Newsmakers 7/6: E. Roberts, C. Ferguson

mjgardiner | July 16 2012 9:45pm
I felt I should clean up the last comment with a littel help from Word. We can assure access to care in low cost settings without a mandate, by issuing a card to everyone that guarantees access and in effect allows the government to guaranty the payment to the provider and then for non-payers, garnishing pay and benefits for an ultimately unpaid bill. This ordinary accountability will discourage care in the "high cost setting" which itself was caused by Federal action, the passing of EMTALA in the first place. We could also reform EMTALA. The exchange being set up at a cost of 65 million would be much more effective if it were nationwide. The exchange advantages of allowing people to group could be accomplished without the apparently very costly exchange, and the exchange benefits of being a "great place to shop" or a "health care shopping mall" so to speak, could be accomplished privately simply by incenting it's creation without government involvement. I cannot get through all of this without the computer stalling, but in the first half other than the points I have spoken to it's all unconvincing policy talk. One would expect the two leading wonks on this issue to be serving up an articulate sell of the PPACA and the exchange such that the panel would have little to do but nod. It isn't there, the beef and the answers are not there. The savings are not there evident and the possibilities of increasing costs remain. Ian Donnis asks her about another a big new federal entitlement program and Elizabeth Roberts claims that this will reduce emergency room costs. That is obfuscation. The question is asked "where do you see the 2 and 1/2 billion going ( how much will it grow) and the answer appears to be again, not instructive . We are told it is going to be beautiful even if we can’t understand it. Then the file will not play but I would bet my right arm that at the end of this interview with two of the leaders in this area, the listener is still being sold something akin to the magic of Christmas. Health insurance is unaffordable and to the small extent a state sized health care exchange will increase competition we might slow the increases. However I do not see a truly effective reform. There is too much cost in setting up the exchange and it looks like a jobs program for bureaucrats. These two people should have been interviewed separately. They give each other covering fire. Either one of these two women should be able to wow us with point after point of improvement instead of vague promotions and smoke about bi-partisanship and shared commitment and all the other policy fodder. I wish I could view the whole thing in its entirety but it was not persuading

mjgardiner | July 16 2012 9:37pm
We can assure access to care in low cost settings without a mandate, by issuing a card to everyone that guarantees access and in effect allows the government to guarranty the payment to the provider and then for non-payers, garnishing pay and benefits for an ultimately unpaid unpaid bill. This ordinary accountability will discourage care in the "high cost setting" which itself was caused by Federal action, the passing of EMTALA in the first place. We could also reform EMTALA. The exchange being set up at ac ost of 65 million would be much more effective if it were nationwide. The exchange advantages of allowing peoeple to group could be accomplished without the apparently very costly exchange, and the exchange benefits of bieng a "great place to shop" or a "health care shopping mall" so to speak, could be accomplished privatly simply by incenting it's creation without government involvement. I cannot get through all of this without the computer stalling, but in the first half other than the ponts I have spokent to it's all unconvincing policy talk. One would expect the two leading wonks on this issue to be serving up an articulate sell of the PPACA and the exchange such tha the panel would have littel to do but nod. It isn't there, the beef and the answers are not there. The savings are not there evident and the possibilities of increasing costs remain. Ian Donnis asks her about another abig new federal entitlement program and Elizabeth Roberts claims that this will reduce emergency room costs. That is obsfuscation. AThe question is asked "where do you see the 2 and 1/2 billion going ( how much will it grow) and the answer appears to be again, not instructive . We are tolkd it is going to be beautiful even if we can;t understand it. Then the filewill not play but I would bet my right arm that at the end of this interview with two of the leaders in this area, the listener is still being sold somethimg akin to the magic of Christmas.. Health insurnce is unaffordable and tto the small extent a state sized health care exchange will increase competiton we might slow the increases. However I do not see a truly effective reform. There is too much cost in setting up the exchange and it looks like a jobs program for beauracrats. These two people should have been interviewed seperately. Either one of them seperatley should be able to wow us with point after point of improvement instead of beauracratic bluster and smoke about bi-partisanship and shared commitment and all the other policy fodder. I wish I could view the whole thing but it was not persuading.

Add a Comment

Sign in or join now to post a comment. All comments will display your username and avatar.