Healthcare reform debate seems incomplete when viewed through multiple links

Full disclosure: In the past, I have worked doing public relations for hospitals in Michigan, one large, one small.

News coverage of the healthcare reform debate can be fascinating, if you can set aside the human costs of inadequate health care.

A doctor bemoans the fate of medicine as health care becomes a business. Dr. Sandeep Jauhar writes in the New York Times that he became a physician to care for patients, not to be a businessman, but considering costs has become a high priority for doctors.

In the same issue of the Times an editorial suggests that as much as $700 billion per year, or 30 percent of U.S. healthcare spending is wasted.

That amount of waste seems plausible when you consider that the U.S. spends more per capita than any other country, according to World Health Organization (WHO) figures. Question: How is it that we can spend so much per person on health care when so many people are not covered by insurance and so, supposedly, do not access health care? According to this link, that and other assumptions about the uninsured are not necessarily correct. Still, with 15 percent of the population uninsured—almost 50 million individuals—the rate seems too high.

When the debate leaves numbers behind and goes to quality, there seems to be a difference of opinion as well. Does the United States have the best healthcare system in the world as some claim when they oppose healthcare reform? The WHO disagrees. (This information is from a 2000 report available here. The 2008 version also is available. Apparently the reports do not update the quality rankings each year.)

The point is not that conflicting opinions and information exist. The point is, that even with a cursory search of the Internet, and taking into account that the information from different sources isn't likely to be equally reliable, news media coverage of the current healthcare debate could be MUCH better.

More later,
Russ

Dick Cheney coverage misses the point

By now, anyone keeping up with the news has heard that former Vice President Dick Cheney (the king of secrets) wants the Obama administration to declassify MORE memos about torture.

The recently released memos show how the Bush administration lawyers justified torture. Cheney wants CIA memos that show how torture was effective because it led the U.S. to knowledge that allowed the CIA (or whomever) to foil terrorist plots. Journalists (at least in the news that I've seen, CNN & FOX are two) are building their coverage around pundits on either side.

THIS COVERAGE IS IRRELEVANT!

Torture is ILLEGAL under U.S. law, no matter what the pundits say. The reasons don't matter.

Torture is illegal whether it is done to foil terrorists or if it is done because the torturers just enjoy torturing people.

More later,
Russ

Inspector General Web site

The IGs are sticking together. They have their own Web site.

More later,
Russ

If your government agency's Inspector General keeps nagging you about being corrupt, fire him!

In 1978, Congress decided some government agencies needed their own individual watchdogs to ensure that agency personnel didn't waste money or behave unethically. As a citizen, you might think the ability and character to do the right thing was part of the reason the leaders and underlings of various federal agencies were appointed/hired. Apparently not so according to an article in today's New York Times. Instead, a number of inspectors general are getting grief from the heads of their agencies for doing their jobs.

Section 2 of the act outlines the purpose of an inspector general as:

§ 2. Purpose and establishment of Offices of Inspector General; departments and agencies involved

In order to create independent and objective units--

(1) to conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the establishments listed in section 11(2);

(2) to provide leadership and coordination and recommend policies for activities designed (A) to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of, and (B) to prevent and detect fraud and abuse in, such programs and operations; and

(3) to provide a means for keeping the head of the establishment and the Congress fully and currently informed about problems and deficiencies relating to the administration of such programs and operations and the necessity for and progress of corrective action;

The Times article cites complaints from the very people inspectors general are required to report to: heads of the establishment (agency). It seems the heads of federal agencies have been effected profoundly by the Bush presidency. They seem to believe that everything they do or order done is right because they say so.

More later,
Russ