Six "Common Sense" Points Not Included In The Health Care Discussion? Should They Be?

Share Article

The U.S. congress is engaged in a healthcare war. History has taught us, wars are not won in one battle or in one campaign but through a series of well thought out, individual, strategically implemented strategies. Does the entire health plan have to be done at one time particularly under the country's current economic condition? Could this "alll or nothing" approach be a recipe for disaster?

Stem Cells For Heart Failure Now

45% of doctors polled said they would consider leaving their practice or retiring early if the proposed health care bill were to pass- 72% of doctors polled disagree with the administration's claim that the government can cover 40-47 million more people.

America is in a healthcare war and history has taught us wars are not won in one battle or one campaign but rather through a series of welll thought-out individual, strategically implemented strategies. Could it be so with this unprecedented massive healthcare overhaul we are undertaking? The subject is complicated and might require a much more comprehensive plan than what has been put on the table and far too important to squander on a timeline.

Is it productive for politicians to all but exclude the medical professionals input from a debate concerning the very profession these medical people have dedicated their lives to? Congress might implement their plan against the doctor's collective advice and win the battle but ultimately risk losing the war. Consider what a IBD/TIPP Business Daily poll reported:

  • 45% of doctors polled said they would consider leaving their practice or retiring early if the proposed health care bill were to pass- 72% of doctors polled disagree with the administration's claim that the government can cover 40-47 million more Americans with better quality care and at a lower cost.. Sixty percent or 2 out of 3 practicing physicians pollled say they oppose the current plan. Is anyone listening and why does it all have to be done at one time in today's economy?
  • 1. Catastrophic insurance for all uninsured now. Isn't this one of the main concerns Americans have fear of losing their homes and savings if a catastrophic disease impacted their family? We as as a caring nation can start here as a first step and we can do it now.
  • 2. Has anyone been doing the math? Case-in-point, if someone called their physician's office today to make an appointment, they may not be seen for several weeks. So, why hasn't anyone asked the common sense question about the obviously overlooked elephant in the room? The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) already predicts a shortage of 40,000 physicians in ten years. What will happen when the current overworked number of doctors will be asked to care for an additional 40 to 47 million more new patients?
  • 3. No one is talking about how stem cells will favorably impact costs. FDA trials are already proving billions will be saved. Here are just 3 examples: Heart failure alone in the U.S. costs $39B a year and yet the trials for heart failure are today transitioning hundreds of "no option" patients to full recovery following a one time, one hour, minimally invasive procedure. The patient successes since 2000 have been documented in Miracle Stem Cell Heart Repair. Seventeen of twenty MS patients at Northwestern Univ. have gone disease free for 4 years following another one time procedure at Northwestern Unviersity. The same with diabetes, a disease that costs the healthcare system $103B a year. This is all being proven successfully today not 20 years in the future. Over 100 diseases are currently being treated with the patient's own stem cells and discussed in detail in the Christian Wilde Stem Cell Research Report. http://www.myheartbook.com
  • 4. If physicians were given tax breaks for doing more pro-bono work with the uninsured and the government implemented comphrehensive tort reform ,would doctors be willing to reciprocate by contributing more time to clinics and urgent care facilites? Dr. Paul Toffel a Director of Medicine at USC has a plan to utilize student doctors to help treat the unisured. Could it possibly be done nationwide?
  • 5. How to lower the high cost of drugs? Drug companies present the sound argument for charging high costs because of their limited time of patent protection. Why not exactly double the current patent protection term providing companies automatically cut what they charge the consumer by 50%. Might this neutralize their argument and justification for their exorbitant charges?
  • 6. Drug companies spend billions on TV advertising influencing patients to convince their doctors they need a particular drug. Adding insult to injury the companies then build the high advertising costs into the price they charge the patient. Congress has been looking into the question, should TV drug commercials be given stronger guidelines?

7. (Not new) No More "Cherry Picking" by insurance companies. People with pre-existing driving records cannot drive without insurance but there is an "assigned risk" provision that is mandated upon all insurance companies. These dubious client applications are put into a pool to be individually assigned to companies. Just as it has been done for 60 years for automobile assigned risk applicants.
###

Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

JACK AVERY
Visit website