DISQUS

dr chadblog · 2 years ago

>although Grove doesn’t acknowledge that some universal-coverage plans envision a prominent — in some cases, even central — role for insurers. (Whether that’s a good idea or not is a subject for another day.)

No, actually thats the most important issue. Insurance company profits and operating costs ARE the problem. Every other 1st world nation has it figured out: since the government is the customer for baseline healthcare, just provide a guaranteed minimal set of coverage for all citizens financed by taxes, cut out the innsurance companies, and cut costs by using leverage as a single buyer against suppliers. There plenty of other rational policies that could go into this such as preventive care. Not having the poor use emergency rooms for basic care would be a big cost-saver as well.

Why can't Andy Grove just take a trip to other countries and review the facts of how civilized nations take care of healthcare? Why is it anathema to propose that healthcare companies not skim 20% of healthcare dollars when they add no value?

Lets have a real conversation. Automating forms is not going to solve the problem.

SFGary · 2 years ago

You provided lot of criticism but no solutions. I suppose other industrialized countries that have universal care ration some services. How the politicians are going to sell it in this country is anybody's guess.

Nothing is going to change unless the pols from both parties and their associated lobbyists get off their behinds and come into some agreement.

Andy Grove and his powerful buddies might consider starting a nationwide movement to figure out a way to cancel the well padded and luxurious tax payer provided medical plans elected representatives and top government administrative managers at local, state and federal levels get and force them to get individual coverage - people who control the levers of political power.

Maybe then it will force them to get together, bring in experts and come up with a plan. Until something radical happens they'll keep putting off confronting tough issues.

SVLance · 2 years ago

Mr Hamilton dismisses universal electronic records as not being in the institutions' self interest, therefore undoable - but thinks we should really being looking at a universal healthcare because we have a better chance getting that the electorate. Wishful thinking.

Mr Grove highlighted erecords precisely because it can be legislated. And, as Mr. Hamilton says, the existance of those records will allow patients universal choice of provider, within their means.

In addition, erecords are searchable. The medical records of child-bearing women and the elderly can be 6-12 inches thick. No wonder the doctors do not know the meds and allergies - so they take another "history" from the patient's memory. I have personally had to stop two doctors from giving injections that would have sent the patients into shock and seen my father thrown into septic shock by an attempted catherization where he had scar tissue from prior surgury.

Erecords will lower costs and save lives - and it can legislated.

anonymous · 2 years ago

Well, since the fastest growing health problem is diabetes, it's not doctor solved. To take a huge chunk our of health care costs, Americans simply need to put down their forks, get up off the sofa, and go for a walk every day. Otherwise we all end up paying for the epidemic of obesity --- and that's a real pity in more ways than one.

David Hamilton · 2 years ago

I certainly don't want anyone to think that I have a solution for the healthcare mess -- I'm groping my way around in the dark the same as everyone else. On the other hand, I've also never claimed to be as smart as Andy Grove.

Electronic health records are indeed a fine idea for many of the reasons SVLance suggests. I've never seen anything to suggest that Grove wants them legislated, though; my impression is that he's relying on moral suasion rather than calling for regulation, which is why I pointed out the barriers to voluntary adoption. Legislation would indeed be one way to clear those hurdles, and I'd be all for it. Although even universal EHR adoption isn't likely to touch the system's deeper problems, and a badly designed mandate could screw things up even worse in terms of costs and quality-of-care.

On insurance companies and their profits and administrative costs -- well, I agree that this is a major problem, particularly since the major "innovation" the private sector seems to bring to the table here involves finding new ways to "buckrake" by insuring the healthy while denying coverage to the ill (or those likely to become so). What exactly to do about it is less clear to me at this point, on both the theoretical and practical levels.

No arguments here than many people (myself included) should exercise more and eat less.