"Health Care" Debate

DreamStalker, great post! I agree with almost everything you said. And some of your comments reminded me I transcribed some focus groups last year regarding energy (clean coal, nuclear, etc.) that I had completely forgotten about. If I recall correctly, they had some interesting information and statistics that go right along with some of your comments. Thanks for explaining your experience and background.

Now, in my attempt to try to get back to Rooster's OP---oh, wait, since somebody decided on their own it needed to be deleted, I guess I really haven't derailed anything!

Pam

I shook my head while watching a newscast several days ago. The reporter said the oil blow-out was one of the worlds worst natural disasters. Ahh, wrong. Nothing natural about it.
One giant screw-up for "mankind"......

To be more specific on the role of capitalism, profits and governments in health care, here is a decent and timely article in today’s NY Times - http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/2 ... ?src=busln

Among other things, the article explains in general terms the role capitalists will take in driving the transition of health care (sick care) from something that is currently expensive and ineffective into something that is less costly and much more effective.

New technology — low-cost computing, sensors, the Web and genetics — will play a crucial role in the transition. And in a current Health Affairs article, Dr. Lawrence mentions a few representative examples of new companies that have entered the wellness business, including Social Kinetics, MedExpert, Proteus Biomed, SomaLogic and RedBrick.

In short, a big jolt to the health care status quo from new technology, new economics and the resulting entrepreneurial ferment.

The wellness industry, undoubtedly, will spawn many successful companies.

More specific to this forum, they give an example of how governments (and to be fair, in this case highly regulated insurers) are often in the way of innovation and cost reduction. The example is about home sleep studies with portable equipment.

That was not true of one of its leading rivals, Sleep Solutions, founded in 1992. It tried for years to get insurers and the government to see the wisdom of at-home sleep tests as an efficient, inexpensive alternative to testing in sleep clinics.

Sleep Solutions began appealing for Medicare to approve the home studies in 1994 and nearly went bankrupt several times before the government gave approval in 2008 – it took 14 years!

So let’s not get government into micromanaging another major segment of the economy. Government should step back and let the market boom full steam ahead with innovation and cost reduction and a shift of emphasis from “sick care” to “wellness”.

roster wrote:To be more specific on the role of capitalism, profits and governments in health care, here is a decent and timely article in today’s NY Times - http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/2 ... ?src=busln

Among other things, the article explains in general terms the role capitalists will take in driving the transition of health care (sick care) from something that is currently expensive and ineffective into something that is less costly and much more effective.

New technology — low-cost computing, sensors, the Web and genetics — will play a crucial role in the transition. And in a current Health Affairs article, Dr. Lawrence mentions a few representative examples of new companies that have entered the wellness business, including Social Kinetics, MedExpert, Proteus Biomed, SomaLogic and RedBrick.

In short, a big jolt to the health care status quo from new technology, new economics and the resulting entrepreneurial ferment.

The wellness industry, undoubtedly, will spawn many successful companies.

More specific to this forum, they give an example of how governments (and to be fair, in this case highly regulated insurers) are often in the way of innovation and cost reduction. The example is about home sleep studies with portable equipment.

That was not true of one of its leading rivals, Sleep Solutions, founded in 1992. It tried for years to get insurers and the government to see the wisdom of at-home sleep tests as an efficient, inexpensive alternative to testing in sleep clinics.

Sleep Solutions began appealing for Medicare to approve the home studies in 1994 and nearly went bankrupt several times before the government gave approval in 2008 – it took 14 years!

So let’s not get government into micromanaging another major segment of the economy. Government should step back and let the market boom full steam ahead with innovation and cost reduction and a shift of emphasis from “sick care” to “wellness”.

Again you have Glen Becked a perfectly news worthy article.

You spun the story into government bashing by stating that "governments are often in the way of innovation and cost reduction".

You conveniently left out this quote ...

Their efforts were long resisted by physicians who operated sleep clinics, said Dr. Thomas Fogarty, an inventor, investor and surgeon, who developed the original at-home testing device for Sleep Solutions.

Furthermore, the innovation occurred prior to any government approval issue debunking your spin that "governments are often in the way of innovation ". The fact that it took so long to get regulatory approval was due to BUSINESS (specifically sleep clinics ... duhhh). Follow the money. Who stood to gain from preventing approval? It doesn't take a rodeo clown to figure that out. Business owns our political system.

The problem is not government intervention in business ... the problem is business intervention in government!

DreamStalker wrote:
You conveniently left out this quote ...

Their efforts were long resisted by physicians who operated sleep clinics, said Dr. Thomas Fogarty, an inventor, investor and surgeon, who developed the original at-home testing device for Sleep Solutions.

Totally to be expected and not newsworthy. Established businesses almost always fight to protect their position. I have written here many times before about innovations usually coming from outside established industry. More specifically you will find posts of mine warning employees of sleep labs that their importance will decline as portable home equipment becomes used much more.

It is within a company's rights to defend their established technology and resist new technology. The only problem comes when governments provide them protections to stave off the new technology. When government stays out of the way, the new, better technologies blow away the established defenders of old technologies. It is called "creative destruction". The old industries shrivel and die and jobs are lost but the new technologies create better jobs and better services and products for consumers.

In the case of the portable home equipment, the sleep labs were not stopping market development. It was the government. As soon as the government approved, the home equipment began its rapid expansion. First sleep dentists began using it at a rapidly increasing pace. Now feeling the pressure of competition, some traditional sleep docs working with traditional sleep labs are beginning to use the home equipment for followup studies.

All excellent developments, impeded only by the government.

I finally caught a little bit of time between appointments this morning to listen to most of the talk by Dr. David Brailer, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC_urdpdY0g , which was referenced in yesterday's NY Times article.

Dr. Brailer held the position of National Health Information Technology Coordinator for our central government.

In his talk he discusses how businesses will surge ahead with innovative solutions to health care. He concentrates on sharing of data using new technologies. Over and over he expresses concern that our central government will slow and thwart new products and solutions and urges the government to restrain itself.

roster wrote:

DreamStalker wrote:
You conveniently left out this quote ...

Their efforts were long resisted by physicians who operated sleep clinics, said Dr. Thomas Fogarty, an inventor, investor and surgeon, who developed the original at-home testing device for Sleep Solutions.

Totally to be expected and not newsworthy. Established businesses almost always fight to protect their position. I have written here many times before about innovations usually coming from outside established industry. More specifically you will find posts of mine warning employees of sleep labs that their importance will decline as portable home equipment becomes used much more.

It is within a company's rights to defend their established technology and resist new technology. The only problem comes when governments provide them protections to stave off the new technology. When government stays out of the way, the new, better technologies blow away the established defenders of old technologies. It is called "creative destruction". The old industries shrivel and die and jobs are lost but the new technologies create better jobs and better services and products for consumers.

In the case of the portable home equipment, the sleep labs were not stopping market development. It was the government. As soon as the government approved, the home equipment began its rapid expansion. First sleep dentists began using it at a rapidly increasing pace. Now feeling the pressure of competition, some traditional sleep docs working with traditional sleep labs are beginning to use the home equipment for followup studies.

All excellent developments, impeded only by the government.

You continue to miss the mark.

Do you actually believe that there are government scientists and agency bureaucrats scheming in labs and offices to hold back innovation and technological develepments? ... for what purpose? ... just because?

Why do you think CPAPs are not OTC? Could it have anything to do with ResMeds pricing or software policies? It is the unfair and poorly regulated competitive practices of these "company's rights to defend their established technology and resist new technology" that impede innovation and excellent developments ... not government. In fact if it was not for a strong central government, we would be living in the dark ages (History Channel had a great series on the dark ages this past weekend).

Stop Becking around and being such a clown!

DreamStalker wrote:
Do you actually believe that there are government scientists and agency bureaucrats scheming in labs and offices to hold back innovation and technological develepments? ... for what purpose? ... just because?

I have never said that - you just made that up and are trying to infer that it is my point of view.

DreamStalker wrote:
Why do you think CPAPs are not OTC? Could it have anything to do with ResMeds pricing or software policies?

So ResMed is the stumbling block to getting CPAP status changed to OTC??? Come on. Take some more time to invent better arguments. You know as well as the rest of the forum knows that the FDA is the brick wall that has to be overcome.

DreamStalker, You have some basic intelligence. You understand how central government regulations on CPAPs are harming apnea patients. You and I are lucky beneficiaries of a free society that others fought and died for. I clearly sense in your posts that you are moving closer and closer to the truth about the necessity for limited government and individual freedoms. Don't let a stubborn compulsion to argue against the Rooster get between you and what you know is the truth.

roster wrote:

DreamStalker wrote:
Do you actually believe that there are government scientists and agency bureaucrats scheming in labs and offices to hold back innovation and technological develepments? ... for what purpose? ... just because?

I have never said that - you just made that up and are trying to infer that it is my point of view.

uhhh ... ok, what view does this infer then?

roster wrote:Government should step back and let the market boom full steam ahead with innovation ...

and this ...

roster wrote:All excellent developments, impeded only by the government.

roster wrote:

DreamStalker wrote:
Why do you think CPAPs are not OTC? Could it have anything to do with ResMeds pricing or software policies?

So ResMed is the stumbling block to getting CPAP status changed to OTC??? Come on. Take some more time to invent better arguments. You know as well as the rest of the forum knows that the FDA is the brick wall that has to be overcome.

Again, follow the money. What reason does the FDA have to block approval? How does the FDA benefit from blocking it? The FDA is controlled by big corporate interests (can you say Merc, Conagra, ResMed, etc?). It should be controlled by we the people. The fix is to take back the FDA for the people not throw away the FDA and the protections it is meant to provide the people.

roster wrote:

DreamStalker wrote: DreamStalker, You have some basic intelligence. You understand how central government regulations on CPAPs are harming apnea patients. You and I are lucky beneficiaries of a free society that others fought and died for. I clearly sense in your posts that you are moving closer and closer to the truth about the necessity for limited government and individual freedoms. Don't let a stubborn compulsion to argue against the Rooster get between you and what you know is the truth.

Basic perhaps, but certainly sound in reality and not the utopian anarchy you preach around here. Truth is that the necessity is for a people's government and not a government limited only to the oligarchy.

Truth is that the necessity is for a people's government

A people's government? That is such a broad phrase that it either means nothing or it means what the writer decides it means on a case-by-case basis. Unfortunately, the latter is the way our leaders govern today.

How about a government by U.S. Constitution?

roster wrote:

Truth is that the necessity is for a people's government

A people's government? That is such a broad phrase that it either means nothing or it means what the writer decides it means on a case-by-case basis. Unfortunately, the latter is the way our leaders govern today.

How about a government by U.S. Constitution?

You mean that one of the people, by the people, or for the people? ... that is what I mean. A simple straight forward phrase stated by some Republican way back when.

What you can't seem to get through that bird brain of yours is that today's leaders govern of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations ... unfortunately.