I see one glaring omission.
The text of the plan says that only about 55% of patients get appropriate care, and goes on to mention medication errors and delayed or mistaken lab results. Seems to me these things are usually the result of under-staffing. Likewise the long wait times, impersonal care and the simple mistakes made when the doctor or nurse has only 10 minutes to talk with and diagnose each patient.
We already have too few nurses and doctors to meet current needs, with no signs of relief on the horizon. Increasing the number of insured people without taking corresponding measures to bolster the health care infrastructure will only ensure that everyone gets substandard care. While substandard care is certainly an advantage for those who currently have no care, it's likely to create resentment among those who are currently insured. They are already experiencing longer wait times for a doctor, fewer nurses, and decreased availability of certain types of specialized practitioners. Adding 40 million plus people to the ranks of the insured will only exacerbate the problem. Longer wait times and diluted care could potentially alienate much of the middle class (for whom the quality of care is likely to suffer most), and keep them from embracing the real advantages of Edwards plan.
I'd like to see a provision within the plan to offer more grants to those interested in studying medicine and nursing, as well as some programs for exposing junior high and high school kids to careers in medicine. Some incentives for adults to study nursing, and for experienced nurses to transition into retirement by way of teaching would also be useful. Federal grants to help community colleges develop more nursing programs, and help existing nursing schools to recruit faculty and increase classroom space makes good sense, since tens of thousands of qualified applicants are being turned away every year.
It also wouldn't hurt to work up some ideas for reducing medical malpractice insurance. Tort reform wouldn't be a bad place to start. Although Dems tend to avoid it (and largely vote against it each time it comes up), it does seem a necessary issue to tackle.
A good place to read about tort reform:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hey there. Interesting analysis. i'm actually in the process of choosing who to support this time and i'm leaning toward John Edwards. i voted for him last time in the California primary despite the fact that Kerry had already wrapped up the nomination by then. i just thought (and it turned out correctly) that Kerry couldn't win. there was just something so stiff and patrician about him that would never really connect with real people. Edwards, having grown up poor just seemed to get it more and seemed more able to genuinely connect with more people in different circumstances. still i'm very open to change my mind... right now this is my preference list from those running or perhaps running:
Edwards (D)
Gore (D) if he runs
Obama (D)
Hagel (R)
Clinton (D)
Richardson (D)
Biden (D)
At his point I'm leaning towards Obama, partly because he's such a pleasure to listen to. :) After so many years of Bush's simpering, smirking style it would be a joy to watch Obama give the SOTU. My top 3 are the same as yours, then Hillary, but the order shifts around as I read more. I've always liked Gore and felt he was underrated. The "stiff" thing never bothered me. Don't know much about Hagel... I should go read some now. I'll let you know what I think.
You write very well.
Post a Comment