August 7th, 2009 by Trisha Torrey
Forwarded to me by a dear friend (thanks Dot!)… so I share it with you. Wish I could attribute it, but I have no idea where it came from. If you know, let me know, too. Credit where credit is due.
The American Medical Association Weighs in on Healthcare Reform
The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised
not to make any rash moves.
The Gastroenteritis had sort of a gut feeling about it,
but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of
nerve.
The Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception.
Ophthalmologist considered the idea shortsighted.
Pathologists yelled, “Over my dead body!” while the Pediatricians
said, ‘Oh, Grow up!’
The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while
the Radiologists could see right through it.
Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing.
The Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the
Plastic Surgeons said, “This puts a whole new face on the matter.”
The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists
were pissed off at the whole idea.
The Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and
the Cardiologists didn’t have the heart to say no.
In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision
up to the *ssholes in Washington.
……………………………..
Do you have concerns about healthcare reform? Have a rumor or concern you want clarified? Pose it here and we’ll try to uncover the truth.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DISCUSS | EMPOWERMENT TIPS | NEWSLETTER | TWITTER
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
July 29th, 2009 by Trisha Torrey
As Congress continues to struggle with healthcare reform, I suggest that there is one way to look at it that might make the arguments simpler than they currently are.
I see only two points of view. No matter who you are or what your interest in reform is, you fall into one of these categories:
Lives First
(Then Money)
or
Money First
(Then Lives)
“Lives First” people understand that lives are more important than money. Not that money isn’t also important. It’s just that they believe that aspects such as no insurance denials for pre-existing conditions, or making sure rewards are in place for innovation, or assuring access for everyone (everyone must participate) or making sure there is focus on health outcomes improvement — are more important than how reform will initially be paid for.
“Money First” people understand that controlling costs and reining in spending are more important than worrying about who gets what kind of options for care or access. They understand that yes, people die or get sicker (and more expensive) when they don’t have access, but that denying access to some means others can get better care. They tell the Lives First people that if money isn’t the first consideration, then it will mean rationing for all, as if that is something new. (A bogus argument, by the way, because rationing is already a part of our care.)
Some generalizations, although I realize there are exceptions:
The Lives First people are often people who have had their access challenged due to cost (or they have watched a friend or loved one who has desperately needed access and could not afford it.) I’ve been there. Although I had high deductible health insurance when I suffered my misdiagnosis, the co-pays were back breakers. I lost every penny I had in savings just trying to keep up — all for the privilege of proving the medical experts were wrong.
The Money First people are typically people who do have access, either because their employer subsidizes their health insurance or because they are already age 65 and older and have Medicare. They see reform as something that will impinge on their income because it certainly won’t get in the way of THEIR access. They don’t need to worry about other people’s lives. They only need to worry about their money. (I have to wonder about the Medicare recipients who think money is more important – do they have this conversation with their children?)
Based on that description, which do you think I am? There’s probably not much question in your mind — but this may surprise you: My husband and I have good healthcare coverage because he is retired from the Air Force and that gives us access to a government payment system for the rest of both our lives. Healthcare reform will end up costing us more money than we pay now, there’s no doubt. Based on my own generalizations, you might expect me to be a Money First person….
But of course, I am not. I hear from too many of those people who don’t have access, who have bankrupted because of medical needs, who work up to four or five jobs just so they can buy into a high deductible, catastrophic plan, just like I had. They get sicker, or they lose a loved one, not because the care wasn’t available, but because they could not afford it, or because they were denied care since they had no insurance.
Don’t get me wrong. I understand that money is an extremely important consideration in the debate. We need to be responsible about the money questions, and yes, I get the “don’t want to mortgage our children’s future” argument. I believe we need both points of view to hammer out the best approach.
But, if you are a Money First person, I ask you to consider that Lives First may be the more fiscally responsible approach. If we build a new healthcare system that assures access, even if it’s quite expensive to begin with, then over the longer term, we will be “building” a healthier populous — one that won’t need as much of the same kind of expensive access we have today. In the long run, the system will cost far less with healthier people who won’t have to go bankrupt just to get the care they need.
Ask yourself: What’s more important to you? And which profile is yours? I wonder if maybe you’ve even put yourself into the wrong category to begin with? Does this food for thought shift your thinking at all?
……………………………..
Do you have concerns about healthcare reform? Have a rumor or concern you want clarified? Pose it here and we’ll try to uncover the truth.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DISCUSS | EMPOWERMENT TIPS | NEWSLETTER | TWITTER
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
May 2nd, 2009 by Trisha Torrey
After a week of hearing that the sky is falling because swine flu was going to take us all down, there’s a lot of second guessing about whether government(s) and the media have over-hyped the potential for a pandemic, and whether we have all over-reacted to the fear.
I say – we have not overreacted – but I worry about Chicken Little.
The initial reports from Mexico indicated real potential for problems. Governments, WHO and the media were in a d*mned if they do and d*mned if they don’t position: Had they NOT reacted, then I guarantee you, the flu would have spread faster, further and more people would have died. Then they would have taken the hit for not reacting appropriately– like George Bush deservedly did for Katrina — and we would all be left behind cleaning up behind the mess.
So I believe the reaction and the hype, and the reminders about the impact seasonal flu has on all of us, are warranted. I, for one, appreciate it. Lives have been saved. Awareness has been heightened.
That said…
I actually have more concern about the next time around. Whatever virus mutates, whether it be bird flu, swine flu, or hippopotamus flu — no matter which one it is — will we all be (pardon the pun) immune to the hype? Will we ignore the governments and media who try to prepare us to keep us safe? Will we go about our daily business tuning them out? Will we turn a deaf ear because “remember swine flu? no big deal!”
Chicken Little (who may be carrying bird flu, by the way) reminded us that the sky CAN fall when we don’t pay attention. So the real point is that we need to be prepared with falling-sky contingency plans. That’s what WHO does. That’s what governments do. That’s what media reports.
We just need to be sure we pay attention and take action, regardless of how hype-y it seems to be.
January 31st, 2009 by Trisha Torrey
Here’s an update on my Every Patient’s Advocate activities
for the week of January 25 to 31:
See this icon? 
It means this link includes an opportunity for you to participate, beyond just a comment. However, please remember that your comments to any article or post are always welcome.
This icon 
indicates a piece that has attracted a lot of attention.
Blog Posts ………………………………..
Articles ………………………………..
Radio (Podcasts) ………………………………..
HealthLink on Air Guests — January 25:
Dr. Jeremy Shefner on Lou Gehrig’s Disease (ALS) and Sharon Bauer, RN on Peripheral Stem Cell Transplants, plus review of a headline about premature infant deaths by Dr. Dave Smith, president of SUNY Upstate
Information is temporarily unavailable.
