There are many interesting ideas in this world. This blog is dedicated to pursuing them wherever they go. Politics, philosophy, religion, environment, and anything else that captures imaginations and leads to healthy discussions. Never take the world for what it is, there's always a better way to do something.
The House’s healthcare reform bill passed yesterday, 220-215.
It still needs to be passed by the Senate, but considering nothing like this has passed through the House in 40 years, it’s reason to be excited.
Among other things, the version of the healthcare reform bill that passed would:
-Expand Medicaid eligibility to anyone below 133% of the federal poverty line (FPL).
-Allow people between 133-400% of the FPL to purchase the “public option” government insurance plan.
-Require people to get insured (this was favored by Clinton and opposed by Obama in the primaries and seemed to be the main point of disagreement in their debates)
-Not allow insurance companies to reject people based on pre-existing conditions
-Kill your grandma (no not really)
CBO estimates it would reduce the number of uninsured by 36 million.
A yay vote came from 1 Republican, Joe Cao of Louisiana. Thanks, Joe. I’ll drink a cup of you in your honor. I hope you wont be offended that it’s instant.
The NY Times published an analysis of the 39 House Democrats who voted nay. They emphasize that a lot of them tend to be in districts where they either won narrowly in their last election or their district favored McCain in 2008. There are a few exceptions to these conditions, however, such as Dennis Kucinich (who only supports single payer healthcare), Brian Baird, John Barrow (Blue Dog) and Artur Davis.
A poll conducted by Time in 2006 found that 64% of those surveyed believe that there is “a lot of disagreement” on global warming among scientists. This belief is contradicted by studies such as Orkes 2004 and Doran and Zimmerman 2009 that indicate a strong consensus among climate scientists on anthropogenic global warming.
Looking 11 Years Back – The GCST Memo
In 1998 the American Petroleum Institute’s “Global Climate Science Team” issued an Action Plan to influence the public’s view of global climate change. According to the memo, victory would be achieved when:
“-Average citizens “understand” (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the “conventional wisdom”
-Media “understands” (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science
-Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current “conventional wisdom”
-Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy
-Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extent science appears to be out of touch with reality.”
Reading some of Dean Baker’s work exposed me to an aspect of US health care coverage that I haven’t seen discussed much: protectionism for medical professionals and its impact on health care costs. According to this MNT article (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/77635.php), physicians are in short supply. This raises some interesting questions. How does the supply of medical service effect the cost of care and the salaries of medical professionals? Why is the supply short in the first place? And on the cautious side, could there be negative consequences of having a more saturated job market?
In recent history, trade agreements such as NAFTA have expanded the ability of US countries to invest in cheap imports produced by foreign workers. This has typically been referred to as “globalization”. While it has an impact on the market for manufactured goods, it has not applied to skilled professional services including medicine, law, academics and journalism where we in the United States seem to retain protectionist policies.
