HealtCare fundamentally and perminantly changed?

Mott the Hoople said:
You are right but corporate bureaucracy is a significant contributor to rising costs so how would you stream line what we have now? I mean this is a very important point. Now most people who know corporate bureuacracy know isn't quite as bad as government bureaucracy except that there are literally thousands of coroprations involved in health care management and finace and they all have their own bureacracies that, when added together, create a hellish administrative nightmare that makes the Federal burueacracy look like a simple well oiled machine by comparison. So you've hit upon a very important point as that's one of the key reforms that is needed. How would you streamline the existing system?
Click to expand...

1. streamline medicare and expand to other ages. one idea i have is to have a part of medicare that certain income groups, who can't afford private h/c, but don't qualify for medicare, be partial contribution. also, admin costs are ridiculous.

2. cut down on federal regulations. not sure i support forcing corps to cut down their admin costs, but i believe much admin costs are related to regulations.

i'm not sure corp bureau is a significant factor. perhaps you could give me an example or link.
 
Yurt said:
1. streamline medicare and expand to other ages. one idea i have is to have a part of medicare that certain income groups, who can't afford private h/c, but don't qualify for medicare, be partial contribution. also, admin costs are ridiculous.

2. cut down on federal regulations. not sure i support forcing corps to cut down their admin costs, but i believe much admin costs are related to regulations.

i'm not sure corp bureau is a significant factor. perhaps you could give me an example or link.
Click to expand...
The corporate bureaucracy is a problem because they are complex, because the transactions occuring are also complex and because there are so many of them.

as for your comments. I don't see how expanding medicare to cover other ages, and I"m assuming you mean the young and the poor would streamline matters but if that creates universal coverage, it would be something to consider. As for your second comment, what specific federal regulations would you cut and how would they streamline matters?

How about this suggestion. That we create a single payer system for healthcare finance. Kind of like a Federal Reserve for health care. For disuccions sake let's call it the Federal Health Bank or FHB. It would still be privately based but all financial transactions must be processed through the FHB using their administrative standards for forms, filings, billings and all essential transactions. Insurance companies would no longer be permitted to use their own systems they would be required to process all essential financial/insurance transactions through the FHB using their standardized format. The big advantage for the insurance industry is it creates a national standard for health care financial transactions sharply reducing both the administrative costs and over head costs for Insurance companies. It benefits the public in that there would be standardization to the process and it would lower consumer costs. This standardized single payer service would be the same where ever they go or which ever service provider they use. That same single user system can also be used to make standardized electronic medical records portable and easily available to health care professionals no matter where the patient should be located.

In other words if you really want to streamline our system the best approach would be to elimnate the complexity and costs of our zillion and one multipayer system for a single payer system.
 
The Dude said:
Increase access to medical school
crush medical malpractice premiums.
Click to expand...
Medical malpractice, though a serious issue, is not a major factor on escalating costs....no matter what the Chamber of Commerce would have you beleive. Forcing Universities to increase enrollment in Medical School, particularly in primary care fields or deny them State and Federal funding and offer incentive to students, like reimbursing them on their student loans if they practice a primary care field for "X" amount of time at a public health facility or in an under served location. I'm sure that all MD's would like to make $500,000/year and keeping the numbers of Docs artificially low and focused on medical specialties and limited enrollments at Med Schools with six figure tuition costs might be in the financial interest of MD's and Medical Schools but that is not in the publics interest when there's a serious lack of primary care physicians who earn less then specialist (but far more then the averge Joe does).
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Medical malpractice, though a serious issue, is not a major factor on escalating costs....no matter what the Chamber of Commerce would have you beleive. Forcing Universities to increase enrollment in Medical School, particularly in primary care fields or deny them State and Federal funding and offer incentive to students, like reimbursing them on their student loans if they practice a primary care field for "X" amount of time at a public health facility or in an under served location. I'm sure that all MD's would like to make $500,000/year and keeping the numbers of Docs artificially low and focused on medical specialties and limited enrollments at Med Schools with six figure tuition costs might be in the financial interest of MD's and Medical Schools but that is not in the publics interest when there's a serious lack of primary care physicians who earn less then specialist (but far more then the averge Joe does).
Click to expand...

I'M sure all parties but you would take the latter if they got the former
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's bullshit. If you don't recognize the fact that around 30% of the population has little to no access to primary/preventative care and that often their only access is only to urgent and emergency care and that about another 30 to 40% more are underinsured which disincentivises them from using primary/preventative care then you simply do not understand the nature of this problem.
Click to expand...

By all means Mutt, educate us on this. Show us where you are getting your data from. I eagerly await the information.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well SF is right if by "coverage" you're talking about emergency or urgent care but that's a big part of what is driving costs up. Lack of access to preventative and primary care force far to many people to wait until an easily treated problem because an urgent or emergency situation that is very costly to treat. If SF is trying to say that 90% are covered for preventative and primary care, he simply doesn't know what he's talking about.
Click to expand...

How large is our population Mutt? How many were uninsured?

Show us your data mutt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top