Amos's River of Justice

Tag: health care

  • Alternative Medicine Versus Medicare For All?

    Update March 2, 2020:

    I wrote two similar articles about Marianne Williamson’s and Tulsi Gabbard’s healthcare vision. I’ve already deleted the other one because Williamson endorsed Bernie. I decided not to delete this one because I think it’s an important angle on the Medicare for All issue, but I want to be clear that I think my criticism of Williamson is now irrelevant–her decision to drop out of the race and endorse Bernie was an act of good faith.  She might have a different view than Bernie on this issue, but she is still part of the progressive movement.

    Traditional medical providers may consider alternative medicine a rival to Western medicine, but their patients have given their stamp of approval by spending $35 billion a year on alternative medical treatments, sometimes called CAM (complementary and alternative medicine).  So it’s not surprising that some of the nation’s biggest hospitals have recognized the lucrative potential of alternative medicine and are now joining forces with alternative medical providers.

    What are alternative treatments exactly?  According to an article on policymed.com

    While there is no official list of what alternative medicine actually comprises, treatments falling under the umbrella typically include acupuncture, homeopathy (the administration of a glass of water supposedly containing the undetectable remnants of various semi-toxic substances), chiropractic, herbal medicine, Reiki (“laying on of hands,” or “energy therapy”), meditation (now often called “mindfulness”), massage, aromatherapy, hypnosis, Ayurveda (a traditional medical practice originating in India), and several other treatments not normally prescribed by mainstream doctors.

    There has long been support in the U.S. Congress for alternative medicine.  This includes dietary supplements, which have been strongly supported by Orin Hatch among others.  However, you might be surprised to learn that this coalition is now a direct rival to Bernie Sanders’ Medicare For All proposal, and not just philosophically speaking.  This rivalry is currently playing out in the presidential campaigns of Marianne Williamson and Tulsi Gabbard, who each have an interest in holistic medicine.  Williamson has a list of alternative medical services on her website, and A Course in Miracles is itself an alternative approach to health care.  Gabbard’s bipartisan initiative for marijuanna reform, while it is an important step toward criminal justice reform, includes alternative health care interests represented by Chanda Macias, MBA, PhD, CEO and owner of National Holistic Healing Center in DC.  Marijuanna is an important ingredient in alternative therapies.  In addition, one of the closest and oldest connections to Gabbard’s family, Chris Butler, offers alternative health services centered around yoga.   In 2002 Yoga was the 5th most commonly used CAM therapy.

    A survey released in May 2004  by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine focused on who used complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), what was used, and why it was used in the United States by adults age 18 years and over during 2002.

    According to this survey, Yoga was the 5th most commonly used CAM therapy (2.8%) in the United States during 2002.

    It may be somewhat surprising to learn that holistic practitioners oppose Medicare for All.  The explanation for this begins with the fact that insurance policies don’t typically pay for alternative therapies.  Patients pay for them out-of-pocket, and that suits practitioners just fine.  If their treatments were covered by insurance they would have to abide by certain guidelines, and they prefer to treat their patients according to their own criteria.  Furthermore, if taxes were increased to pay for medical care, in other words, if people knew their health care was already paid for, and if that care was freely available, it would seriously effect the bottom line of alternative practitioners.   So alternative medical providers have a stake the status quo, like insurance companies.   Where does that leave us as far as a political strategy is concerned?

    You might be thinking that if alternative medicine is cheaper, changing the way practitioners practice might be a solution.  After all, integrative medicine, which combines traditional treatments with alternative medicine, is a growing industry and several candidates have stressed the importance of preventative medicine.  But unfortunately, chronic disease isn’t going to disappear and there is no scientific evidence that alternative therapies can address these illnesses as well as traditional medicine.

    On the other hand, there seems to be general agreement that Western medicine needs to change its focus.  Its medical infrastructure was designed to combat infectious diseases, and it works well for that purpose.  However its success with infectious agents has brought complex chronic diseases into focus, such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s.  Chronic diseases now account for three fourths of our health care spending.

    In other words, preventive measures are important, but there is also the problem of whether patients are able and willing to follow those preventive measure.   At some point, the effects of low-wage jobs, unaffordable housing, and the lack of clean water and healthy food will come into the picture.  In addition, alternative and integrative medicine are not free.

    There are improvements to the current system that must be made, but they will take time.  In the meantime, Medicare for All is desparately needed.  And it’s favored by the majority of the population.  In this light, resistance from practitioners of holistic medicine seems rather self-centered.  And considering the other forces arrayed against single-payer insurance, resistance from alternative interests is the last thing this country needs.

    Many doctors are supportive of Medicare For All, but the AMA is organizing against it.

    The AMA is currently allied with other industry groups in the fight against Medicare for All as a part of a group called “Partnership for America’s Health Care Future,” which is spending millions of dollars and is backed by the American Hospital Association, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and America’s Health Insurance Plans, which includes Cigna, Anthem, Centene and other health insurance giants.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Killer Mike and Bernie Sanders Talk

  • Will Business Leaders Take This Lying Down?

    I have recommended that taxpayers cut off discretionary spending as a response to the government shutdown and looming default.  However in the last week there has been little Congressional response to the lobbying efforts of business groups.  There is a simple explanation for that: the shutdown is fueled by ideology rather than political and economic expediency.  It has come to the point where a radical group of Republicans feels free to ignore the money interests that helped get them elected.   Unfortunately, they are still listening to the biggest of these money interests, think tanks and PACS which are run by people who don’t have to worry about votes or balance sheets.

    Take, for example, Ted Cruz.  He would not be a Senator today without the help of The Club for Growth and Senate Conservatives Fund.  Together, in the 2014 cycle, they gave him $1,021,648.  This is more than 55 percent of his total contributions.  His other top contributors are banks, lobbying firms, and of course Goldman Sachs.  You might expect Goldman’s input since his wife is a vice-president there, but the bank shows up as a contributor to other radicals as well.  Cruz wants to wipe out Affordable Care.  What he doesn’t say is that it won’t affect him either way; he has health insurance from Goldman Sachs through his wife.  Then there is the other disturbing contributor that keeps coming up when you look at the finances of Cruz and others in this radical group, Berkshire Hathaway.

    Before I get to the main point of this post, I would like to point out the irony of this situation.  Business has always thought it had an alliance with the Republican Party, and against the rest of us. That is, against employees.  Consumers they like.  They didn’t seem to object when women were being called sluts, maybe because they sort of liked the idea of not having to pay for employees’ birth control.  And of course, they’ve always been fine with holding down the minimum wage.  A weak labor union is a good labor union.  Affordable care?  Not if it means they have to pay.  And yet it never occurred to them that the stingy, mean, unjust spirit behind this thinking would turn on them.  What did they think would happen?

    On second thought, my main point might backfire.  I was going to suggest that business use its clout to end this, but who would they be most likely to help?  We already know the answer to that question.

    If the Congress hasn’t resolved this by Thursday I recommend the following: no one goes to work, no one drives, we buy only necessary food items. Employers who fire anyone at that time for any reason should be boycotted.

    [I don’t have positions in Goldman Sachs (GS-PC) or Bershire Hathaway (BRK-A).]

    Update:

    I’ve been thinking about my recommendation.  I don’t think it was too extreme considering the seriousness of the threat, but because  I wouldn’t be risking as much as many of you I’ve decided it’s not a good idea.  Things seem to be looking up so it may never have come to that, but at least I can remove the stress of thinking about it.

    [display-posts category=”the healthcare crisis”]

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Forget About Saving Face: Open the Government and Extend the Debt Limit

    After reading Eric Alterman’s article in The Nation, I think I’ve been influenced by those calling for face-saving gestures from the Democrats.  Such gestures are necessary, they say, so the Republicans will let the government carry on its routine business.

    In any relationship, face-saving politeness is cause for concern–both for those who find themselves being excessively polite, as well as for those on the receiving end of the politeness.   Politeness toward those responsible for the government shutdown begins to look like the behavior reserved for an abusive spouse.  It’s based on fear.

    If we want to discuss negative tendencies in government, we’d eventually have to include both parties.  However, theoretically, the government is us. Fear has no useful purpose in it. Still, it is increasingly difficult to police the government, mostly due to the role of corporate money.  And corporate money favors the Republican Party.  You would think they would be more worried when even large amounts of money are not enough, and hostage-taking becomes necessary.

    But let’s assume for a moment that the Republicans have a point when they say the President won’t negotiate with them any other way.  Ignoring the fact that Affordable Care is the law the next questions ought to be, do Republicans have a better answer to the medical crisis, and do they really care whether the poor have healthcare?  Apparently not, judging from their rhetoric and previous legislation.

    Alterman is right…we should forget about the face-saving.  New memo to the Republicans: Open the government and extend the debt limit.

    [display-posts category=”the healthcare crisis”]

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Speaking of Affordable Care: Big Ideas at the Town Hall

    If you were hoping for a debate over Affordable Care on September 25 in Phoenix, you would have been disappointed. What was clear at the town hall conducted by Mayo Clinic and ASU Foundation was the panelists’ exasperation with the political debate about who pays for medical care. Contestants are so wrapped up in their squabbling that substantive issues never enter into it. In the meantime, people are dying.

    How might people spend their time if they don’t feel compelled to debate the Affordable Care Act? They might address the problems that still exist regardless of whether the Act goes into effect.

    The panelists at Wednesday’s meeting were ASU president, Michael M. Crow; Mayo Clinic Vice President and CEO, Dr. Wyatt Decker; and Dr. Richard Carmona, Surgeon General of the United States from 2002 to 2006. This town hall was part of a collaboration between Mayo Clinic and Arizona State University, but similar collaborations have been taking place with Mayo in Rochester and Mayo Clinic in Florida. Although Mayo Arizona has been working with ASU for about ten years, there was a new development in June of this year, a $1 million grant awarded to Mayo Clinic by the American Medical Association. Mayo Clinic is one of eleven applicants who received the grant, part of the AMA’s Accelerating Change in Medical Education program, aimed at the creation of a new model of undergraduate education, but its effects will go beyond these eleven schools. Selected schools will form a learning consortium to spread best practices to other schools.

    The panelists were all justifiably proud of Mayo’s record. First, Mayo Clinic is the safest teaching hospital in the nation. Also, Mayo’s costs are lower. Lower costs were attributed to the fact that doctors are employed and not in private practice, so they don’t benefit from any procedures and tests they order. And Mayo charges a flat fee for procedures. This means that if there is a poor outcome, it is the clinic that loses money, not the patient and her insurance company. Great care is taken to make sure things are done right the first time around. For more on Mayo’s Model of Care see: Mayo Clinic Model of Care

    However, in spite of Mayo’s good record, none of the panelists claimed to have the answer to the medical crisis. On the contrary, they made it clear that the system is unsustainable and that it can’t be saved as it is–not by money nor by increased efficiency.

    Not only is the system unsustainable, it is self-perpetuating. In other words, it is difficult for those already in the system to think of a way to solve its problems. Therefore, their goal is nothing short of the creation of a new kind of person through educational reform; a new kind of doctor with a broad and comprehensive understanding, not only of the medical system, but of human behavior and the structure of society.

    I appreciated the humility of the panelists in the face of the looming medical crisis, but I hope this town hall was merely the beginning of the discussion because I have a few concerns.

    Dr. Crow shared a quote to the effect that industries fail because they don’t understand what people want. I would hope the panelists remember that the survival of the medical industrial complex is not the concern of medical consumers. If the industry is at fault in this crisis, maybe it should fail.

    He also stated that the system used to work, but because times have changed it no longer does. Is this true? What is the definition of a working system? I’d like more discussion about that.

    Finally, I would like to suggest that the proposed additions to the curriculum are part of the old way of thinking Mayo is trying so hard to escape: evolutionary theory, psychology, cultural anthropology. I’ve discussed some of the problematic ideas that stem from these disciplines, but my main objection is they’ve been used to justify the categorization and control of human beings. They shouldn’t be accepted without question.

    I think the town hall was a positive start, so I say these things in the spirit of a conversation. The panelists’ initiation of this conversation certainly beat the competition in the House of Representatives.

    Now about Affordable Care. Although nothing was said about it at the town hall, Mayo’s FaceBook page does provide a link to a video with the following information: The clinic estimates that doctors will see a decrease in payments for services of at least 10 to 20 percent. On the patient side, insurance premiums will go down but many policies will have high deductibles, ((cnbc video: Mayo Clinic and Affordable Care. Available: http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?play=1&video=3000201514&6415814=1.))

    Of course, insurance policies already have high deductibles. If the Republicans have plans to improve that situation, they aren’t saying.

    [display-posts category=”the healthcare crisis”]

error: Content is protected !!