the new health care?

[Schneed10]

Boy has this thread gotten retarded. You guys are going down the path that led the Warpath to once put a moratorium on all political threads.

You're not quite all-out bashing each other, but you've gotten into a pissing match over generalized political ideology and consequently gotten so far off topic that now the thread is near meaningless.

This could have been a good thread too. If anybody actually wants to talk healthcare, I'm willing, it's my line of work.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Boy has this thread gotten retarded. You guys are going down the path that led the Warpath to once put a moratorium on all political threads.

You're not quite all-out bashing each other, but you've gotten into a pissing match over generalized political ideology and consequently gotten so far off topic that now the thread is near meaningless.

This could have been a good thread too. If anybody actually wants to talk healthcare, I'm willing, it's my line of work.

well, since i started this diaster, yes, i would like to know your opinion on it

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by dmek25

[/b]
well, since i started this diaster, yes, i would like to know your opinion on it

I of course am waiting on the details like everyone else, so until we see said details it gets tough to weigh in. But I will say that addressing the increasing costs is absolutely the right answer. Giving everyone in America health coverage is a nice thought, but if the underlying costs aren't addressed, then all you're doing is cutting up the pie in different size pieces and handing them out to more people.

Addressing costs would actually take a bite out of the pie (lemon merengue, please).

That said, you have to be wary of this particular plan because it was prepared by the insurance industry. They of course are looking out for number one. They make valid points, proposing legitimate ways to reduce costs. But it's all designed to preserve their own profits.

Obama needs to listen to the insurance industry here, but also listen to physicians, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, nursing homes and all the others. They'll all have great ideas as to how to cut costs, it's just they'll all look at other parts of the industry to cut costs. Hospitals will have tons of ideas for how insurers can cut costs. Insurers will have tons of ideas for hospitals to cut costs. But nobody will volunteer to cut their own costs and put their employees out of work.

As long as Obama listens to everybody he can probably put something together that makes sense, cutting costs fairly for everyone.

I am of course very interested to hear what Obama ultimately decides to push for. This insurance industry proposal is nice, but it's just one lobbying group raising their hand to volunteer another lobbying group to cut expenses. I'm waiting for Obama's plan.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Boy has this thread gotten retarded. You guys are going down the path that led the Warpath to once put a moratorium on all political threads.

You're not quite all-out bashing each other, but you've gotten into a pissing match over generalized political ideology and consequently gotten so far off topic that now the thread is near meaningless.

This could have been a good thread too. If anybody actually wants to talk healthcare, I'm willing, it's my line of work.

Welcome to the parking lot where even the most innocent of threads gets thrown off track into political bashing.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Welcome to the parking lot where even the most innocent of threads gets thrown off track into political bashing.

You damn hippie-socialist-liberal.

[WaldSkins]

"George Bush doesn't like black people"-Kanye West


Wait, is the idea to write off topic remarks?

[dmek25]

schneed, im not sure why the insurance companies would have any say in the matter. it really is all about cutting health care costs, isn't it? one would think if the costs go down, everyone would benefit, no?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by dmek25

schneed, im not sure why the insurance companies would have any say in the matter. it really is all about cutting health care costs, isn't it? one would think if the costs go down, everyone would benefit, no?

Insurance companies employ people too. They can be part of the process but not the process.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by dmek25

schneed, im not sure why the insurance companies would have any say in the matter. it really is all about cutting health care costs, isn't it? one would think if the costs go down, everyone would benefit, no?

There are lots of places costs can come from, though.

When you pay your health insurance premiums, some of the money gets paid out to doctors to cover office costs. Some gets paid out to hospitals to cover costs of getting an operation and staying in the hospital. Some gets kept by your insurance company so they can pay their people and make a profit. Some gets paid to the pharmacy where you pick up the drugs your doc prescribed you. Etc.

So hospitals can play a role by: Being more efficient. Hospitals are big huge places and administration needs to be on top of doctors and staff to treat patients fast, get them healthy, and get them out sooner. The longer a patient stays in the hospital, the more it costs. Many times a doctor will order a MRI or a lab test to confirm a problem before he makes his next move, well if the hospital dawdles in getting that test done it delays the doctor, which screws up his schedule, and before you know it the weekend rolls around and he says well just keep the patient until Monday, I'll do a procedure then.

Doctors can play a role by: using more efficient staffing. Nurse Practitioners can address 90% of physical ailments, and they make right around $100K as opposed to $150K on up to god knows what.

Insurance companies can play a role by working to simplify their reimbursement agreements with providers. Make the payment system simpler so there are fewer denied payments and thus fewer appeals. The less you have of this kind of stuff, the fewer administrative support employees your insurance company has to pay.

The government can play a role by:

- Mandating and helping hospitals, insurance companies, and doctors get up to speed with Information Systems allowing seamless integration of medical records and information. This prevents deaths due to drug interactions and would cut workers out of the system. Each hospital and doc office needs filing clerks just to handle the massive files of charts. Imagine how much you could save doing away with those salaries.

- Forcing insurance companies to reimburse according to Medicare rules. It's a simple way of doing it. I'd suggest they add a pay for performance mandate too.

- Cap malpractice awards. Huge multimillion dollar payments to plaintiffs only drive up malpractice insurance premiums to doctors and hospitals, who just end up raising their charges and passing the hit along to all of us.

- Providing incentives for the poor and underinsured to use a primary care doctor. Preventative medicine saves us the most money in the long run. Poor people need to stop using the ER for the sniffles.

And the people can play a role by learning when you really need to see the doctor, and when you can let that sinus infection clear up on its own.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

There are lots of places costs can come from, though.

When you pay your health insurance premiums, some of the money gets paid out to doctors to cover office costs. Some gets paid out to hospitals to cover costs of getting an operation and staying in the hospital. Some gets kept by your insurance company so they can pay their people and make a profit. Some gets paid to the pharmacy where you pick up the drugs your doc prescribed you. Etc.

So hospitals can play a role by: Being more efficient. Hospitals are big huge places and administration needs to be on top of doctors and staff to treat patients fast, get them healthy, and get them out sooner. The longer a patient stays in the hospital, the more it costs. Many times a doctor will order a MRI or a lab test to confirm a problem before he makes his next move, well if the hospital dawdles in getting that test done it delays the doctor, which screws up his schedule, and before you know it the weekend rolls around and he says well just keep the patient until Monday, I'll do a procedure then.

Doctors can play a role by: using more efficient staffing. Nurse Practitioners can address 90% of physical ailments, and they make right around $100K as opposed to $150K on up to god knows what.

Insurance companies can play a role by working to simplify their reimbursement agreements with providers. Make the payment system simpler so there are fewer denied payments and thus fewer appeals. The less you have of this kind of stuff, the fewer administrative support employees your insurance company has to pay.

The government can play a role by:

- Mandating and helping hospitals, insurance companies, and doctors get up to speed with Information Systems allowing seamless integration of medical records and information. This prevents deaths due to drug interactions and would cut workers out of the system. Each hospital and doc office needs filing clerks just to handle the massive files of charts. Imagine how much you could save doing away with those salaries.

- Forcing insurance companies to reimburse according to Medicare rules. It's a simple way of doing it. I'd suggest they add a pay for performance mandate too.

- Cap malpractice awards. Huge multimillion dollar payments to plaintiffs only drive up malpractice insurance premiums to doctors and hospitals, who just end up raising their charges and passing the hit along to all of us.

- Providing incentives for the poor and underinsured to use a primary care doctor. Preventative medicine saves us the most money in the long run. Poor people need to stop using the ER for the sniffles.

And the people can play a role by learning when you really need to see the doctor, and when you can let that sinus infection clear up on its own.

What about just paying your doctor cash when you really need to see him?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

What about just paying your doctor cash when you really need to see him?

That's a good way in that it makes people think about whether or not they really need to see the doctor.

That said, this approach should not be used for well-visits (the kind of annual checkup where you get immunizations and such). If poorer people had to pony up for this, they'd never choose to go, which would just end up costing more in the long run.

And of course the cash on delivery method doesn't work for big hospital stays, because it's flat out too costly. You need insurance for the big stuff.

But this is exactly how you go about putting the financial incentive to manage healthcare costs in the hands of the patient.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

That's a good way in that it makes people think about whether or not they really need to see the doctor.

That said, this approach should not be used for well-visits (the kind of annual checkup where you get immunizations and such). If poorer people had to pony up for this, they'd never choose to go, which would just end up costing more in the long run.

And of course the cash on delivery method doesn't work for big hospital stays, because it's flat out too costly. You need insurance for the big stuff.

But this is exactly how you go about putting the financial incentive to manage healthcare costs in the hands of the patient.

Who then pays for the poor?

[724Skinsfan]

I would be more inclined to except a government base health care coupled with a la cart items. I've only been to the doctor once in 20 years and that was for a knee operation. Being fairly active outdoors I can see myself signing up for some extra orthopedic/chiropractic services. As far visiting a doctor for sinus infections, flu, stomach virus, etc, I just stay home, get rest and fluids.

I really hope we don't have some "one size fits all" health care package. I think that the cost is just going to be more excessive as far what I'm paying into and what I'm getting out of it.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

I would be more inclined to except a government base health care coupled with a la cart items. I've only been to the doctor once in 20 years and that was for a knee operation. Being fairly active outdoors I can see myself signing up for some extra orthopedic/chiropractic services. As far visiting a doctor for sinus infections, flu, stomach virus, etc, I just stay home, get rest and fluids.

I really hope we don't have some "one size fits all" health care package. I think that the cost is just going to be more excessive as far what I'm paying into and what I'm getting out of it.

Yeah, and if you don't incorporate enough choice into the program, many people will just say 'eh, this ain't for me' and they'll go without insurance.

Then when they get hit by a bus we're right back where we started with the whole uninsured problem. Choice is a must.

[dmek25]

it seems like some of you guys are pissed that we actually have poor people in this country. sometimes shit happens. even a nation as great as ours fails once in a while.some people genuinely need help. what are we to do with them? throw them to the curb? this is one major party difference. and why it seems to many the G.O.P is out of touch with main stream America