Letters to the Editor

Research benefit

August 20, 2009


To the editor:

The Journal-World reports that Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., is against funding research to determine the best ways to treat ailments. Really? Let me get this straight, Tiahrt wants doctors to guess which treatments are effective or make life-and-death decisions based on trial and error?

Comparative effectiveness research has improved patient care by revealing that expensive surgeries such as arthroscopic knee surgery and vertebroplasty provide no more pain relief than sham (fake) surgery. As a patient, wouldn’t you want to know that before you subjected yourself to general anesthetic and weeks of painful post-surgery rehabilitation?

What about the expensive “red pill” and cheaper “blue pill”? Wouldn’t you want your insurance company to pay for the more expensive red pill if comparative effectiveness research showed that it was indeed better than the cheaper blue pill?

Some may question why taxpayer dollars should fund this kind of research. Who do you want to fund this research: the National Institutes of Health, an agency that derives no financial benefit from the success of a particular drug, or a drug company that stands to lose hundreds of millions of dollars if their drug does not outperform another drug?

Doctors need this research. Patients benefit from this research. Don’t let politicians like Tiahrt compromise the quality of health care for their cynical political gain.


Richard Heckler 8 years, 10 months ago

Tihart is also receiving campaign funding and may well be a shareholder all connected to the medical inusrance industry.

The man cannot be objective. Then again neither can Brownback,Roberts,Moore,Jenkins or Moran.

So why are all of our elected officials protecting the most corrupt and EXPENSIVE medical insurance in the world.

5 substantial reasons why Medicare Insurance for All should be the choice for all in america

  1. *Eliminates Politicians as shareholders: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/12/AR2009061204075.html

  2. *Eliminates Paying More Getting Less http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0508harrison.html

  3. *Eliminates Leading Cause Of Bankruptcy http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html#ixzz0IQKZLHHh&C

  4. Eliminates medical insurance dollars going to special interest campaign money jars.

Why use Medicare? It eliminates reinventing the wheel therefore saves a big bundle of money and time = efficient use of existing resources.

Medicare is in place therefore it is ready to roll which is convenient.

The only major change necessary is reimbursement numbers which the author and the 87 cosigners are perfectly aware.

The USA needs to STOP being be the most expensive insurance/health care of the industrialized nations if americans want jobs back.

HR 676 Medicare for All insurance coverage is key to creating new wealth for america. The most expensive health insurance in the world is not the answer for keeping business costs down and keeping our cost of living somewhat in check.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 10 months ago

People denounce Medicare as some evil kind of medical insurance without acknowledging what great service it has provided to millions of senior citizens and millions more who lost their retirement plans to many many white collar criminals.

Think savings and loan rip off, ENRON, the high tech scandal and the recent Maddoff ripoff.

Does anyone believe that all of the white collar criminals waiting to steal retirement plans are in jail? Get real.

This is how Rep John Conyers perceives HR 676 aka Medicare Insurance for All. Which is the most comprehensive,fiscally responsible and would be a great help in making millions of jobs a reality in america. So what would the new HR 676 Medicare For ALL Insurance offer to americans?

Coverage365 days a year 24/7 employed or not moving on to a new job or not single mom or not *struck down with cancer or not

A family of four making the median income of $56,200 would pay about $2,700 in payroll tax for all health care costs. About $225 per month. Today the below insurance coverage actually costs about $1,100 per month going to about $1,500 in 2010. long term care such that cancer would require prescription drugs hospital surgical outpatient services primary and preventive care emergency services dental mental health home health physical therapy rehabilitation (including for substance abuse) vision care hearing services including hearing aids chiropractic durable medical equipment * palliative care

Again a family of four making the median income of $56,200 would pay about $2,700 in payroll tax for all health care costs. About $225 per month. Today the above insurance coverage actually costs about $1,100 per month during year 2009.

HR 676 ends deductibles and co-payments. If a deductible and/or co-pay policy is in effect this usually indicates under-insured.

HR 676 would save hundreds of billions annually by eliminating the high overhead of the private health insurance industry and HMOs. The privatized medical insurance industry is anything but efficient.

bearded_gnome 8 years, 10 months ago

CER is not bad by itself.

the problem is this is a part of centralized control through the government, the panel of government experts looking over your doctor's shoulder telling her or him how to treat you. part of this was already initialized through the fake stimulus package.

A U.S. Senator from Oklahoma is an OB/GYN, and he opposes the CER too, for that reason. furthermore, he opposes 676 and hr3200 and the senate versions of Obama's medical scandal.

Mr. Obama says he will pay for this massive new entitlement by decreasing hospital and doctor reimbursements for medicare and medicaid. already, patients in these programs hit doctors, especially specialists, who do not take medicare or medicaid.

why do they not take them? because the reimbursement now is already too low, the government expects doctors to give charity when treating these patients. Some docs can't afford to with office costs, maybe student loans to pay off, nurse and other personnel costs, and of course rising malpractice premiums.

furthermore, Mr. Obama, beholden to his trial lawyer supporters, includes nothing to fix the malpractice crisis in this country. there's a great way to cut medical expenses.

Also, stop all free medical care for illegal aliens. voila, you've just saved hospitals and the system in general a very big pile of millions of dollars.

don't include coverage for them in any healthcare so-called reform.

in fact, make the reform targeted to the real groups, far far less than 45/46/47 million, who really need it.

if you took 30-billion bucks out of the fake stimulus package that isn't a stimulus package (as we pointed out at the time) you could just buy medical insurance for the 7-10 million actual americans who actually need insurance help, for one year! problem solved, and you haven't wrecked the whole system.

bearded_gnome 8 years, 10 months ago

Mr. Obama repeatedly claims that under his plan(s), that americans will be able to keep their doctors, keep their health insurance, if they like them.

p>factcheck.org and the CBO indicate that this is plainly false, given the impact of several elements of his proposals.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.