explain" to the people complex and often over-complicated policies - bills such as the healthcare reform one?
PS. I agree with Obama's views on lobbying but how does he define "foreign" corporations? Plus: Are American corporations not lobbying "abroad"?
Friday, January 8, 2010
The status of the US healthcare reform
The saga continues:
The US Senate and #House of Representatives are now (since the beginning of the week) trying to merge their healthcare reform bills!
The US Senate and #House of Representatives are now (since the beginning of the week) trying to merge their healthcare reform bills!
Thursday, December 24, 2009
US Senate's version of the healthcare bill (finally) passes
After 24 days (!!) of "debate" and delay tactics by many of it members, the US Senate's version of the healthcare reform bill was adopted by 60 votes (58 Dems and 2 independents) to 39.
Now the Senate's bill and the House's bill must be reconciled, in mid-January. Notably, the House bill does include a public option, unlike the Senate's.
Under the Senate's bill, private insurers are not allowed to refuse to provide insurance because of an applicant's "pre-existing medical conditions" and makes insurance mandatory for almost all Americans, yet without a public option or at extension of Medicare to 55-64 year olds, not even via a pay-in scheme.
Now the Senate's bill and the House's bill must be reconciled, in mid-January. Notably, the House bill does include a public option, unlike the Senate's.
Under the Senate's bill, private insurers are not allowed to refuse to provide insurance because of an applicant's "pre-existing medical conditions" and makes insurance mandatory for almost all Americans, yet without a public option or at extension of Medicare to 55-64 year olds, not even via a pay-in scheme.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Breakthrough in the Senate Healthcare reform bill?
It appears that a 60th member of the US Senate has agreed to support the Senate's version of the bill and that thus debate will finally end on Monday and the bill will pass after a vote.
This is because it seems that an agreement was reached late on Friday on language that resolves Senator Ben Nelson's concerns that federal funds will not be used to fund abortions under the Senate bill.
The House of Reps has already passed its own bill, on November 7, that that version included stricter anti-abortion language favored by Senator Nelson, yet, last week the Senate (somehow?) rejected an amendment that would have incorporating the same language as in the House's version in the Senate bill!!!!!
Anyway, the Senate's bill extends coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans by providing subsidies to help them pay for the health coverage and by stopping refusals to insure people with pre-existing medical conditions. The "collateral damage" of the bill is a) the removal of plans for a government-run insurance option and b) the removal of an expansion of the Medicare government health program for the elderly to 55-64 year olds (even of a pay-in option).
Notably, President Obama's "Weekly Address: The Patient's Bill of Rights and Health Reform" video had been posted on the White House's website (White House Blog)on December 19, at 12:00 AM EST!
In his address, President Obama looks back to the bipartisan Patient's Bill of Rights, a bill that was defeated in Congress, according to the Pres., at the hands of special interests and their supporters, and notes that health insurance reform covers the same ground and much more in terms of giving the consumers the upper hand over their insurance companies. He then calls on the Senate to allow an up-or-down vote, and for those opposing reform to stop using parliamentary maneuvers to drag it out.
This is because it seems that an agreement was reached late on Friday on language that resolves Senator Ben Nelson's concerns that federal funds will not be used to fund abortions under the Senate bill.
The House of Reps has already passed its own bill, on November 7, that that version included stricter anti-abortion language favored by Senator Nelson, yet, last week the Senate (somehow?) rejected an amendment that would have incorporating the same language as in the House's version in the Senate bill!!!!!
Anyway, the Senate's bill extends coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans by providing subsidies to help them pay for the health coverage and by stopping refusals to insure people with pre-existing medical conditions. The "collateral damage" of the bill is a) the removal of plans for a government-run insurance option and b) the removal of an expansion of the Medicare government health program for the elderly to 55-64 year olds (even of a pay-in option).
Notably, President Obama's "Weekly Address: The Patient's Bill of Rights and Health Reform" video had been posted on the White House's website (White House Blog)on December 19, at 12:00 AM EST!
In his address, President Obama looks back to the bipartisan Patient's Bill of Rights, a bill that was defeated in Congress, according to the Pres., at the hands of special interests and their supporters, and notes that health insurance reform covers the same ground and much more in terms of giving the consumers the upper hand over their insurance companies. He then calls on the Senate to allow an up-or-down vote, and for those opposing reform to stop using parliamentary maneuvers to drag it out.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Does Obama need to toughen up?
IMO Barack Obama is an amazing person. Among other things, he is very well educated and an international and multi-culti experience unparalleled by any other US President, rare even among past and present country leaders around the world.
He is part of a generation and type of leaders who can inspire and communicate and seek consensus rather than play political hardball. Yet, 11 months after his inauguration with a clear mandate by the US voters for Change, in a phase of US and world challenges that are, each, a Gordian Cord, and following the troubles of his healthcare reform in Congress, is it not maybe time for Obama to toughen up, politically, to get a significant US healthcare reform past the dire straits of especially the Senate and then finally move on to other crucial dossiers?
Recent polls indicate that his approval ratings have gone below 50%, but that is not IMO the point. The point is that the people voted him in with a clear mandate for Chnage and that a significant change in healthcare is a core part of that. Does he need to take his case to the people and use his skills and knowledge to convince them that real reform in healthcare is the only solution consistent with Change? And that all members of Congress, and especially the Senate, who are standing in the way are responsible for failing them, the people?
Is it Democrats who are willing to vote for healthcare reform who should be worrying about the re-election chances or Republicans who are standing in the way of Change?
Time for Obama to toughen up and call and spade a spade?
--------
PS. December 18, 2009 at 12:10 PM EST, Dan Pfeiffer, White House Communications Director, posted a post titled "The Time for Political Games is Over" at The White House Blog.
Inter alia he writes: "We've been talking about fixing the broken health care system in this country for decades. Each day reform was delayed this year, an average of 15,000 Americans lost insurance. Since the last time heath reform failed, premiums have doubled and national health care expenditures have nearly tripled."! Wow. And he asserts that "The time for political games is over. Now it’s time to act." I so agree with Dan Pfeiffer.
He is part of a generation and type of leaders who can inspire and communicate and seek consensus rather than play political hardball. Yet, 11 months after his inauguration with a clear mandate by the US voters for Change, in a phase of US and world challenges that are, each, a Gordian Cord, and following the troubles of his healthcare reform in Congress, is it not maybe time for Obama to toughen up, politically, to get a significant US healthcare reform past the dire straits of especially the Senate and then finally move on to other crucial dossiers?
Recent polls indicate that his approval ratings have gone below 50%, but that is not IMO the point. The point is that the people voted him in with a clear mandate for Chnage and that a significant change in healthcare is a core part of that. Does he need to take his case to the people and use his skills and knowledge to convince them that real reform in healthcare is the only solution consistent with Change? And that all members of Congress, and especially the Senate, who are standing in the way are responsible for failing them, the people?
Is it Democrats who are willing to vote for healthcare reform who should be worrying about the re-election chances or Republicans who are standing in the way of Change?
Time for Obama to toughen up and call and spade a spade?
--------
PS. December 18, 2009 at 12:10 PM EST, Dan Pfeiffer, White House Communications Director, posted a post titled "The Time for Political Games is Over" at The White House Blog.
Inter alia he writes: "We've been talking about fixing the broken health care system in this country for decades. Each day reform was delayed this year, an average of 15,000 Americans lost insurance. Since the last time heath reform failed, premiums have doubled and national health care expenditures have nearly tripled."! Wow. And he asserts that "The time for political games is over. Now it’s time to act." I so agree with Dan Pfeiffer.
US Healthcare: Reform, what reform?
What it is a major breakthough, is forcing insurance companies not to deny coverage to individuals due to pre-existing health conditions enough of a healthcare reform?
Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, chairman of DNC and a doctor, had led in recent day a group of liberal Democrats that argue that the Senate healthcare bill (that now needs 60 votes to pass out of 100 instead of 51 under conciliation process) that Obama supports and which is moving toward a possible vote in coming days should be killed, in favor on relaunching a new, more ambitious healthcare reform initiative that would require 51 votes to pass in the Senate rather than 60.
In an ABC News interview on Wednesday, Obama claimed the legislation at hand
a) will reduce the budget deficit over the long term,
b) will help reduce insurance premiums for families,
c) will force companies not to deny coverage to individuals due to pre-existing health conditions, and
d) permit 30 million uninsured to get coverage.
But are those elements enough of a US healthcare reform?
Maybe a US referendum would be a solution, let the people decide?
Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, chairman of DNC and a doctor, had led in recent day a group of liberal Democrats that argue that the Senate healthcare bill (that now needs 60 votes to pass out of 100 instead of 51 under conciliation process) that Obama supports and which is moving toward a possible vote in coming days should be killed, in favor on relaunching a new, more ambitious healthcare reform initiative that would require 51 votes to pass in the Senate rather than 60.
In an ABC News interview on Wednesday, Obama claimed the legislation at hand
a) will reduce the budget deficit over the long term,
b) will help reduce insurance premiums for families,
c) will force companies not to deny coverage to individuals due to pre-existing health conditions, and
d) permit 30 million uninsured to get coverage.
But are those elements enough of a US healthcare reform?
Maybe a US referendum would be a solution, let the people decide?
Monday, October 19, 2009
some thoughts on HR, healthcare, entrepreneuship and the value of human capital
Here are some thoughts based on recent events in the US and Europe/EU:
Firstly, IMO the US needs a public NHS type universal health service as badly as Europe needs entrepreneurship!
Now, related to healthcare:
IMO the private sector can do most things better than the public sector, BUT healthcare + health insurance among them!
How can one make private sector offered health insurance mandatory? Defies policy and social logic IMO!!
Based on the evolution of BHO's health reform, the question is inevitable: Would Hillary as President have been more effective in real healthcare reform? IMO her proposals were fuller!
On HR and the real value corporations attach to human capital:
IMO it's high time employers in the US + Europe abandon the carrot + the stick approach in employee motivation, it's so 1900s (or even, 1800s)!
IMO they got it right in sports, when the team is doing badly it's the manager that goes, not the players, in business, it's usually the opposite
Pre-economic crisis, there was loads of corporate lipservice - rhetoric on Human Resources Management and the value of Human Capital, then came the crisis and .....
And lastly:
Why is there so much work related stress in recent years France?
Firstly, IMO the US needs a public NHS type universal health service as badly as Europe needs entrepreneurship!
Now, related to healthcare:
IMO the private sector can do most things better than the public sector, BUT healthcare + health insurance among them!
How can one make private sector offered health insurance mandatory? Defies policy and social logic IMO!!
Based on the evolution of BHO's health reform, the question is inevitable: Would Hillary as President have been more effective in real healthcare reform? IMO her proposals were fuller!
On HR and the real value corporations attach to human capital:
IMO it's high time employers in the US + Europe abandon the carrot + the stick approach in employee motivation, it's so 1900s (or even, 1800s)!
IMO they got it right in sports, when the team is doing badly it's the manager that goes, not the players, in business, it's usually the opposite
Pre-economic crisis, there was loads of corporate lipservice - rhetoric on Human Resources Management and the value of Human Capital, then came the crisis and .....
And lastly:
Why is there so much work related stress in recent years France?
Friday, October 16, 2009
Towards some basic world minima?
Some thought for this World Food Day!
We do like to think that we live in a humanist world, ie a world that values human life and people care, at least a little.
1 bn people are living under "chronic hunger conditions around the world, mostly in developing countries.
In the US, a developed country, many millions of people are without health insurance.
In many developed, there exist homeless people.
One often reads, online and in other media, people express the view that people have to "earn" their healthcare coverage or that homeless people should do something to deserve a roof above their heads.
IMO there is something philosophically and humanistically faulty in this argumentation.
IMO no fellow human "deserves" to die of hunger or have zero food at his/her plate (the minimum), no fellow human "deserves" not to have healthcare. They do not have to "earn" those minima. Our humanism dictates that they do.
Irrespective of one's political ideology, IMO, one cannot object to the provision of certain minima "universally", to his/her co-patriots and to all fellow humans as well.
We do like to think that we live in a humanist world, ie a world that values human life and people care, at least a little.
1 bn people are living under "chronic hunger conditions around the world, mostly in developing countries.
In the US, a developed country, many millions of people are without health insurance.
In many developed, there exist homeless people.
One often reads, online and in other media, people express the view that people have to "earn" their healthcare coverage or that homeless people should do something to deserve a roof above their heads.
IMO there is something philosophically and humanistically faulty in this argumentation.
IMO no fellow human "deserves" to die of hunger or have zero food at his/her plate (the minimum), no fellow human "deserves" not to have healthcare. They do not have to "earn" those minima. Our humanism dictates that they do.
Irrespective of one's political ideology, IMO, one cannot object to the provision of certain minima "universally", to his/her co-patriots and to all fellow humans as well.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
private (vs?) private: beyond political ideologies
IMO, the private sector has a natural advantage in certain areas, industries, activities; the public sector and Society in others (eg health care - medical - pension insurance)
For example: An individual's health risks are better covered by "Society" - the public sector rather than the private sector; IMO this not a matter of political ideology but the structural nature of health risks and the industry/activity in general.
The private and public sectors have, each, their own role in a Society, economy, country/state.
For example: An individual's health risks are better covered by "Society" - the public sector rather than the private sector; IMO this not a matter of political ideology but the structural nature of health risks and the industry/activity in general.
The private and public sectors have, each, their own role in a Society, economy, country/state.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
healthcare usa: a "hybrid" solution
One solution is IMO to keep it private but subsidize the premiums so that each holder pays the same fee no matter what his/her personal/family medical history/risk is.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The philosophy of "Society"
IMO a truly public health insurance and care option should be financed not via employers and employees Social Sec contributions, but the general taxes. Again IMO solidarity is health risks and costs is a basic function of a "Society". W/o it there is no "Society" to speak of. Only a "trailer park", at best. No person should have to pay the private sector premiums that his/her or family history "dictate" or be labeled "too risky to insure
Ancient Sparta or Ancient Athens? Which Societal-Civic "model"?
IMO, Ancient Athens!
Ancient Sparta or Ancient Athens? Which Societal-Civic "model"?
IMO, Ancient Athens!
It takes a "Society"
IMO a truly public option should be financed not via employers and employees Social Sec contributions, but the general taxes. Again IMO solidarity is health risks and costs is a basic function of a "Society". W/o it there is no "Society" to speak of. Only a "trailer park", at best. No person should have to carry the private sector premiums that his/her or family history "dictate" or be labeled "to risky to insure".
Is the plan is "dead", I am alas not surprised. It seems that the same special interests that opposed Hilary's plans in the first Clinton Admin. (1994) and almost "cost" him his re-election, have won again, some 15 years later. Would a Hilary Administration have a better chance to pass a plan this year? One will never know. Her plan was more ambitious though. Who knows, maybe in 2016 (years).
Or maybe Americans who wants solidarity based health insurance may need to start heading towards the North or the East (again, this time the opposite way from the 15th century).
Sparta or Athens? It seems that the Spartan system has won. It seems.
Is the plan is "dead", I am alas not surprised. It seems that the same special interests that opposed Hilary's plans in the first Clinton Admin. (1994) and almost "cost" him his re-election, have won again, some 15 years later. Would a Hilary Administration have a better chance to pass a plan this year? One will never know. Her plan was more ambitious though. Who knows, maybe in 2016 (years).
Or maybe Americans who wants solidarity based health insurance may need to start heading towards the North or the East (again, this time the opposite way from the 15th century).
Sparta or Athens? It seems that the Spartan system has won. It seems.
Friday, July 24, 2009
the correlation between universal health care and greed
IMO a universal healthcare system helps curb greed in a society and economy!
the debate on the proposed US universal health care
While the US House of Reps. may vote on health care next week:
Ah those "Marxist" (!!!) universal health care countries such as Britain, France, et al!!!
Ah those "Marxist" (!!!) universal health care countries such as Britain, France, et al!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)