<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Never Too Late for A New Year’s Resolution</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.healthcareletter.com/2010/02/25/never-too-late-for-a-new-year%e2%80%99s-resolution/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.healthcareletter.com/2010/02/25/never-too-late-for-a-new-year%e2%80%99s-resolution/</link>
	<description>Call to Action Weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 01:16:40 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Rob Plamondon</title>
		<link>http://www.healthcareletter.com/2010/02/25/never-too-late-for-a-new-year%e2%80%99s-resolution/comment-page-1/#comment-133</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob Plamondon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:56:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.healthcareletter.com/?p=1358#comment-133</guid>
		<description>As a vote on the Healthcare Bill now seems imminent this weekend, or the use of the Slaughter rule to &quot;deem&quot; the previously passed Senate version of the bill to be passed in the House, I have a heard a few opinions I thought were very interesting in considering the passage of this bill.  However, neither have been mentioned in the arguments for passage.

The first is a survey released by the New England Journal of Medicine whereby over 46% of Doctors surveys indicated they would be likely to quit if this bill does pass.  Granted, it&#039;s one thing to say it and another thing to do it, it still raises a very important point.  How do we maintain the quality of our healthcare if even half of these Doctors are true to their word?  With shortages in medical staff and adding another 30 million insured people in this country, the thought of rationed care becomes even more plausible.

The second is from a video lecture I saw given by Eric Dishman from Intel (can be found at www.ted.com).  I realize, being from a technology company could question his credibility, but he did make some good points.  He spoke about the fact that in 2011, the first of the baby boomers will start reaching retirement age (assuming we consider the baby boom to have started in 1946), and the number of retirees (65+) will continue to grow at a faster pace than the rest of the population.  He argues that regardless of how we pay for Healthcare, if don&#039;t address how we fundamentally deliver care, then effectively, we havent addressed the problem.  Of course he speaks about technology as a means of doing this, but I think his point is a good one. The bill does not address the fundamentals of how care is develivered which ultimately affects cost more than how it is paid for or who pays for it.

I would be interested to get thoughts from this community.

Rob</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a vote on the Healthcare Bill now seems imminent this weekend, or the use of the Slaughter rule to &#8220;deem&#8221; the previously passed Senate version of the bill to be passed in the House, I have a heard a few opinions I thought were very interesting in considering the passage of this bill.  However, neither have been mentioned in the arguments for passage.</p>
<p>The first is a survey released by the New England Journal of Medicine whereby over 46% of Doctors surveys indicated they would be likely to quit if this bill does pass.  Granted, it&#8217;s one thing to say it and another thing to do it, it still raises a very important point.  How do we maintain the quality of our healthcare if even half of these Doctors are true to their word?  With shortages in medical staff and adding another 30 million insured people in this country, the thought of rationed care becomes even more plausible.</p>
<p>The second is from a video lecture I saw given by Eric Dishman from Intel (can be found at <a href="http://www.ted.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ted.com</a>).  I realize, being from a technology company could question his credibility, but he did make some good points.  He spoke about the fact that in 2011, the first of the baby boomers will start reaching retirement age (assuming we consider the baby boom to have started in 1946), and the number of retirees (65+) will continue to grow at a faster pace than the rest of the population.  He argues that regardless of how we pay for Healthcare, if don&#8217;t address how we fundamentally deliver care, then effectively, we havent addressed the problem.  Of course he speaks about technology as a means of doing this, but I think his point is a good one. The bill does not address the fundamentals of how care is develivered which ultimately affects cost more than how it is paid for or who pays for it.</p>
<p>I would be interested to get thoughts from this community.</p>
<p>Rob</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

