Skip to main content

More evidence that John Kowalko and Earl Jaques did not do their homework on single-payer

It is getting truly amazing to discover all the stuff that John and Earl didn't know what was in HB 392 when they submitted it.

For example, here's an important (and, frankly, amazing) line:
(9) Fully fund, install and utilize the seven components of the health care fraud-control strategy explained by Dr. Malcolm Sparrow in his publication titled "License to Steal: How Fraud Bleeds America's Health Care System" and a minimum of ten percent of our state's health care funds will be saved from fraud. Dr. Sparrow, Professor in the School of Government at Harvard University, is our nation's recognized authority on health care fraud.
I found it singularly interesting that we would have a peice of legislation that committed the State of Delaware to creating a fraud-control system based specifically on one book, no matter how prestigious the author.

So I cast around and found a copy of the book.  (Order one yourself.)

The good news:  Dr. Malcolm K. Sparrow is in fact one of our nation's recognized authorities on health care fraud.

The bad news:



1.  The system he describes is theoretical, has never been attempted before, and the book is--by its own admission--an inadequate guide to building such a system.

2.  Even Dr. Sparrow does not know how much such a system would cost.

3.  The system was designed specifically for implementation by private insurers rather than use in a single-payer environment.

4.  The system requires, to be functional, at least two years of paperwork history on the providers submitting bills through it.  Which means that in implementing it as a new system in Delaware, it would be a full two years before it could function.

5.  And, finally, as other health care fraud experts would point out, nobody is rushing to implement Dr. Sparrow's recommendations en masse; other experts like parts of his program, but also point out different elements from different sources, or problems with implementing his model.

It is pretty much the height of irresponsibility for Mr. Kowalko, Mr. Jaques, and Mr. Crane (remember his short-lived advocacy of single-payer before he scrubbed his campaign website) to introduce legislation with crap like this in it, even if they are merely pretending to "start a conversation."

But it's also what we've come to expect.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...