Stay, Spot, stay.
Might it be reasonable to expect a comparison of the candidates, rather than this one-sided conclusion? The major comparison is this: "Jim Hovland seems like the only DFL candidate who points the way toward single-payer universal coverage." That's it???
Spot belives in pin cites, yes? Where's the cite for this: "Research has shown that by reducing administrative costs and applying those savings we could fund a universal plan covering all the uninsured at no additional cost."?
Passive voice is a hint that someone is hiding something, like e.g., "Who belives that?" Let's see a cite. I'm sure we could fund "a universal plan," but would it be one that the dogs would eat?
Too bad the party insiders don't see things this way.
Hovland lacks experience in two areas that are hurting him big time right now. He doesn't know the players and he's new to the endorsement process. The insiders aren't going to be too welcoming to someone who doesn't understand them or their game.
I'm with spot. Hovland would be great.
Hi, Miles.
The citation is the New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 349:768-775.
The piece is authored by Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH, and David Himmelstein, MD. The researchers are based at Harvard.
Miles,
Spot was just quoting from the Hovland website, although Spot thinks it is a blinding statement of the obvious, it's backed up by research, too, as commenter cm notes.
As far as comparisons are concerned, they are coming.
Perhaps blindingly obvious is a tad strong. The NEMJ article says, "A large sum might be saved in the United States if administrative costs could be trimmed by implementing a Canadian-style health care system." It doesn't seem to go so far as "applying those savings we could fund a universal plan covering all the uninsured at no additional cost."
Further, Hovland's statement, "Compare that to Medicare, in which only 2 percent is lost to administration" rather ignores the infrastructure Medicare builds upon. Using that reasoning, Canada's system is so wasteful that Canadians should adopt the Medicare system!
Hovland is a formidable candidate who happens to not be very sophisticated on how to train supporters to endorse him. Of the three Dems, I think he is the best fit for the typical 3rd district voter.
Hovland would do very well in a primary where the masses have a say.
His healthcare position raises a few eyebrows (what kind of rationing would be needed to achieve cost savings?) but aside from that I think he is a great fit for the district. Sadly, I think many leftists won't give him a chance.
I don't see a plan in those snippets. The only concrete action I see him advocating is to not starve kids by taking away reduced fee lunches. Who's proposing that?
This is my major beef with Hovland. Interesting guy, seems nice, but lacks any concrete plans to act. All of his positions usually end with "the question is" or "X should be studied" or simply relying on someone else to come up with the plan for universal coverage (ie, his health care position). I expect my candidate to have spent some time coming up with solutions and answers -- or, at least provide some indication that they've done so.
I agree with the above posters, he has no chance to win given his ground game. If he is to have any chance, he needs to find someone who knows how to organize and get them to work. But, until he starts proposing solutions, I won't be among the masses willing to organize.
Jim Hovland's positions as set forth above, are at least as, and in some cases more, specific than Bonhoff and Madia. As Spot will demonstrate in coming days.
Miles,
You obviously are a doubter, which is fine. But use Google to check out related info. Others have come to the same conclusions as the Harvard researchers I noted. And they, also, have spoken out in other forums to similar conclusions. It's all there for you to find.
Hovland is right; there's plenty in the research record to support his stand.
I'm not going to try to persuade you here, because I'm not interested in proving someone wrong so much as demonstrating what simply is true. But research, at its best,is so much more than our gut truths. It's fact. It's reality. And sometimes that doesn't square with what we believe, or hope is true.
Regardless of how anyone seeks to characterize it, researchers from all points of view have alighted on the same basic fact: Our health-care system is out of whack. And cost-savings in the way Hovland suggests can bring substantial change to the nearly 50 million who have been left behind.
I have no problem agreeing that our health care system is out of whack. I can agree that rooting out waste is a good thing. I just want to make a few points. First, you seriously don’t mean this about all research: “It’s fact, it’s reality” do you? Not too long ago hormone replacement therapy was the rage, but now we know it generally causes more risks than benefits. Researchers make mistakes and have biases. Even the blessed Harvard researchers have biases, I think. See, The cost of health insurance administration in California: estimates for insurers, physicians, and hospitals, Kahn JG, Kronick R, Kreger M, Gans DN., Health Aff (Millwood). 2005 Nov-Dec;24(6):1629-39. (That article shows that there are many arguments supporting administrative expenditures, and it suggests there are good reasons the US has higher administrative costs than Canada.
Second, while Hovland may appeal to Edinaidians using an appeal to cut out waste (fraud and abuse too?, how Reaganesque), he might not be so successful if he were to stand up and say, “Let’s adopt the Canadian system.” I note that the words “Canada” and “Canadian” don’t appear on his health care page, http://www.jimhovland.com/healthcare.htm.
My personal favorite for reducing costs is to cut down on over-treatment. Let me forestall your criticism – it turns out that Google reports some research justifying my gut. Nobody is calling for less treatment in Edina.
Miles,
My most-beloved mom died of breast cancer eight years ago, likely caused by hormone-replacement therapy. And anyone who's been there knows there's no similarity between medical research in its infancy and looking at basic numbers to arrive at a cost-savings plan that could provide health coverage to the uninsured. Whatever you hoped to achieve by that argument failed in its first moment.
I'm not coming back to engage you on this anymore. You obviously are not interested in real dialog; you clearly prefer to engage in specious argumentation for political sake.
Commenting by HaloScan
