Health care reform -- practitioners

You’ve heard of supply and demand, right? The basic idea is that for a thing, there is some amount where the demand for that thing equals the supply. Having too much of something means you have to discount it to get more people interested in it. Having too little of something means you have to charge a premium because more people want it than you have enough to sell to them.

This philosophy also applies to services. Say, doctors, for instance. A person is willing to wait a certain amount of time to see their doc. If their current doctor is booked too far out, they’ll go see another doctor. If the overall wait time is too long, the price doctors charge will increase to decrease the number of people making appointments. As the fee increases, non-doctors will decide to become doctors because the fee for service is so appealing. As more doctors enter the marketplace, the wait time to see a doc drops incenting doctors to reduce their fees to incent people to come see them. Follow?

Let me ask you a question. What would happen if we add 40 million patients without adding any doctors, nurses, pharmacists, technicians, or other health care professionals? If one-percent of them decided to go get a check-up, 400,000 additional patients would be trying to get in to see a doctor. Two things can happen. One, the price to see a doc goes up. Two, the time to see a doc will increase.

Let me ask you another question. How can President Obama promise health care for everyone in the United States without adversely effecting service? How can the President promise to increase the number of patients and limit the price health care professionals will be reimbursed and not expect wait times to increase?

One of the answers is to affordable health care for every American is more doctors, nurses and other health care professionals. Why aren’t we building more medical schools? Why aren’t we committing more finances to help medical students pay for medical school? Why aren’t we helping health care professionals repay their student loans? If you want health care costs to fall, increase the number of health care professionals.

One what?

One trillion seconds ago, the earliest known cave paintings were being made.

One trillion heart beats is enough for 384 lifetimes.

One trillion watts are released in a lightning strike in manner of microseconds.

One trillion dollar bills stacked on each other would reach 1/3 of the way to the Moon.

One trillion miles is almost 40,225,700 times the distance around Earth and almost 42,200 times the distance from Earth to Venus. It’s nearly 4,000 times the distance from Earth to Mars at its most distant orbit.

One trillion is the US national deficit over the last nine months. That means we bought more than we sold. It’s 13% of our GDP, more than twice the previous record. Put another way, that’s about $3,300 for every America.

It’s past time to reprioritize our spending and cut back to core services.

Putting science back in its rightful place, Part 1

President Obama is expected to lift the ban Federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research on Monday, March 9th. This is a reversal of President Bush’s policy restricting Federal funding for research on existing embryonic stem-cell colonies. Mr. Obama’s policy change will set the wheels in motion to funnel up to $10 Billion in stimulus money to this controversial practice.

It was sad when Christopher Reeves died. Matthew Broderick faces very scary prospect. Conceivably, tens of millions of Americans may be helped by the therapies that may be developed through the use of these cells, including friends, close associates, and members of my own family. Unfortunately, my illation at the possibility of miracle cures is tempered by the fact that there is no reasonable expectation of finding anything new through embryonic stem-cells.

Let’s get the easy one out of the way first. First, 10s of millions of us object to the practice based on moral grounds. We have religious reasons. We object to abortions, believe that life begins at conception, that the cells that would be used could become human lives, don't want to open the door to embryo-farming, and aren’t willing to pay for something we consider murder. We object to the idea of trading one life for another. It’s easy to discount the stem-cell as just a thing to be used for our own ends, but don't commit atrocities in our names. We don’t want tax dollars spent on performing abortions either. It’s just part of our value system.

Perhaps more substantial than my moral sensibilities, however, is the fact that it doesn’t make any economic or medial sense. There is no scientific or anecdotal evidence that the investment of billions of dollars and research time will produce one viable solution. There is however a track record of very real solutions from adult stem-cells.

Embryonic stem-cell research has never been illegal. The Bush policy simply prohibited Federal dollars from flowing to research on the cells. California created a $3 Billion fund to invest in embryonic stem-cell research. Countries on every populated continent permit the research. Scientists have been doing research on embryonic stem-cells since the 80s. What are the results for the billions of dollars and decades spent? Theory. Although it’s never been illegal, it’s never been productive. In contrast, adult stem-cells have a track record of success. Some of the successful therapies of adult stem-cells include cure spinal cord injuries, leukemia, and Parkinson’s disease.

People are generally more careful with their own money than other people’s. I find it strange that almost no free market researcher is investing in embryonic stem-cell research. Almost everyone who wants to spend money on embryonic research won’t do it with their own money. The pharmaceutical giants in the US that spend billions of dollars and decades developing new drugs, therapies, and goods are doing almost nothing with embryonic stem-cells.

I don’t put a lot of faith in corporate ethics so I don’t think the pharmaceuticals are staying away from embryonic stem-cell research for moral reasons. Their practice suggests to me that the companies that develop the drugs that the world takes don’t believe there’s any benefit. If GSK thought for a minute that they could cure Parkinson’s or cancer or MS or AIDS or Alzheimer’s or Varicose veins, they would move heaven and earth to own the technology. But private companies aren't investing anything in embryonic stem-cell research. They’re investing in adult stem-cells and cord blood. Maybe the great promise of embryonic stem-cell research is just wishful thinking OR can be done with adult stem-cells with out having to overcome the technical problems with embryonic stem-cells.

Embryonic stem-cells don’t seem to like being used. They have this amazing capacity to become any cell, and yet, rejection is common. Rejection inhibitors have to be taken with test therapies derived from embryonic stem-cell research to reduce the likelihood of rejection in the host. Cells that have the ability to become anything sometimes become cancerous and increase the likelihood that the host will develop cancer. Adult stem-cells have been used in the therapy of or have cured scores of conditions. There is no verifiable, repeatable example of successful use of embryonic stem-cell research.

I hope that every disease and injury will one day be cured, but let’s put our resources where we’re actually seeing results! Let’s not waste our resources chasing dreams when we already have viable options.

Our mayors have been put on notice

The AP reported today that the President warned the nation's mayors not to waste the bailout money or he'd "call them out".

What the hell does that mean? Oh no, not a stern talking too. That's like dad looking at his 14-year-old son who got drunk and smashed through the sliding glass door and telling him to go to time out and think about what he did wrong.

President: "Mr. Mayor, you wasted $150 million and I'm very disappointed in you. What do you have to say for yourself?"

Mayor: "I don't pay my taxes either. Can I have a job?"

President: "Let me see what I can do."

When is a crime not a crime?

Molalla River Middle School was closed Friday, February 20th because of a bomb threat. The girl who posted the threat was taken into custody by the police department and referred to the juvenile department.

Dr. Wayne Kostur, the superintendent of the school district, was interviewed on the radio Friday shortly after her arrest and was asked if the girl had committed a crime. He said he didn’t know. Dr. Kostur was asked if she should be charged with a crime. He said that was up to the police. When asked what his opinion was, he said he didn’t have one. Dr. Kostur acknowledged calling in a bomb threat is a crime but still wasn’t sure if he had an opinion on whether the student should be charged with a crime. He was asked if he thought a student who killed another student should be charged with a crime, he said he didn’t know and would not express his opinion on the air.

He didn’t know?!? Dr. Kostur didn’t know if a student should be prosecuted for a crime?!? So, do you think discipline a problem in Molalla schools? Hey, School Board, your guy’s either too much of a wimp to stand up to students, unions, and bureaus OR he’s too stupid to know that a crime’s a crime and we charge people with a crime when they call in a bomb threat!

Support adoption

The adoption option is coming up more and more lately. Check out this great website. It was started by a woman who found herself pregnant as a teenager and she shares her journey and offers support to girls, women, and supporters.

If you're pregnant, scared, and alone -- I know... I've been there. The last thing you want is people talking at you. Take a breather, a time out, and check out my page. It was info like this that really helped me. DearBecky@standupgirl.com

http://www.standupgirl.org

Good for you, Becky!

Safe Haven Laws Revisited

I'm a pretty big fan of Safe Haven laws. Even though some moms can't seem to understand that they don't mean they can't leave their newborn on a church steps in near freezing temperatures with no one around, I want to commend any mother who makes the tough decision to help their child have a better life than they can provide.

It appears that they may be a problem with Safe Haven laws though. There's no age limit, at least not in Nebraska.


Here is a link to the story.
Nebraska Lawmakers Consider Age Limit on Safe-Haven Law

Monday, November 17, 2008

LINCOLN, Neb. — A Nebraska legislative committee was scheduled to hold a public hearing on bills that would limit the age of children who could be dropped off under the state's safe-haven law.

The law has no age limit, which has led to the drop-off of 34 children at hospitals, most of them preteens and teenagers.

One bill up for hearing on Monday would limit to 3 days the age of children who could be dropped off.

Another would set two age limits, 1 year and 15 years.

The 15-year age cap isn't expected to be considered by the full Legislature because the bill also calls for those older children to receive new crisis services. Attorney General Jon Bruning says that is outside the limited scope of the special legislative session.