There is No Morality in Choosing from Immorality: Election issues 2016-Obamacare

Are you a good person or a hater? That's what a Democrat might ask. So, you support crooked politics and payola? That's what a Republican might ask. But there's no issue--imperfect people running for election, neither one of them yet behaving in a way that amounted to criminal conduct and yet--we're distracted. More meaningful for voters and consumers, I haven't heard a word from the candidates about the new report confirming that medical error is the third leading cause of death in the US.

Do we continue to support a law that creates financial incentives for more defensive medicine, for more diagnostic testing when we know that misdiagnosis and wrong treatment are rampant? (See, the Huffington Post on 5/11/2016, "Bronze Medal! Medical Errors Are the Third Leading Cause of Death in the U.S.," there's a quote by Lewis Levy, MD, stating, "37% of the cases we review require a change in diagnosis, and over 75% of cases require a change in treatment plan.”)

Do we repeal a law that included Medicaid health insurance coverage that has successfully provided those who are eligible with the opportunity to obtain both health insurance and healthcare for near-free costs?

Do we dismiss Trump's ideas of removing state line constraints on health insurers when we know that IF the purpose is to reduce premiums then that's been proven effective as discussed in the instance of medical malpractice insurance available to New York physicians but creating worries for the state insurers who can't compete with the out-of-state prices as expressed by Dan Goldberg who states in Politico on April 9, 2016, "Growing Concern over Shifts in NY Medical Malpractice Market," http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2016/04/8596203/growing-concern-over-shifts-ny-medical-malpractice-market, where the across-state-lines idea of insurers selling liability insurance to professionals has resulted in out-of-state insurers are able to "gobble up market share at a rapid clip"?

Or do we worry that the same fate awaits consumers who purchase such interstate plans as is anticipated by New York State officials worry might occur for physicians who purchase such cheaper plans (called Risk Retention Groups), placing them in financial peril if they're sued as stated: "…state legislators worried that physicians may not understand what exactly they are purchasing and what safeguards are, and are not…"http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2016/04/8596203/growing-concern-over-shifts-ny-medical-malpractice-market, and consider whether, such cheaper plans always would mean worse coverage for consumers?

We get it--Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump got to or stay where they are with perfectly clean hands although apparently they've both behaved within the minimum standards of law. It's our lives and what they intend to use their position for that is most relevant and that requires a meaningful and deeper discussion of issues beyond bullet points and bumper stickers that enables us to discern truth from two people who are not always truthful.

Share this post