Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Dean of Harvard Medical School : I'd give it a failing grade. Do you agree?

In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it. Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care's dysfunctional delivery system. The system we have now promotes fragmented care and makes it more difficult than it should be to assess outcomes and patient satisfaction. The true costs of health care are disguised, competition based on price and quality are almost impossible, and patients lose their ability to be the ultimate judges of value.

Worse, currently proposed federal legislation would undermine any potential for real innovation in insurance and the provision of care.

 
grlygrlz2

Asked by grlygrlz2 at 6:12 PM on Nov. 28, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Level 39 (106,530 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (27)
  • It's a terrible piece of legislation but just today I heard one of the Senators saying he didn't expect to get a perfect plan and he wasn't going to be the one to cause it to fail.
    Well, I DO expect a perfect plan. This is my healthcare they are screwing with. 80-85% of people have healthcare and they are the ones who will be suffering so we should all be raising 9 kinds of hell over this. The libs are trying to cater to 20% of America and to hell with the rest of us. Thats just not right.
    If it isn't as close to perfect as we can get it then it shouldn't be accepted. PERIOD
    itsmesteph11

    Answer by itsmesteph11 at 6:09 PM on Nov. 29, 2009

  • It would do so by overregulating the health-care system in the service of special interests such as insurance companies, hospitals, professional organizations and pharmaceutical companies, rather than the patients who should be our primary concern.


    In effect, while the legislation would enhance access to insurance, the trade-off would be an accelerated crisis of health-care costs and perpetuation of the current dysfunctional system—now with many more participants. This will make an eventual solution even more difficult. Ultimately, our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all.


    ...We should not be making public policy in such a crucial area by keeping the electorate ignorant of the actual road ahead.

    grlygrlz2

    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 6:13 PM on Nov. 28, 2009

  • Yes, I do. Flier isn't an idiot and he knows that this is bad news for future doctors. I mean could you imagine being told you can't work at a hospital because that one has too many cardiologist... But you have to relocate to a town you don't want to go to because they don't have one? This Reform is loaded with hidden agendas, pet projects, no reliable factual proof of how it is funded, and so vague it doesn't even mention things that would be considered an emergency that the left keeps claiming people go bankrupt over. They are more concerned with regulating what you put into your body ie: page 68 then actually making sure you have great preventive care ie: mammograms. Big Pharma and the unions are in on it. Look who sponsors the darn commercials for these bills Phrma and SEIU (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=42275199266) if you don't think those are special interest groups you obviously have OD'd on the koolaid!
    Crissy1213

    Answer by Crissy1213 at 6:57 PM on Nov. 28, 2009

  • But, But , But.....this is Obama so reality doesn't count.
    Carpy

    Answer by Carpy at 7:21 PM on Nov. 28, 2009

  • LMAO, Carpy!

    I'm sure some will see the Dean of Harvard Medical School as an unreliable source for information. I don't.
    mancosmomma

    Answer by mancosmomma at 7:23 PM on Nov. 28, 2009

  • Seems he ALSO acknowledged that the system we currently have in place is less than ideal, and needs much work. Back to the drawing board...

    Sisteract

    Answer by Sisteract at 7:41 PM on Nov. 28, 2009

  • Seems he ALSO acknowledged that the system we currently have in place is less than ideal, and needs much work. Back to the drawing board...

    Seems we all agree with that.
    Carpy

    Answer by Carpy at 7:50 PM on Nov. 28, 2009

  • Seems we all agree with that.


    Seems I've read the comment(s) to this site, more than once that the status quo is fine. Many ppl have even boasted about their wonderful coverage-

    Sisteract

    Answer by Sisteract at 8:10 PM on Nov. 28, 2009

  • I don't recall seeing anyone say the status quo is fine and yes many do have good insurance and don't want to lose it. That does not mean we can't all see the need for reform and the ones with common sense have stated what the best reforms would be.
    Carpy

    Answer by Carpy at 8:13 PM on Nov. 28, 2009

  • Seems I've read the comment(s) to this site, more than once that the status quo is fine.


    Seriously? Or are you trying to twist to shape your agenda? Reform, JUST NOT THIS ONE!

    grlygrlz2

    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 8:17 PM on Nov. 28, 2009