Times special report: Is the health act affordable?

This is a transcription of my comments on the Gainesville Times article by the above title in today’s paper.

But the real question is not can we afford what is essential for life? The question more appropriately is:

Can the United States afford to serve up the ill and disabled as a source for immense corporate profits?

IMO a legitimate criticism of the ACA is that it does indeed, well beyond that of other developed nations, assure continued high profits for private sector corporate industries. Efforts to decrease cost to consumer are largely based on the ACA focus to diminish utilization through incentives to medical care providers; paying less for more care. Yes. A sick patient becomes a liability. But he/she remaining sick is a money source in the current system. It is fair to say perverse incentives are being looked at critically by many in and out of government and insurance companies. IMO this will likely be remedied by future tweaks in reimbursement criteria.

That said; IMO essential health service cannot be managed on the principles of a business intended to make high profits.

We must afford health care. What we cannot afford is to simply provide customers for high profit industries and investors.

Original Article: The Times of Gainesville, Georgia


Thoughts on energy

From my  summary comments on The Times of Gainesville, Georgia blog last week.

There is no doubt we have already been delayed in making the critical decisions around energy for far too long. It now is, if possible, even more vital that the sources of information on which these decisions are made and supported be examined in detail. A change over under best of circumstances has to be gradual with focus on some areas more than other. The longer the delay the more disruptive the changes will be.

This long delay in acting on preventing and modifying the climate change being caused by carbon emissions has perversely at least given the people a chance to examine the track records of these well funded advocates of expansion of poisonous fuel sources. They would have us ignore the overwhelming consensus among the scientific community as to facts of carbon emission caused warming, and now the risks calculated by investor class in regard to nuclear power.

The science as to warming is settled and the documentation in the scientific literature is plentiful. The problems of nuclear are self evident. The creation of waste, dangerous to man forever, and what to do with it is the first. A second has shown itself in the inevitable unpredictable accidents of man and nature that create vast unlivable areas of devastation or contamination that endure endure operationally forever.