Want To See What National Healthcare Will Look Like?

[keee keee]

That is what I was talking about serving #5, 1274 waiting. Every been to Ca. you need a reservation to get service at the DMV.

 

[Vast LWC]

But, since you mentioned it.. Sorry, was busy took me a while to get back.

None of these accepted and proven cost-cutting measures are inclued:

1. Scrap all city, state, federal mandates for healthcare insurance policies. When a statute says policies must “cover mammograms of everyone 35 and over,’ how is this fair for a construction company with all male employees? What about ‘Podiatry,’ or ‘sexual reorientation surgery/? Allow insurance companies to write policies covering exactly what the consumer asks for:
Take two very different states: Wisconsin and New York. In Wisconsin, a family can buy a health-insurance plan for as little as $3,000 a year. The price for a basic family plan in the Empire State: $12,000. The stark difference has nothing to do with each state’s health sector as a share of its economy (14.8 percent in Wisconsin as of 2004, the most recent year for which data are available, and 13.9 percent in New York). Rather, the difference has to do with how each state’s insurance pools are regulated. In New York State, politicians have tried to run the health-insurance system from Albany, forcing insurers to deliver complex Cadillac plans to every subscriber for political reasons, driving up costs. Wisconsin’s insurers are far freer to sell plans at prices consumers want.
The gulf in insurance-premium prices among American states is a sign that too much government intervention—not too little—is what’s distorting prices from one market to the next. The key to reducing health-care costs for patients, then, is to promote competition, not to dictate insurance requirements from on high. Unfortunately, a government-run insurance plan is the core of ObamaCare.
Bigger Is Healthier by David Gratzer, City Journal 22 July 2009
a. NJ has some 68-69 mandates including in vitro fertilization, which alone adds some 2-2.5% to the cost of the policy

This has potential, but it would have to be strictly regulated, and may end up costing more anyway, in administrative costs.

Otherwise, people will just get some minimum coverage and then when people aren't covered for something dramatic, they'll go to the hospital and will have to be worked on anyway. Same thing as we have right now, only there will be a lot more of these cases.

2. Tort reform:
The number of U.S. malpractice payments in 2008 was the lowest since creation of the federal National Practitioner Data Bank, which has tracked payments since 1990. And the average payment — about $326,000 — was the smallest in a decade.

While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005. "
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

1. Congress passed tort reform, when the Republicans had the majority, what, like 5 years ago? Didn't seem to help a whit.

2. If US malpractice payments have, as you say, gone down, then why would "defensive medicine increases" have gone up?

Now, compare those with these:
"Also, it’s worth noting that while these figures sound like a lot of money — and few would dispute the fact that health insurance company CEOs make healthy salaries — these numbers represent a very small fraction of total health care spending in the U.S. In 2007, national health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion. Health insurance profits of nearly $13 billion make up 0.6 percent of that. CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending."
FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan

So my conclusion is that the cost of malpractice suits is equal to the profit of the entire industry.
This may be significant of and by itself, but when we look at the costs of defensive medicine, it alone adds to the costs of healthcare by a factor 15!!!

And here we come to another problem in this line of thinking, where exactly does the "Factor of 15" come from?

Once we have tort reform, we should move toward coordinated care networks that take responsibility for their members' medical needs in return for fixed annual payments (called "capitation"). One approach is through vouchers; Medicare recipients would receive a fixed amount and shop for networks with the lowest cost and highest quality.

That would be price fixing, and would end up not being performance-based. That's so anti-capitalist! Sure, why not?

3.. Doctors currently have no ability to re-price or re-package their services that way every other professional does. Medicare dictates what it pays for and what it won’t pay for, and the final price. Because of this there are no telephone consultations paid for, and the same for e-mails, normal in every other profession.
Most doctors don’t digitize records, thus they cannot use software that allows electronic prescription, and make it easier to detect drug interactions or dosage mistakes. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for it.

Giving them this ability would contradict your last point.

4. Another free market idea aimed at better quality is have warranties for surgery as we do for cars. 17% of Medicare patients who enter a hospital re-enter within 30 days because of a problem connected to the original surgery. The result is that a hospital makes money on its mistakes!

There we go, I totally agree with this idea!

It also happens to be in the current bill.

5. Walk-in clinics are growing around the country, where a registered nurse sits at a computer, the patient describes symptoms, the nurse types it in and follows a computerized protocol, the nurse can prescribe electronically, and the patient sees the price in advance

Wow, so replace doctors with nurses for examination of the patient? Seriously? Talk about problems waiting to happen.

6. To reduce healthcare costs, increase the number of doctors. Obama care would do the opposite. Both tax incentives and support of the tuition of medical school.

How would "ObamaCare" do the opposite? please be specific.

7. Identify the 8-10 million who need and are unable to get healthcare, including those with pre-existing conditions,and provide debit cards as is done for food stamps:

"Food debit cards help 27 million people buy food, similar to the number who need help buying health coverage. In all fifty states, debit card technology has transformed the federal food stamp program, which used to be notorious for fraud and abuse. (Only 2 percent of card users are found to be ineligible, according to the General Accounting Office.) Cards are loaded with a specific dollar amount monthly, depending on family size and income, and allow cardholders to shop anywhere. The same strategy could be adapted to provide purchasing power to families who need help buying high-deductible health coverage. It's what all Americans used to buy (see chart 5), and it's all that's needed for families with moderate incomes, who can afford a routine doctor visit. "
Downgrading Health Care

Sure, sure, but why wouldn't they do this anyway? It wouldn't require specifcation in the bill, the process is already in place for most services like this now.

8. Current law provides unlimited tax relief for coverage obtained through an employer but no comparable relief for those who purchase coverage outside their places of work. S. 334 would replace the current tax preference for employer-based health coverage with a new individual-based system. The bill would end the tax exclusion in the personal income tax for employer-based health insurance benefits and instead use a combination of subsidies and tax deductions for health insurance. Ideally, the current employer-based tax structure should be replaced with a fair and equitable universal tax credit. An across-the-board, fixed-dollar health care tax credit, for example, would offer every American federal tax relief for health care.(Wyden-Bennett Bill)

You say "Tax Credit", I say "Welfare", seems like the government paying for people's health care to me...

And whether you're giving people their tax money back, or spending it in the exact same way, it's still money that comes out of the federal budget. It just comes out of the revenue before it ever gets there.

A $2000.00 "Tax Credit" takes the same money out of the federal budget that a $2000.00 expenditure would.

Which would not reduce costs?

Which would cause the negative backlash that ObamaCare has generated?

That the right-wing media outlets have generated.

To which would you object if they were part of healthcare?

See above.

 

[Vast LWC]

Oh and, by the way, the cost of living in New York is MUCH greater than the cost of living in Wisconsin.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Oh and, by the way, the cost of living in New York is MUCH greater than the cost of living in Wisconsin.

And the pay scale in New York is much higher than in Wisconsin

 

[Luissa]

That is what I was talking about serving #5, 1274 waiting. Every been to Ca. you need a reservation to get service at the DMV.

geez in france where they have a system much like the one Obama is proposing they have no wait time to see a doctor or to have elective surgerory.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But, since you mentioned it.. Sorry, was busy took me a while to get back.

None of these accepted and proven cost-cutting measures are inclued:

1. Scrap all city, state, federal mandates for healthcare insurance policies. When a statute says policies must “cover mammograms of everyone 35 and over,’ how is this fair for a construction company with all male employees? What about ‘Podiatry,’ or ‘sexual reorientation surgery/? Allow insurance companies to write policies covering exactly what the consumer asks for:
Take two very different states: Wisconsin and New York. In Wisconsin, a family can buy a health-insurance plan for as little as $3,000 a year. The price for a basic family plan in the Empire State: $12,000. The stark difference has nothing to do with each state’s health sector as a share of its economy (14.8 percent in Wisconsin as of 2004, the most recent year for which data are available, and 13.9 percent in New York). Rather, the difference has to do with how each state’s insurance pools are regulated. In New York State, politicians have tried to run the health-insurance system from Albany, forcing insurers to deliver complex Cadillac plans to every subscriber for political reasons, driving up costs. Wisconsin’s insurers are far freer to sell plans at prices consumers want.
The gulf in insurance-premium prices among American states is a sign that too much government intervention—not too little—is what’s distorting prices from one market to the next. The key to reducing health-care costs for patients, then, is to promote competition, not to dictate insurance requirements from on high. Unfortunately, a government-run insurance plan is the core of ObamaCare.
Bigger Is Healthier by David Gratzer, City Journal 22 July 2009
a. NJ has some 68-69 mandates including in vitro fertilization, which alone adds some 2-2.5% to the cost of the policy

This has potential, but it would have to be strictly regulated, and may end up costing more anyway, in administrative costs.

Otherwise, people will just get some minimum coverage and then when people aren't covered for something dramatic, they'll go to the hospital and will have to be worked on anyway. Same thing as we have right now, only there will be a lot more of these cases.

2. Tort reform:
The number of U.S. malpractice payments in 2008 was the lowest since creation of the federal National Practitioner Data Bank, which has tracked payments since 1990. And the average payment — about $326,000 — was the smallest in a decade.

While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005. "
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

1. Congress passed tort reform, when the Republicans had the majority, what, like 5 years ago? Didn't seem to help a whit.

2. If US malpractice payments have, as you say, gone down, then why would "defensive medicine increases" have gone up?



And here we come to another problem in this line of thinking, where exactly does the "Factor of 15" come from?



That would be price fixing, and would end up not being performance-based. That's so anti-capitalist! Sure, why not?



Giving them this ability would contradict your last point.



There we go, I totally agree with this idea!

It also happens to be in the current bill.



Wow, so replace doctors with nurses for examination of the patient? Seriously? Talk about problems waiting to happen.



How would "ObamaCare" do the opposite? please be specific.



Sure, sure, but why wouldn't they do this anyway? It wouldn't require specifcation in the bill, the process is already in place for most services like this now.



You say "Tax Credit", I say "Welfare", seems like the government paying for people's health care to me...

And whether you're giving people their tax money back, or spending it in the exact same way, it's still money that comes out of the federal budget. It just comes out of the revenue before it ever gets there.

A $2000.00 "Tax Credit" takes the same money out of the federal budget that a $2000.00 expenditure would.

Which would not reduce costs?

Which would cause the negative backlash that ObamaCare has generated?

That the right-wing media outlets have generated.

To which would you object if they were part of healthcare?

See above.

Glad you took a look at the eight.

Factor of 15: defensive medicine represents 9% of healthcare costs. Profits are 0.6%

Divide 9 by 0.6= 15 Thus being forced to call for more tests than would be necessary, due to fear of lawsuits, is 15 times the total profits of the industry.


ObamaCare would reduce payments to physicians, and dictate procedures which could or should be done.
Both would inveigh against individuals becoming doctors.

Today in USAToday:
Longer days, lower pay, less prestige and more administrative headaches have turned doctors away in droves from family medicine, presumed to be the frontline for wellness and preventive-care programs that can help reduce health care costs.
The number of U.S. medical school students going into primary care has dropped 51.8% since 1997, according to the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).
Considering it takes 10 to 11 years to educate a doctor, the drying up of the pipeline is a big concern to health-care experts. The AAFP is predicting a shortage of 40,000 family physicians in 2020, when the demand is expected to spike. The U.S. health care system has about 100,000 family physicians and will need 139,531 in 10 years. The current environment is attracting only half the number needed to meet the demand.
If Congress passes health care legislation that extends insurance coverage to a significant part of the 47 million Americans who lack insurance, the need for more doctors is going to escalate.
Doctor shortage looms as primary care loses its pull - USATODAY.com


But the point of the post is that a healthcare bill that combines these proven cost-cutters is more efficacious than the ObamaCare bill under consideration.

I'm suggesting that you look beyond unthinking support of this administration. A little cynicism could go a long way toward the truth.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

That is what I was talking about serving #5, 1274 waiting. Every been to Ca. you need a reservation to get service at the DMV.

geez in france where they have a system much like the one Obama is proposing they have no wait time to see a doctor or to have elective surgerory.

I also heard they can cure cancer in one hour.