TPM Management: Can you get health care policy expert Maggie Mahar back as a contributor? And her archive here?
There's natural increasing blogging interest here in health care policy as the administration prepares to push for it. I recalled all of Maggie Mahar's excellent posts on the issue in here on TPMCafe circa 2007, where she spent a lot of time interacting with commenters, answering their questions, and informing them further with detailed knowledge about realities.
I went to find those posts, and it's highly unfortunate: you don't even have them unloaded into your database available here! Her archive is empty, she has not been re-registered. I found by google search that they are only available individually and only if you know what to search for, and are still not in the new format so the comments are out of order. They are in some kind of strange database created by Apperceptive, here's an example.
Whether or not you can retrieve her past postings here, I think your audience would very much benefit from new postings from her here as the health care reform debate ramps up. Instead of bloggers just repeating the same basic arguments over and over that will go nowhere, they might learn from her more of the actual realities going on that would enable them to be more effective in their arguments and any activism they might be interested in pursuing.
For those interested in the meantime, she has her own blog: http://www.healthbeatblog.org/
Strongly seconded.
February 26, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the support. The thing I liked about her posting here, rather than just suggesting people go to her blog, why she really was quite valuable as a contributor, because she showed a strong willingness to spend a ton of time answering people's questions in comments. And here she got the audience to reply to. I remember she said once it helped her as well as them to get the input. She didn't do ideology, she did facts and realities, and pondering possibilities, though she would argue for what she though possible and not possible, and, overall is very clearly on the side of the U.S. eventually getting universal coverage equivalent to most other first world countries.
February 26, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're absolutely correct AA. The Cafe is at its best when a contributor has the time and is willing to take us seriously and engage in discussion in the threads. Good call.
February 27, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this, AA! She was excellent! And we need that expertise as he head into the home stretch. That's where the battles get fiercest and the stakes are the highest.
February 26, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry - "as WE head into the home stretch"
February 26, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, please! In addition to being a great thinker (who I have often disagreed with) she really understood how to deal with TPM -- she frequently answered criticisms and well-meant responses and really interacted with the other posters here. I still get her email alerts and follow her that way but it would be better to have her here.
Oh and more Rotwang.
February 26, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you "know" her, maybe you could invite her back via her site contact info (right side bar). (I did, but I have no history with her)
Her _Money Driven Medicine_ starts out (Page xi) with a pie chart which differs from Krugman's 44% for Medi+, but shows private insurance covering only 30% of costs.
Is that really what is at issue? If so, and if private insurance overhead is 25% more than Medicare, the savings of getting rid of private insurance is a pretty small fraction of total current costs, about 7.5%. Not nothing, but not a big chunk.
Maybe I should be posting this in my blog...
February 27, 2009 4:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I haven't read her book, but I vaguely recall her trying to make the point that many people expect too much in savings from getting rid of private health insurance, and that was partly based on her study of Medicare. Not that she thought ill of Medicare, she thought highly of it, and was supportive of the idea of Medicare for all. But along the lines that major costs were continually rising for reasons other than private health insurance. (And we do know other countries with better systems are struggling with the cost problem as well.)
As flavius says below, she knew the facts and let them speak for themselves irrespective of whether they supported her personal preferences.
That's why I suggested you look at her blog in the first place, I recalled her presenting that point in some way.
February 27, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
When I read her here the impression I formed was of someone intellectually respectable: who knew the facts and let them speak for themselves irrespective of whether they supported her personal preferences.
We can't have too much of that.
February 27, 2009 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aye!
The return of Mahar would be most beneficial and interesting now as the debate on health care begins.
I highly recommend American Dreamer's blog post on TPM today regarding Joe Stiglitz coming out for Single Payer. It links to an excerpt of an important interview with Stiglitz by Amy Goodman. You can find AD's post here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/americandreamer/2009/02/stiglitz-comes-out-for-single.php
February 27, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I recommend "following" American Dreamer; you won't be disappointed, his/her postings are always thought-provoking, with an added plus--his/her postings are rare, so they won't take up a lot of your dashboard.
February 27, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't that upset their policy of one woman for every ten white men?
February 27, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
2 points for Bev!
February 27, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oooh, what are these destor23 points? Are there rewards for accumlating them? Like a toaster, a free M.R.I., or perhaps even tokens for free use of airplane toilets? :-)
February 27, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you all for the kind words.
I remember all of your names (including those of you who argued with me-- hi destor 23!)
Bevd D-- your comment here,-- LOL
Though I should say, the white men didn't drive me away, or into exile.
The management of TPM has always been cordial, particularly Andrew.
But I became busier, and during the Obama/Clinton
race, the tone of things on TPM seemed to change. More personal attacks, fewer of the very interesting comments from people like you that I so valued.
I don't mean to suggest that this happened only on TPM; in many parts of the progressive blogosphere the level of disourse seemed to descend to "my team vs. your team."
Less talk about ideas, more talk about personalities. Politics as horse race rather than politics as a debate about issues.
But things have settled down now, so I'll definitely come back and cross-post .
Best to all, Maggie
February 27, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Maggie! BTW, mho, behavior has gotten a whole lot better here the last month or two. Also there are also a lot more policy wonk types commenting, including a good number of relatively new people with a good level of financial and economic expertise.
February 27, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is good to see you back. Welcome, Happy New Year! Hope you had a good inauguration like the rest of us!
While I understand your concerns about the fierce near cannabilism that was going on in the heat of battle, with the election settled I think most everyone is back on their meds now and calmed down considerably! :)
Do you think subsidizing private health insurance is a viable, realistic and long term solution or does it just prolong the agony America is in and keep the parasites in business? Hard to tell where I come down on it I know. Joe Stiglitz is now for Single Payer. Why isn't the most realistic and quickest way to the health care we need just taking the leap to single payer as we should have 60 years ago?
What's your take?
February 27, 2009 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Well Well . . .
Here is the complete quote in its context:
Having Stiglitz point this out tells me a whole hell of a lot about this single-payer issue that I have felt is the best alternative and solution for the past 30 of the 60 years that Oleeb mentions.
If Stiglitz is speaking about the H.R. 676 don't let that "private market exclusion" portion of Stiglitz's statement fool you. I doubt seriously that he's talking about including the insurance business interests into the plan the way they are now riding herd over the Medicare Advantage system that are basically taxpayer-subsidized profit centers for insurers.
See: blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/12/11/private-medicare-advantage-plans-take-heat-for-profits/
Tell me where you read any mention of insurance carriers included in the Conyers bill, the single-payer H.R. 676 states:
And also read: SEC. 103. QUALIFICATION OF PARTICIPATING PROVIDERS. (use link above ) relating to investor-owned providers, for profit health care delivery facilities and HMOs.
Oh and it's great to see Maggie back ... Her blog has been a goldmine to me for a long time.
~OGD~
February 28, 2009 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
But but but . . .
. . . we all know that single-payer IS OFF THE TABLE!
So it's all a moot point anyhoo . . .
~OGD~
February 28, 2009 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does it have to stay off the table? Would a movement to put it in play be destructive of some other advantage?
I'm not prepared to argue the merits of specific kinds of plans, my focus is as mention in my blog title "reform of health care reform" -- can the debate (or what passes for debate_ be transformed to good end?
February 28, 2009 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Well . . .
It doesn't have to stay off the table, but that's what's been generally piped for weeks on end.
So Eds... I'm not saying that at all. But for the future well-being of the health of our citizens and the health of our economic well-being, a Medicare option for all (not overseen by private firms as with Medicare Advantage) must be part and parcel of Obama's plan. Or, it's just spitting into the wind. There must be competition between public and private plans. Do you really think the insurance interests wish that type of competition?
Let's see what Dr, Dean had to say on Hardball last Tuesday:
And you framed "your" focus as...
The debate and a good end? It's all about Competition!
~OGD~
February 28, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is competition but competition is not an end in itself, to me, so I don't understand your last remark. There is also cooperation and there is neutrality. Reforming the debate could involve small or large shifts in both the language and the expectation values of the participants (whether passive sheeple, active progressives, or aristocratic pols).
I need to read up more about how an expanded Medicare would compete.
ps - 'aristocracy' seems to be my Word of the Day, maybe of the week even!
February 28, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
As for Dean and Matthews, the latter continues a false narrative
People without insurance don't have to go to emergency rooms. People without regular health care, insured or not, might go if they let things go too far (if they don't pay a doctor directly).
This kind of perpetuated distortion bothers me. "health insurance = health care" is a false equation even if it's convenient to make them synonymous here or there.
I also don't yet get Dean's view that Obama's plan bails out small businesses on health care or insurance. I do see that a handful of Governors are interested in reform, or at least change, at the state level, but I don't yet grasp the reality of those hopes.
February 28, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
As far as that last post . . .
Wow... Matthews puts forth something that is distorted. So what's new? That doesn't negate the point that Dr. Dean was making that I had quoted.
Also: There is not a balanced competition to be found between Medicare and private insurers when the private insurers are operating the Medicare Advantage program. Do you even know what Medicare Advantage is? Nor is there competition with the Medicare Part D prescription drug plan when the pharmies are embedded with the interests of the insurance corporations. There are no checks and balances to be found.
Here, the following GAO report may help you to get a better overall understanding on the costs of operating the Medicare Advantage system by private firms versus the original Medicare parts A and B through government operation:
As you said here Eds:
I fully agree. If you don't know the basics of these parts of the Medicare vs. corporations for profit run health plans then it makes it pretty tough going to have any further discussions on the issue without having specific basic background understanding of the overall subject matter.
Thanks for responding though.
~OGD~
February 28, 2009 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Oh and uh . . .
One more thing: Here's an additional resource that I have had on my desk since it was made available November 12, 2008.
At this stage of the game, it's a wee bit late to get in on the nuts and bolts of what's best for the nation as a whole.
But, that report is invaluable if one wishes to have a wide perspective on the immense nature of this issue.
Bye Bye
~OGD~
February 28, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
All that but you didn't help me understand your closing comment
"The debate and a good end? It's all about Competition!"
What's that supposed to mean?
btw, it's a little odd that after I explicitly state that I'm not yet well-informed, you choose to lecture me repeatedly about getting better informed. What's up with that?
btw2, "negating" your point is hardly the only reason to reply to a comment!? I let you know I'd looked at your resource and thought about it a bit. ??
btw3, do my comments rub you the wrong way? Your replies here lead me to suspect so...
March 1, 2009 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Well . . .
When you get through all the information and truly absorb it, in addition to when the real debate begins in congress, then I have a feeling you'll understand what I mean by it being all about competition.
Now -- just for the heck of it, let's go back to the beginning and see what was stated in Obama's agenda:
Appears to me in reading that, that "private insurance" will be in competition with "a new public plan."
Do you think that this might drive insurance coverage up, or will it possibly drive coverage costs down?
~OGD~
March 2, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Single payer is the only sensible approach and why it is not obvious is inscrutable. Or maybe not. It is perhaps because somebody in the last century coined the term "socialized medicine" which essentially equated single payer with communism and here we are. But insurance is a whole lot better than its absence.
Case in point: over the Christmas holiday one of my teenage daughters got sick. She needed to be hospitalized for four days and recovered completely. I just got the bill from the hospital and the total cost was $26K. Against that my health insurer was given a $20K discount, paid $6K and billed me a $250 co-pay. The point being if we had walked in off the street without insurance, I would have a $26K bill to pay. No wonder the single most likely cause of personal bankruptcy is medical expenses.
March 8, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink