Open Government Dialogue
« Back To OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

ericscottlykins

User Profile Image ericscottlykins
Member since : May-25-2009 (Verified)
3 Ideas, 7 Comments, 43 Votes

User Activity Stream

Ideas Posted

For example, I used to work with an agency that received a combination of public and private funds to provide services to people with cerebral palsy. We eliminated some positions such as Residential Program Director who was responsible for only 20 clients and eight employees. Her job was split between elected team leaders from among her former underlings on the front lines. This process sprang from software companies in the '90s
Library of Congress THOMAS site: http://thomas.loc.gov/
http://www.opencongress.org/
Displaying 1 - 25 of 4205 Ideas
12345678910….168169Next »

Comments Posted

ericscottlykins 9 months ago
REQUIRED READING FOR MEMBERS OF SENATE FINANCE AND HELP COMMITTEES

There is a very good article in the New Yorker today titled "The Cost Conundrum." http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all Here's an excerpt, which doesn't exempt you from reading all 8 pages of the original:

...We would do well to form a national institute institute for health-care delivery, bringing together clinicians, hospitals, insurers, employers, and citizens to assess, regularly, the quality and the cost of our care, review the strategies that produce good results, and make clear recommendations for local systems.

Dramatic improvements and savings will take at least a decade. But a choice must be made. Whom do we want in charge of managing the full complexity of medical care? We can turn to insurers (whether public or private), which have proved repeatedly that they can’t do it. Or we can turn to the local medical communities, which have proved that they can. But we have to choose someone—because, in much of the country, no one is in charge. And the result is the most wasteful and the least sustainable health-care system in the world."

MORE REQUIRED READING (thanks hamptonsally for posting this)
"The SUPPOSED Difficulties of Converting to Single-Payer"
By Joel A. Harrison

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=144312962&blogID=491626677
ericscottlykins 9 months ago
REQUIRED READING FOR MEMBERS OF SENATE FINANCE AND HELP COMMITTEES

There is a very good article in the New Yorker today titled "The Cost Conundrum." http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all Here's an excerpt, which doesn't exempt you from reading all 8 pages of the original:

...We would do well to form a national institute institute for health-care delivery, bringing together clinicians, hospitals, insurers, employers, and citizens to assess, regularly, the quality and the cost of our care, review the strategies that produce good results, and make clear recommendations for local systems.

Dramatic improvements and savings will take at least a decade. But a choice must be made. Whom do we want in charge of managing the full complexity of medical care? We can turn to insurers (whether public or private), which have proved repeatedly that they can’t do it. Or we can turn to the local medical communities, which have proved that they can. But we have to choose someone—because, in much of the country, no one is in charge. And the result is the most wasteful and the least sustainable health-care system in the world."
ericscottlykins 9 months ago
endorsed! http://www.citnet.org/wg/energyclimate/energy_000.aspx
ericscottlykins 9 months ago
"enormous problem of natural cures being shut out by the federal law that "ONLY A DRUG can diagnose, prevent, treat, or cure a disease".

YES
ericscottlykins 9 months ago
Best proposal so far. Thanks for your work in trying to help repair the disconnect.
ericscottlykins 9 months ago
If someone is doing a poor job, I believe the best approach is to do a better job beside them until they are irrelevant or they perform to the new standards. Can Congress raise the standards without resetting the whole system? I don't believe they will pass S703 or HR676 or any other single-payer only system, and I'm skeptical that they will offer a public option that provides some real competition. I think the major health care legislation of the 111th will include a public option, but it needs to attract at least 40-100 million customers immediately if it's going to have any teeth.

I have a hard time voting no on this one as I admire the spirit of all of the people who KNOW we can make a more efficient system that is responsible for the health of our citizens instead of the the profits of shareholders, but I believe we can make some immediate (hopefully LARGE) steps down the correct path without a new 2% payroll tax or forced enrollment.

Speaking of taking those steps, I have an issue with bullet point one of the administration's health care goals [and some notes on the rest, it turned out]:
* Reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government [If administrative costs for private insurers are around 30% and Duke Medical Center has more billing clerks per bed than nurses, let's talk seriously about what costs we can cut now, not "slowing future growth." "How about savings over previous year" - and make it happen]
* Protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs [I hope this means immediately eliminating when found reasons for costs being out of control, not just writing checks to insurance companies in the names of people who got screwed, let's unscrew them]
* Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans [94% of communities only have access to one or two plans because of insurance company consolidation. These insurance companies can currently charge what they want. Hello, government, provide some competition and renew some regulation]
* Invest in prevention and wellness [FDA sanctioned suppression of natural products protects the profits of patent holders. Just because it can't be patented doesn't mean it doesn't work. An apple a day still keeps the doctor away, and so do a lot of other things]
* Improve patient safety and quality of care [eliminate 3rd party "insurance adjuster" types]
* Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans [back to that "long term growth" business]
* Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job [make the public option the fallback option - back to that business about making the public option a place where people would want to be]
* End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions [of course]

http://www.tndp.org/profile/EricScottLykins
ericscottlykins 9 months ago
I'm going to reach across the aisle here despite the many times I have been outraged by your cheap populist obstructionism (Hey, it sells, right?) and say "John Boehner, good idea." I did not expect to see your name at the top of this list. http://www.tndp.org/profile/EricScottLykins