Featured Post

Is the new professionalism and ACP's new ethics really just about following guidelines?

The Charter ( Medical Professionalism in the New Millennium.A Physician's Charter) did not deal with just the important relationship of ...

Wednesday, April 07, 2010

The Health care bill- No one knows what it will do but don't worry

Here are two interesting quotes regarding the health care bill.

The first from Nancy Pelosi , see here.

"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it".

The second is from the Senior VP of Governmental Affairs and Public Policy for the American College of Physicians, Robert Doherty He writes a blog called "The ACP Advocate Blog by Bob Doherty".

He began a recent blog commentary with the following sentence:

Well you don't. Neither do I, and for that matter, nor does anyone else.

The reader soon realizes that this attention-getting lead sentence is in reference to what the effect(s) of the recently passed health care bill ( now known as PPACA) will be.

While Ms. Pelosi's statement seems at first analysis just to make no sense at all but maybe it makes more sense that it seems at first. On the other hand, Mr Doherty' offers are a candid,thoughtful assessment that concluded that the bill is so complex,and I would add currently in many regards indeterminate, that no one can known for sure what the consequences will be.

I agree. Further there are many sections of the bill that delegate much authority to political appointees ( e.g. the Secretary of HHS) to make rules and regulations that will have extreme broad effects on peoples lives . We cannot comment on what the outcomes of these decisions because we will know what they are until they are made.

Doherty continues:

Yet the honest, truthful answer is that neither side can really have all that much confidence in their assessments of the law's impact. If they were honest with themselves, and with us, they would acknowledge that there is a tremendous degree of uncertainty about how the PPACA will work in practice. Some elements of the law, like how it will provide access to health insurance coverage, can be assessed with greater confidence than, say, the long-term impact on health care costs and the federal budget deficit.

Again, I agree. Neither side can know the law's impact. In my opinion, one can rationally oppose a bill solely on the grounds that its effects and impact are not known. Can you say Pig in a poke"? On the other hand, I am puzzled how one can advocate for a bill given the knowledge that its effects are unknown. I am puzzled by the argument that support for it is based on a belief that the legislation is in the public interest if the face of admitted ignorance of the bill's effect. Of course the bill will provide health insurance coverage for millions of the previously uninsured but is that provision so important that it trumps all possible negatives. Apparently so it the eyes of at least some of its supporters.

Maybe Speaker Pelosi was right after all. We have to pass the bill AND wait and see what the bureaucrats do with the incredible powers delegated to them to really see what it is the bill.

This video seems an appropriate closing.

1 comment:

Andrew_M_Garland said...

Policy Planners: Don't worry your non-degreed head about the details. They will change to be what we want, anyway. The important thing is that everyone gets an equal share of the doctors, no matter how little. We have a huge backlog of scientific management theories that we are itching to try out and refine in the real world. On our cocktail napkins, we find savings of 60%. None of our early employers wanted to listen to us, but they surely will listen to us now.

If we don't get it right at first, we will try and try again until it does work, no matter how long it takes. The sweet, simple, misguided public deserves nothing less.

Leading The People

They have a solution that will work if we would only stop arguing and agree with them.

They may need to omit some information about the new arrangements and what these will cost. They observe that ordinary people do not think well enough to make decisions in their own long-term best interest.

Dissenters are either uninformed or selfish. There is no need to argue about the specific meanings of words. The good of the society justifies telling some lies, if it comes to that.

The solution requires that we all pitch in and not be greedy. The people with the most resources will put their extra income or property into the pot.

They will modify or replace the solution if it doesn't work. They will design a new solution the same way they designed the first solution, through thought, research, and discussion among themselves. Further solutions may require more resources.