I watched the video below by conservative comedian Evan Sayet about the bizarre thinking habits of the Modern Liberal. I question the wisdom of having our political dialog dominated by comedians. Discourse is being dominated by comedians taking pot shots at eachother. We see Colbert, Beck, Letterman, Coulter, Allan Colmes, Sayet, Jon Stewart and others dominating discourse.
BTW, has anyone noticed how many of the Conservative comedians were from liberal backgrounds and became Conservatives .... probably because there are so many liberals comedians that becoming "conservative" is a way to stand out from the pack. Beck and Sayet were from liberal backgrounds.
The one thing I would have added to the video is the observation that Modern Liberalism is actually quite old. Historically, Modernism follows the Enlightenment. Modernism was well underway in Europe at the time of the Founding of our nation.
Modern Liberalism was pretty much an elitist reaction to the classical liberalism of our nation's founders. Classical liberalism was based a refinement of the Aristotelian tradition. Modern liberalism is one of the many philospies developed along the thoughtline of Kant, Hegel and Marx.
The video below is a neocon (liberal who became conservative) view of modern liberalism and modern progressivism.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Tax Breaks for the Medical Savings and Loan
This post is in response to a twitter question from My1stAmendment.
The Medical Savings and Loan program is not dependent on tax breaks or any special laws from Congress. The idea is primarily about re-organizing health care financing so that it is based on the life-cycle of the individual as opposed to basing it on the experience of a group.
If the health care financing were owned by the individual, it would automatically be portable. People would have health care resources when laid off, etc..
The program is currently hendered by tax law as health insurance is favored to medical savings and is favored to direct payment of doctors. A person self-financing care must pay with post tax dollars.
There actually is one big problem with the medical savings and loan. The problem is the temptation people have to use their health savings for other ends. I think the government would be wise to let people place money in their HSA without taxes. They would get taxed and pay a penalty if they withdrew money.
The model is not dependent on any government action. It could be implemented by any group wanting to lower the cost of their health care by moving from pooled financing to individual financing. For that matter, I think one of the biggest problems in our healthcare today is that people plan their health care around tax considerations rather than around their health needs.
The Medical Savings and Loan program is not dependent on tax breaks or any special laws from Congress. The idea is primarily about re-organizing health care financing so that it is based on the life-cycle of the individual as opposed to basing it on the experience of a group.
If the health care financing were owned by the individual, it would automatically be portable. People would have health care resources when laid off, etc..
The program is currently hendered by tax law as health insurance is favored to medical savings and is favored to direct payment of doctors. A person self-financing care must pay with post tax dollars.
There actually is one big problem with the medical savings and loan. The problem is the temptation people have to use their health savings for other ends. I think the government would be wise to let people place money in their HSA without taxes. They would get taxed and pay a penalty if they withdrew money.
The model is not dependent on any government action. It could be implemented by any group wanting to lower the cost of their health care by moving from pooled financing to individual financing. For that matter, I think one of the biggest problems in our healthcare today is that people plan their health care around tax considerations rather than around their health needs.
Health Care Exchanges
One of the things I dislike about modern thought is this absurdity that creating an "exchange" somehow makes something free market. Even worse is the fascination with large centralized exchanges.
I follow the Deep Capture blog which details the capturing our stock exchange which lead to the raping and pillaging of our industry and financial institutions.
The centralized exchanges championed by the elite simply provide a capture point in the system that will give corrupt insiders even greater control over our lives.
In colonial days, there were exchanges to buy and sell slaves.
The existence of an exchange does not mean there is a free market.
It is true that we have a problem with portability of insurance. Insurance is tied to a pool of people. If you leave the pool, you lose your insurance.
HR3200 seeks to subsidize the creation of an exchange that would overcome this problem.
The wiser approach would be to look at the roots of the problem. The root of the problem is that the silly medical financing system that evolved during a half century guidance by the likes of the sainted Teddy Kennedy entrusts our health care resources to pools rather than to individuals.
Were individuals to own their health care resources (as in the Medical Savings and Loan) the accounts would become portable of their own accord. 401K investment programs are inherently portable as they are owned by the individual worker.
The weakness that HR3200 is trying to overcome through the creation of an exchange shows that the entire thinking behind making pools the primary mechanism for funding care is flawed.
We live in a day when exchanges are targetted for capture, why are we looking to subsidize the creation of an exchange when the problem would go away if we empowered the individual by making the individual the owner of their health care resources.
The Health Insurance Exchange woven together in HR3200 appears to be the creation of the same type of thought that created Credit Default Swaps, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Hedge Funds, Naked Short Selling and other intrinsic corruptions that are reducing our nation.
Below is a presentation about how the captured market works. In the case below the company called Sedona had friends at the SEC so information about its capture was investigated. Hundreds of small firms are destroyed by corruption at the exchange:
I follow the Deep Capture blog which details the capturing our stock exchange which lead to the raping and pillaging of our industry and financial institutions.
The centralized exchanges championed by the elite simply provide a capture point in the system that will give corrupt insiders even greater control over our lives.
In colonial days, there were exchanges to buy and sell slaves.
The existence of an exchange does not mean there is a free market.
It is true that we have a problem with portability of insurance. Insurance is tied to a pool of people. If you leave the pool, you lose your insurance.
HR3200 seeks to subsidize the creation of an exchange that would overcome this problem.
The wiser approach would be to look at the roots of the problem. The root of the problem is that the silly medical financing system that evolved during a half century guidance by the likes of the sainted Teddy Kennedy entrusts our health care resources to pools rather than to individuals.
Were individuals to own their health care resources (as in the Medical Savings and Loan) the accounts would become portable of their own accord. 401K investment programs are inherently portable as they are owned by the individual worker.
The weakness that HR3200 is trying to overcome through the creation of an exchange shows that the entire thinking behind making pools the primary mechanism for funding care is flawed.
We live in a day when exchanges are targetted for capture, why are we looking to subsidize the creation of an exchange when the problem would go away if we empowered the individual by making the individual the owner of their health care resources.
The Health Insurance Exchange woven together in HR3200 appears to be the creation of the same type of thought that created Credit Default Swaps, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Hedge Funds, Naked Short Selling and other intrinsic corruptions that are reducing our nation.
Below is a presentation about how the captured market works. In the case below the company called Sedona had friends at the SEC so information about its capture was investigated. Hundreds of small firms are destroyed by corruption at the exchange:
Naked short selling - redefining systemic risk from Judd Bagley on Vimeo.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Public Financing and Tort Reform
A mantra of Conservatives is that tort reform is a necessary component of healthcare reform. Big dollar lawsuits drive up the cost of delivering healthcare and have a tendency to drive small firms out of business.
I share the Conservative distaste of big law, but have a different take on the solution.
My last post brought up the plight of David Goldhill. His father contracted a hospital-borne vector during a routine doctor's visit. The system consumed some $600,000 in expenses in unsuccessful attempts to remediate the disease before Mr. Goldhill's father gave into the disease.
On researching hospital-borne diseases, David Goldhill discovered that hundreds of thousands of people suffer similar fates. Even worse, he discovered that simply precautions would have prevented the infection.
Much as I hate tort lawyers, I have noticed that the threat of big lawsuits often improves practices in those industries being sued.
Rather than just rail against groups I dislike, I asked myself the question: "Why hasn't the threat of big lawsuits forced hospitals to take the precautions that would reduce hospital borne infections?"
The answer to this question is that the mix of public financing and law creates perverse incentives for people to work against their best interests.
We can see this in public education. Liberal educations learned years ago that they can take advantage of the public payment system to get any program that they desired. If educators wanted to install program A, they could force the installation of the program by having a group supportive of program A sue the school in a court with a judge sympathetic to the program. The principal, who is supportive of A, would give a feeble defense and the court would then force the program into the school.
On paper we see a lawsuit of a public interest group against a school. In actuality the lawsuit was against a public who had no real representation in court. Both the plaintiff and principal have interest in the school losing.
Whenever there is a system of public financing, it is easy to rig a court battle in which the parties of the battle are working against the public.
The American public has been fooled into believing that the lawyers in insurance companies (or in public office, for that matter) are defending their interest. In some cases they do.
At a systemic level, the dynamics of tort have created a mechanism that externalizes costs onto the public.
Since insurance companies pass the cost of tort back to the public they represent, they really don't lose law suits. While an insurance company might lament about being beaten in court, the insurance company will simply jack up premiums to cover the cost of the suit. As the insurance company takes a cut of the premium, they are actually a beneficiary of the system.
The insurance industry benefits from increases in rates for malpractice insurance.
Big medicine benefits from big lawsuits as it forces them to raise their rates. Raising the rates, incidentally, increases their profit.
The system is corrupt to its core with big lawyers, big insurance, big government and big hospitals all feeding off the rotting corpse of our medical system. The fault is not simply with the tort lawyers the fault is with the misuse of public financing in health care.
Our desire to create a system of public financing has created a system with perverse incentives that reward hospitals for doing harm.
Simple precautions could have prevented the death of David Goldhill's father. Was the system geared toward the benefit of the patient, it is likely that Mr. Goldhill's father would have survived. Instead what happened is that big medicine churned through some $600,000 of expenses on futile efforts.
The system worked this way because the efforts during the Kennedy era to create a mechanism for public financing of health care created a Kafkaesque system of perverse incentives which accomplish the opposite of quality care.
The real way to improve our hospitals and to reform the tort system is to move away from this horrible system of public financing to create a new mechanism of self-financing for health care.
I share the Conservative distaste of big law, but have a different take on the solution.
My last post brought up the plight of David Goldhill. His father contracted a hospital-borne vector during a routine doctor's visit. The system consumed some $600,000 in expenses in unsuccessful attempts to remediate the disease before Mr. Goldhill's father gave into the disease.
On researching hospital-borne diseases, David Goldhill discovered that hundreds of thousands of people suffer similar fates. Even worse, he discovered that simply precautions would have prevented the infection.
Much as I hate tort lawyers, I have noticed that the threat of big lawsuits often improves practices in those industries being sued.
Rather than just rail against groups I dislike, I asked myself the question: "Why hasn't the threat of big lawsuits forced hospitals to take the precautions that would reduce hospital borne infections?"
The answer to this question is that the mix of public financing and law creates perverse incentives for people to work against their best interests.
We can see this in public education. Liberal educations learned years ago that they can take advantage of the public payment system to get any program that they desired. If educators wanted to install program A, they could force the installation of the program by having a group supportive of program A sue the school in a court with a judge sympathetic to the program. The principal, who is supportive of A, would give a feeble defense and the court would then force the program into the school.
On paper we see a lawsuit of a public interest group against a school. In actuality the lawsuit was against a public who had no real representation in court. Both the plaintiff and principal have interest in the school losing.
Whenever there is a system of public financing, it is easy to rig a court battle in which the parties of the battle are working against the public.
The American public has been fooled into believing that the lawyers in insurance companies (or in public office, for that matter) are defending their interest. In some cases they do.
At a systemic level, the dynamics of tort have created a mechanism that externalizes costs onto the public.
Since insurance companies pass the cost of tort back to the public they represent, they really don't lose law suits. While an insurance company might lament about being beaten in court, the insurance company will simply jack up premiums to cover the cost of the suit. As the insurance company takes a cut of the premium, they are actually a beneficiary of the system.
The insurance industry benefits from increases in rates for malpractice insurance.
Big medicine benefits from big lawsuits as it forces them to raise their rates. Raising the rates, incidentally, increases their profit.
The system is corrupt to its core with big lawyers, big insurance, big government and big hospitals all feeding off the rotting corpse of our medical system. The fault is not simply with the tort lawyers the fault is with the misuse of public financing in health care.
Our desire to create a system of public financing has created a system with perverse incentives that reward hospitals for doing harm.
Simple precautions could have prevented the death of David Goldhill's father. Was the system geared toward the benefit of the patient, it is likely that Mr. Goldhill's father would have survived. Instead what happened is that big medicine churned through some $600,000 of expenses on futile efforts.
The system worked this way because the efforts during the Kennedy era to create a mechanism for public financing of health care created a Kafkaesque system of perverse incentives which accomplish the opposite of quality care.
The real way to improve our hospitals and to reform the tort system is to move away from this horrible system of public financing to create a new mechanism of self-financing for health care.
Liabilities and Catastrophes
Scott Hinrich pointed me toward an article in The Atlantic Monthly by David Goldhill titled How American Health Care Killed My Father.
The article is one of the few pieces in the health care debate that goes beyond partisan bickering on the public v. private insurance debate to look at the effect that the health care funding system has on treatment.
Mr. Goldhill's father went to the hospital for a treatment of pneumonia. While at the hospital he contracted other diseases which eventually did him in.
The article spoke of hundreds of thousands of people dying of hospital-borne infections and other easily remedied mistakes. The article is careful to point out that proper sanitation would dramatically reduce these deaths. Dare I mention that house calls reduce the transmission of vectors as well.
The article ends with his Mrs. Goldhill receiving a copy of the bills from the hospital totaling $636,687.75.
I doubt that the hospital received a full payment of this amount. However, the case shows the hospital being rewarded for having created the condition that led to the death of Mr. Goldhill.
This game of rewarding hospitals for killing someone is exactly the type of foul ups that government financed health care creates.
The free market would solve this problem through liability claims.
Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath that they would do no harm. There is an implicit contract between doctors and patients that the doctors would be practicing medicine in a safe environment. This is a risk the doctors can and should have controlled.
If I contracted salmonella at the local fried chicken restaurant; they would be liable for my medical expenses. If I contract flesh eating skin disease while visiting my local hospital for my annual naval examine; my hospital should be liable for my hospital-borne disease.
When liabilities (such as hospital-borne infections and food poisoning) are taken into account, businesses will invest in controlling the liability.
Food poisoning is much rarer now that cooks are aware of their liabilities and of the food preparation techniques needed to avoid lawsuits.
The important thing to note in this article is that our nation's efforts to fund catastrophic care seem to have created perverse incentives which prevent common sense measures that would reduce hospital-borne diseases.
I believe that efforts to create a silver bullet for handling catastrophic care are all doomed to failure as such efforts create a perverse incentive to will catastrophes into existence. In the Goldhill case, the hospital made hundreds of thousands of dollars off a mistake that killed a patient.
In most catastrophes, one can find a number of parties with differing degrees of liability involved.
Rather than trying to find a silver bullet to solve all catastrophes, I believe that we are much better off having a system that treats each catastrophe separately. The liability route helps people take measures to reduce liabilities.
The medical savings and loan has a thing called a Healthcare Advocate. Just as a good claims adjuster seeks out all of the liable parties involved in a claim, a good health care advocate would work with a client to help place claims against liable parties in a catastrophic claim.
The article is one of the few pieces in the health care debate that goes beyond partisan bickering on the public v. private insurance debate to look at the effect that the health care funding system has on treatment.
Mr. Goldhill's father went to the hospital for a treatment of pneumonia. While at the hospital he contracted other diseases which eventually did him in.
The article spoke of hundreds of thousands of people dying of hospital-borne infections and other easily remedied mistakes. The article is careful to point out that proper sanitation would dramatically reduce these deaths. Dare I mention that house calls reduce the transmission of vectors as well.
The article ends with his Mrs. Goldhill receiving a copy of the bills from the hospital totaling $636,687.75.
I doubt that the hospital received a full payment of this amount. However, the case shows the hospital being rewarded for having created the condition that led to the death of Mr. Goldhill.
This game of rewarding hospitals for killing someone is exactly the type of foul ups that government financed health care creates.
The free market would solve this problem through liability claims.
Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath that they would do no harm. There is an implicit contract between doctors and patients that the doctors would be practicing medicine in a safe environment. This is a risk the doctors can and should have controlled.
If I contracted salmonella at the local fried chicken restaurant; they would be liable for my medical expenses. If I contract flesh eating skin disease while visiting my local hospital for my annual naval examine; my hospital should be liable for my hospital-borne disease.
When liabilities (such as hospital-borne infections and food poisoning) are taken into account, businesses will invest in controlling the liability.
Food poisoning is much rarer now that cooks are aware of their liabilities and of the food preparation techniques needed to avoid lawsuits.
The important thing to note in this article is that our nation's efforts to fund catastrophic care seem to have created perverse incentives which prevent common sense measures that would reduce hospital-borne diseases.
I believe that efforts to create a silver bullet for handling catastrophic care are all doomed to failure as such efforts create a perverse incentive to will catastrophes into existence. In the Goldhill case, the hospital made hundreds of thousands of dollars off a mistake that killed a patient.
In most catastrophes, one can find a number of parties with differing degrees of liability involved.
Rather than trying to find a silver bullet to solve all catastrophes, I believe that we are much better off having a system that treats each catastrophe separately. The liability route helps people take measures to reduce liabilities.
The medical savings and loan has a thing called a Healthcare Advocate. Just as a good claims adjuster seeks out all of the liable parties involved in a claim, a good health care advocate would work with a client to help place claims against liable parties in a catastrophic claim.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Plagiarizing My Own Work
If you are wondering, I am currently in the process of plagiarizing the posts in the blog about the Medical Savings And Loan and placing them on the site y-intercept.com/msl.
My fiendish plan is to accumulate the blog posts into a book.
I am making some changes along the way. For example, the chapter titled A Drop in the Bucket takes the blog post Actuarial v. Lifecycle Analysis swaps the word "actuarial" with "pool."
Talking about the difference between a pool and person is more down to earth than using more abstract terms.
Reorganing the work into book might convince people that my large number of posts are just repeating the same theme. They are expanding the theme.
Anyway, I can officially be labeled a plagiarist. I really hope to get the work published. If I do, I ask the readers of this blog not to tell the publisher that you read it here first.
My fiendish plan is to accumulate the blog posts into a book.
I am making some changes along the way. For example, the chapter titled A Drop in the Bucket takes the blog post Actuarial v. Lifecycle Analysis swaps the word "actuarial" with "pool."
Talking about the difference between a pool and person is more down to earth than using more abstract terms.
Reorganing the work into book might convince people that my large number of posts are just repeating the same theme. They are expanding the theme.
Anyway, I can officially be labeled a plagiarist. I really hope to get the work published. If I do, I ask the readers of this blog not to tell the publisher that you read it here first.
Two Boomers Talking
Boomer A: "You know. My parents were great. They raised me, my brother and sister. They then raised our children. I've been thinking ... maybe I should settle down and take a stab at raising a few of my grand children."
Boomer B: "What? Are you kidding? I don't want to waste my retirement years rasing kids ... like my parents did. I want to be free in my retirement. I just hope Congress can hurry up and pass this Healthcare reform and give my parents a little bit of that end of life counseling as I am scared that they will shape up as a burden."
Boomer B: "What? Are you kidding? I don't want to waste my retirement years rasing kids ... like my parents did. I want to be free in my retirement. I just hope Congress can hurry up and pass this Healthcare reform and give my parents a little bit of that end of life counseling as I am scared that they will shape up as a burden."
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
On Ted Kennedy's Passing
On hearing of the passing of Senator Edward Moore "Ted" Kennedy (1932-2009) I decided to read a few of the online biographies and eulogies to the Senator.
As my mind has been consumed with the health care debate, I was struck by the decade long push for government conrolled health care. The push was well underway before Kennedy's rise to the Senate. I simply remember Senator Kennedy's efforts as they happened with my lifespan.
In school, I was taught that the Camelot era was the high point of American history and I adored Kennedy. For that matter, the only two politicians that I can remember adoring were Teddy Kennedy and Jimmy Carter.
In college, I was indoctrinated into hating Reagan with all of the fervor that today's students hate George W. Bush. Reagan is the only politician I ever actually hated.
I moved away from Kennedy's point of view while working for a state run insurance agency. I realized first hand that a bureaucrat does not provide health care. Doctors and nurses do that.
A better system is one that helps people build resources for their own care as a direct relation between provider and care giver is healthier.
I say this as I've come to view the Kennedy legacy as a great American tragedy. I see Senator Kennedy as a man who spent his life trying to solve problems with politics that are better left to different devices.
Kennedy's half century influence in health care has had the direction of greater centralization and the systematic destruction of all alternative means of health care funding to big insurance.
As the press starts its eulogy of Senator Kennedy, I hope that people realize that the status quo (with health care burdened by the yoke of private insurance) was a product of a single minded focus on centralizing and regulating care.
The great danger of populist giants is that the giants lead us to think that centralization of the economy is the path to progress, when real health care is the care that takes place silently by the bedside of those in need.
If my believe is correct and health care takes place at the bed side and not in the halls of Congress, then I see the passing of the most influential Senator of all times as a great sorrow in that his great influence was detremental to an issue he cared about ... quality health care for all.
As my mind has been consumed with the health care debate, I was struck by the decade long push for government conrolled health care. The push was well underway before Kennedy's rise to the Senate. I simply remember Senator Kennedy's efforts as they happened with my lifespan.
In school, I was taught that the Camelot era was the high point of American history and I adored Kennedy. For that matter, the only two politicians that I can remember adoring were Teddy Kennedy and Jimmy Carter.
In college, I was indoctrinated into hating Reagan with all of the fervor that today's students hate George W. Bush. Reagan is the only politician I ever actually hated.
I moved away from Kennedy's point of view while working for a state run insurance agency. I realized first hand that a bureaucrat does not provide health care. Doctors and nurses do that.
A better system is one that helps people build resources for their own care as a direct relation between provider and care giver is healthier.
I say this as I've come to view the Kennedy legacy as a great American tragedy. I see Senator Kennedy as a man who spent his life trying to solve problems with politics that are better left to different devices.
Kennedy's half century influence in health care has had the direction of greater centralization and the systematic destruction of all alternative means of health care funding to big insurance.
As the press starts its eulogy of Senator Kennedy, I hope that people realize that the status quo (with health care burdened by the yoke of private insurance) was a product of a single minded focus on centralizing and regulating care.
The great danger of populist giants is that the giants lead us to think that centralization of the economy is the path to progress, when real health care is the care that takes place silently by the bedside of those in need.
If my believe is correct and health care takes place at the bed side and not in the halls of Congress, then I see the passing of the most influential Senator of all times as a great sorrow in that his great influence was detremental to an issue he cared about ... quality health care for all.
A Retweet on Immigration
I am repeating a recent point.
There are no moral or ethical problems with undocumented workers buying private insurance or even with people putting money in a savings account.
There is none what-so-ever.
It is actually a net-plus when people from around the world travel to the US for healthcare as these prime customers help us afford a better healthcare infrastructure.
The problems of illegal immigration and health reform arise when one discusses the public option, co-ops, or when people are coerced by government to buy insurance.
Extra-nationals are able to pop in and out of such pools in ways that destabilize the health care for the citizens in the pool.
The difficulty of immigrants and healthcare reform efforts are a strong sign that the reform effort is headed in the wrong direction.
There are no moral or ethical problems with undocumented workers buying private insurance or even with people putting money in a savings account.
There is none what-so-ever.
It is actually a net-plus when people from around the world travel to the US for healthcare as these prime customers help us afford a better healthcare infrastructure.
The problems of illegal immigration and health reform arise when one discusses the public option, co-ops, or when people are coerced by government to buy insurance.
Extra-nationals are able to pop in and out of such pools in ways that destabilize the health care for the citizens in the pool.
The difficulty of immigrants and healthcare reform efforts are a strong sign that the reform effort is headed in the wrong direction.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Transitioning Health Records
The two party system seems to bring the worst health proposals to the forefront.
This happens because the core of both parties have a stake on centralization. The insiders of the Democratic party want highly centralized big government. The insiders on the Republican side want highly centralized big business.
Newt Gingrich's ideas about health care reform appear on HealthTransformation.net. Gingrich's ideas of reform center on technocrats creating a highly centralized technocratic medical records system that will given big medicine a decided edge over small medicine. Our health would somehow magically improve as the technocracy completes the process of weeding small providers out of the system.
I believe that improved handling of medical records is key to health reform. However, I am not a fan of Mr. Gingrich's technocratic vision.
As I have explained in previous posts, the problem with health records is that the records are in the hands of third parties. Our health records follow the money. Since we pay for care with third party pools, our records end up jealously guarded in the hands of these pools.
My solution to health record reform is to create the paradigm where individuals own their health records. Individuals would use a new class of service agents called health advocates. The health advocates would help people budget for their care and would create a repository for health records.
The health advocate is a clerical position. They would number in the tens of thousands all competing for your business.
This class of health advocates would create a paradigm in which there would be a rapid evolution of medical record technology. After all, which health advocate would you choose for storing your health records? People would choose health advocates based on their ability to guard records from prying eyes while making the records available to health care providers when needed.
Transitioning to a system of self funded care with independent health advocates would be a little bit like the internet. The rapid evolution that we saw in internet technology is the result of hundreds of millions of people with computers anxiously working to get connected.
A government of technocrats could not have devised as rich and robust solution.
What we need for rapid innovation in medical records technology is a structure that allowed indpedent evolution of a system.
The top heavy technocracy favored by Gingrich would not be as robust as a system that would evolve in a paradigm where individuals owned their records and sought private technology to help them make the most of their records.
This happens because the core of both parties have a stake on centralization. The insiders of the Democratic party want highly centralized big government. The insiders on the Republican side want highly centralized big business.
Newt Gingrich's ideas about health care reform appear on HealthTransformation.net. Gingrich's ideas of reform center on technocrats creating a highly centralized technocratic medical records system that will given big medicine a decided edge over small medicine. Our health would somehow magically improve as the technocracy completes the process of weeding small providers out of the system.
I believe that improved handling of medical records is key to health reform. However, I am not a fan of Mr. Gingrich's technocratic vision.
As I have explained in previous posts, the problem with health records is that the records are in the hands of third parties. Our health records follow the money. Since we pay for care with third party pools, our records end up jealously guarded in the hands of these pools.
My solution to health record reform is to create the paradigm where individuals own their health records. Individuals would use a new class of service agents called health advocates. The health advocates would help people budget for their care and would create a repository for health records.
The health advocate is a clerical position. They would number in the tens of thousands all competing for your business.
This class of health advocates would create a paradigm in which there would be a rapid evolution of medical record technology. After all, which health advocate would you choose for storing your health records? People would choose health advocates based on their ability to guard records from prying eyes while making the records available to health care providers when needed.
Transitioning to a system of self funded care with independent health advocates would be a little bit like the internet. The rapid evolution that we saw in internet technology is the result of hundreds of millions of people with computers anxiously working to get connected.
A government of technocrats could not have devised as rich and robust solution.
What we need for rapid innovation in medical records technology is a structure that allowed indpedent evolution of a system.
The top heavy technocracy favored by Gingrich would not be as robust as a system that would evolve in a paradigm where individuals owned their records and sought private technology to help them make the most of their records.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)