It would be like getting a bunch of doctors in a room in an effort to reform our justice system.

NoDonkey on March 10, 2009 at 4:20 PM

It’s a bad simile. The doctors know what justice is, and often have some experience with the system. the liars lawyers haven’t looked at a fact without twisting it to favor their side since they became lawyers.

Investment in electronic medical records will not result in cost savings, Obama’s people have no idea what it is they are talking about.

It’s quite clear they don’t know what they are talking about. If they did, they’d be hired by insurance companies as consultants with the assignment of cutting costs. We see the same thing with bailouts of auto companies.

The only question one needs to ask of anybody who claims to know what to do to improve some industry is: show me a job offer. If anybody in Obama’s administration shows me a job offer from Ford or GM, I will at least treat their opinion as that of a reasonably competent person. In the absence of such offer, let the people who know their sh*t (a.k.a. the market) fix it.

You wind up seeing patients much more slowly and may even wind up having to reduce the number of patients you see.

True. Many physicians hate the things. The applications are insanely complicated, buggy and it will be years before an electronic health record comes online that will be as easy to use as the paper record.

The lost productivity may be one reason why the Obama administration likes the idea, as it’s another way of rationing care.

The Obama administration clearly doesn’t know what the hell it is they are doing. Their simple minds work this way – technology = good. Yes, it is good, but it’s not cheap and the technology has a long way to go before it pays off benefits.

Without reading the report I can say WRT infant mortality:

In some European countries they don’t record the birth immediatly. If the child dies they do not figure in the statistics.

Investment in electronic medical records will not result in cost savings, Obama’s people have no idea what it is they are talking about.

To go from paper records to a fully integrated, networked, electronic medical record costs millions to design, implement, to train staff, to house and to sustain.

Not to mention, updates, change requests, data storage.

I agree, electronic medical records are a great thing.

But they’re expensive. Paper records are cheaper, at least in the short term. Implementing electronic health records in a hospital or across a health plan is EXTREMELY expensive.

It’s not just the hardware and software that’s expensive. I’ve worked with these things and they slow everything down. You wind up seeing patients much more slowly and may even wind up having to reduce the number of patients you see. Many of the software vendors even admit that with their programs you will simply not be able to see as many patients during the day as before. So from the standpoint of lost productivity it’s even more expensive than it appears to be.

The lost productivity may be one reason why the Obama administration likes the idea, as it’s another way of rationing care. But, the main reason they want this is so they can collect data and start rationing care based on what they will essentially decide arbitrarily are cost effective treatments. The government is going to be deciding what medical and surgical treatments they’re going to let you have, and what they won’t. The American people have no idea what they’re in for if they don’t wake up and smell the coffee.

Ask Joe the Plumber how secure his personal data was last October.

Guess I’m just paranoid. I mean, no government official would ever access someone’s personal medical history for political gain. Maybe some hacker working out of his mother’s basement, maybe. Or maybe a foreign government. But never a US or state government employee.

Pffftttbbbpppp!!!!

But it’s interesting to watch. If an increased infant mortality is what the “conservatives” will cite as an accomplishment of a private health care system, then I so look forward to the debate on Socialized Medicine. :(

radiofreevillage on March 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM

Ok, so reading the article is too hard… I get it.

Even the OECD “working paper” has to admit that the US’ higher infant mortality rate is misleading: “Even if there were uniform reporting standards of infant mortality across countries, a second limitation to using it as an indicator for health outcomes is the potential effect of certain interventions on the likelihood of a live birth. It is conceivable that additional health care provided in the second or third trimester causes a pregnancy that would almost assuredly be a stillborn to become a pregnancy with an improved chance of a live birth but also an above-average likelihood of dying within the first year. These interventions increase health care expenditures and result in the birth of more low-weight- and very low-weight babies, with significantly greater health problems.”

If that is also too long, I’ll summarize.

Better health care = less miscarriages of low weight babies = more births of preemies with health care problems = higher overall infant mortality rate.

Oh, and that blockquote; was from the OECD working paper… page 11 of the PDF document. So feel free to say that:

There’s hundreds of articles explaining why infant mortality is higher in the US than it is in some other countries. People cite all sorts of reasons, and Ed is the only expert universally known for his vast expertise on Central Asia, planetary sciences, cellular biology and applied statistics among others, who says that it’s because American health care is so good.

Of course it wasn’t Ed, or Bruce that says this, it is the OECD working paper in question that specifies this limitation.

See what reading the actual links gets you? Original source information.

“Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.” – Mark Twain

radio won’t be back. he/she has been owned on that argument.

JAM on March 10, 2009 at 5:42 PM

We’ll see.
The same discrepancies apply to longevity rates also. Apples to oranges. I don’t understand why some people are so eager to believe negatives about the U.S.

No, no liberal is saying that killing a born child is a choice. You’re lying.

radiofreevillage on March 10, 2009 at 4:10 PM

So, a matter of five minutes matters? You are lying, sir. I mean, if you care to answer, when does life begin according to you? You sound like a smart guy, probably within your pay grade to be capable answer that.

As far as the US infant mortality rate goes, when did that become the litmus test of quality care? You can have the best health system ever known to man and if prenatal care is bad, well, that’s what you get. What do your studies have to say about that? Last I checked, boozin’, drinkin’ and smokin’ weren’t on my health plan?

radio won’t be back. he/she has been owned on that argument.

radiofreevillage on March 10, 2009 at 5:08 PM

Do you believe the apples to oranges type of comparisons that were pointed out in the couple of links provided are valid points that counter the conclusions of the source you provided in your link? Just curious.

Here’s the article from Dr. Healy. She lays it all out. Why US infant mortality rates are higher, etct.

next.

No, no liberal is saying that killing a born child is a choice. You’re lying.

radiofreevillage on March 10, 2009 at 4:10 PM

This is not true. Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, does, and I can’t imagine he’s alone. If you mean no liberal politician is saying that, I suspect you’re right. At least, none I know of is saying it in public.

..and your conclusion is that the US has a higher mortality rate than other countries?

No, I don’t have a conclusion. I read the conclusion made by others.

Sorry if this has been asked and answered already, but what the heck do you mean that means testing is generally not a bad idea? Do you believe that people who pay in to the medicare system should be denied the opportunity to benefit from it because they’re wealthy? Tripe!

Any social program works like that. Otherwise, everyone qualifies.

Careful being generous with other people’s money Ed. That’s the difference between them and us.

radiofreevillage on March 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM

Bring it. WHO reporting, which is what is cited by every report I’ve ever read comparing infant mortality rates, is inaccurate. As a previous poster stated. Every nation has different criteria for reporting live births. In the US, a baby that is born at 21 weeks and takes one breath is a live birth. In France or Sweden it is not. Our numbers are higher for that reason and many others. You cannot compare them for that reason though alone!

Read Bernadine Healy, MD, medical contributor to US News & World Report. She has written several articles about this precise issue and she is absolutely against socialized medicine b/c it would eliminate our innovation and cutting edge development of all major medical, pharmaceutical and surgical practices.

I read the press and I see a scientific consensus.

radiofreevillage on March 10, 2009 at 4:22 PM

..and your conclusion is that the US has a higher mortality rate than other countries?

Only in the short-term

LimeyGeek on March 10, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Isn’t it, to some extend, an ongoing process? Or will every examining room and hospital room etc, have a computer base to enter data on a daily basis?

In short, less than half of those bemoaned as uninsured are legal residents in need of additional financial help. 16% becomes less than 8%. The negative impact of low-skilled illegal immigrants is most directly felt among low-skilled Americans, as a National Bureau of Economic Research analysis shows, low-wage competitors illegally in the US adding to low-wage/low-educated citizens’ difficulty in affording insurance.

So if we just enforced our immigration laws (I know, what a concept!), we’d have millions fewer “uninsured” and we’d also have more jobs available to allow the remaining uninsured Americans (as in actual U.S. citizens) to afford coverage. A win-win proposition. No wonder we can’t get our government to even consider it.

I wonder how many Americans are willing to have lower quality health care for themselves and their families just so we can provide even more “free” health care to millions of illegal aliens?