quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking

Problem #1: Current government run programs give direct access to specialists.
Solution #1: Force government run programs to mimic for-profit systems which require people to visit primary care physicians and be referred to specialists.

How is direct access to specialists less efficient?

If I have a foot problem why should I have to go to a primary physician to tell me I have a foot problem and refer me to a podiatrist?

Wouldn't cutting out the middle man make it more efficient?

quote:

quote:


Problem #2: Current gov't run programs allow multiple doctors to run the same diagnostic test and pay for it multiple times.
Solution #2: Require the gov't run programs to subscribe to single-diagnostic tests that are then shared amongst providers.

And this is a problem unique to government programs?

Which in itself is funny, because we've had a big outcry over computerized health records, which the health care proposals call for and which would eliminate these types of redundancy.

But, the government would know your health history if we actually put health records into databases, and that seems to be scary for some, though I've yet to understand the reasoning.

quote:

quote:


Problem #3: Current gov't run programs do not have lifetime caps on insurance which allow people to continue to make whatever healthcare choices without consequence.
Solution #3: Almost every private insurer has lifetime caps on insurance payouts.  Only the most expensive treatments over many years would every reach these lifetime caps.

Do you really believe the majority of people enjoy going to doctors and taking advantage of the resort-like hospital atmospheres that they would take advantage of the system to spend as much time in the hospital as possible?

But what about the people who really need the treatment when they reach the private caps?

Just too bad for them and let them die?

quote:

quote:


Problem #4: Emergency room care is the "primary care" for most below the poverty line recipients.
Solution #4: Make emergency room care via gov't run programs the same as private insurers.  If you aren't admitted, you pay a larger portion of the bill to prevent people from using ERs as physicians' offices.

Any facts to back your arguments?  Have any proof on this primary care theory?  And for that matter, what is it you are defining as primary care? 

quote:

quote:


What makes us think that an inefficient bureaucracy is going to manage our healthcare any better?

Are you kidding me?

An inefficient bureaucracy is the very definition of any HMO or other health insurer you can name.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

quote:

ORIGINAL: MzMia

come on subfever, we all know who is behind " it all". 
 
THE MAN!

If this is true, why are you focused on bigger and better band-aids?

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

oh gesh! i dont have the patience to pay 20 questions. and i dont expect people to "give" me anything. my problem with health care is that is was ALLOWED to get this far out of hand to begin with. bteween kick backs, profit margins and legal fees, the poorer of this country is suffering. and now its starting to hit the wallets of the richer, they are complaining, which is why this is even becomming an issue now.

Allowed by who?

Would you agree or disagree that in the end, the people will get the government that they deserve?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever


(BTW... twice now on this thread, I've gotten pop-up messages telling me I can't post consecutively in such a short time period. I've never seen this before. Is it new?)

No, it's been around, happened to me too once or twice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

oh gesh! i dont have the patience to pay 20 questions. and i dont expect people to "give" me anything. my problem with health care is that is was ALLOWED to get this far out of hand to begin with. bteween kick backs, profit margins and legal fees, the poorer of this country is suffering. and now its starting to hit the wallets of the richer, they are complaining, which is why this is even becomming an issue now.

Allowed by who?

Would you agree or disagree that in the end, the people will get the government that they deserve?

subfever

speak your mind. i dont like games.

quote:

Single payer does not make it possible to control prices without either rationing or decrease in overall quality. Laws don't repeal the laws of economics. Only the market can efficiently allocate resources.

quote:

ORIGINAL: awmslave

quote:

Single payer does not make it possible to control prices without either rationing or decrease in overall quality. Laws don't repeal the laws of economics. Only the market can efficiently allocate resources.

I do not agree with this. Allegedly, there is the market-based system now in place. The prices in US for the same service are several times higher than in other countries. There is no evidence services being poor in quality in these countries (Japan for example has strict price control, Germany controls prices and salaries). The customer in US has very little control or choice. Medical care has a tendency  by its nature to become a monopoly. This originates from the very high price of the equipment and buildings and special labor qualifications. The result is the the customer is ripped off and he/she has no power to go elsewhere or get a fair price. HMO-s pay much less for the same service (compared to uninsured) but lot of this is allocated for the company benefits and the customer wins very little.
The single payer system would take place of HMO but with true "non profit" practice. The current non-profit health insurers are pseudo non profit organizations spending huge sums for executive compensation, vacationing, lobbying, advertising and so on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

I didnt suggest any such thing. No one should be afforded the right to not pay for national defense, and no one should be forced to pay for health care. National defense is in the Constitution, paying for or providing for health care isn't. That isn't subjective, thats the plain language of the Constitution. What is subjective is the interpretations that funding a fucking miniature golf course and other bastardizations of what is clear except to activists who want the Constitution to say whatever pleases them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: awmslave

US spends about twice (per capita) on health care compared to other industrial nations. There are more than enough funds spent in the system today to provide quality care to everybody. The question is where the resources go? Single payer system for basic care would make it possible to control prices.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever
I could also have added that it's the same reason why 45 million people don't pay income taxes in the US, and millions are without health insurance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: awmslave

quote:

Awmslave, what has that got to do with helping the less fortunate.

Willbeurdaddy, what gets me is I never see anyone who moans about paying mandatory taxes for a health system for all, moan about mandatory taxes for unused star war systems ect. Whats more important ?

US spends about twice (per capita) on health care compared to other industrial nations. There are more than enough funds spent in the system today to provide quality care to everybody. The question is where the resources go? Single payer system for basic care would make it possible to control prices.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
Unfortunately, one of those reasons is the health care industry employs a lot of people and is an important revenue -generating segment of the economy.

Any change has to be gradual or it will hit the economy like the mortgage crisis.

quote:

Worker's comp insurance would go away.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

oh gesh! i dont have the patience to pay 20 questions. and i dont expect people to "give" me anything. my problem with health care is that is was ALLOWED to get this far out of hand to begin with. bteween kick backs, profit margins and legal fees, the poorer of this country is suffering. and now its starting to hit the wallets of the richer, they are complaining, which is why this is even becomming an issue now.

Allowed by who?

Would you agree or disagree that in the end, the people will get the government that they deserve?

subfever

speak your mind. i dont like games.

Let me rephrase it for you then:

Who allowed health care to get so far out of hand?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

TRICARE, formerly known as the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS), is a health care program of the United States Department of Defense Military Health System.[1] TRICARE provides civilian health benefits for military personnel, military retirees, and their dependents, including some members of the Reserve Component. The TRICARE program is managed by TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) under the authority of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs). TRICARE is the civilian care component of the Military Health System, although historically it also included health care delivered in the military medical treatment facilities. TRICARE operates as a single-payer health care system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRICARE

a system i am very familiar with, though, when i was under it, it was known as Champus

quote:

ORIGINAL: MzMia

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

There are two questions...where the resources go, and who provides the resources. In any other commodity it is the person who provides the resources that determines where the resources go . Health care shouldnt be any different.

Which is where the problem lies.

Do we want to define health care as a commodity?

Something traded and sold for profit?

Do we want to decide who lives and who dies based on their profitability?

This is at the heart of this whole health care debate.
The main issue's appear to be:
*WHO is going to pay for it and
*WILL/CAN we dare take away profits from big Pharm, the insurance companies, non-profit,
and anyone that makes money/profits from the health care industry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

And hurt the millions of people who work for them and the 10s of millions of people invested in them. So we've destroyed the high end travel industry, socialized banking and the car companies, why not move on and fuck up a another chunk of the economy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

TRICARE, formerly known as the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS), is a health care program of the United States Department of Defense Military Health System.[1] TRICARE provides civilian health benefits for military personnel, military retirees, and their dependents, including some members of the Reserve Component. The TRICARE program is managed by TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) under the authority of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs). TRICARE is the civilian care component of the Military Health System, although historically it also included health care delivered in the military medical treatment facilities. TRICARE operates as a single-payer health care system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRICARE

a system i am very familiar with, though, when i was under it, it was known as Champus

Which is serviced and administered by private companies. Its "success" as a single payer system is no different than any other employer who provides retiree health insurance. Thank you for proving my point.

quote:

The terms TriWest and TRICARE are often used interchangeably, but each is distinctly different. It's easy to see why people may be confused—the names of both start with the same three letters and both have similar logos.

Created in the early 1990s, TRICARE is the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) health care entitlement for active duty, Guard and Reserve and retired members of the military, and their eligible family members and survivors. TRICARE's objectives are to optimize the delivery of health care services at military treatment facilities and supplement that with access to civilian health care networks where necessary. TRICARE receives its funding as part of the annual federal defense budget, which is approved by Congress and signed by the President of the United States.

TriWest Healthcare Alliance is a privately held, Phoenix-based corporation that contracts with the DoD to administer TRICARE in the 21-state TRICARE West Region, and is monitored by the TRICARE Management Authority, a department within the DoD.

TRICARE is not an insurance plan, but rather a health care entitlement earned by our nation's military members for their service to this country. Likewise, TriWest is not an insurance company. TriWest is a contractor to the DoD that administers the TRICARE program in the 21-state West Region.

quote:

Multibillion-dollar military contracts that Humana and Health Net have relied on for years of predictable profit are changing hands next year, leaving the two companies facing the loss of steady business when they can least afford it.

The change in Tricare contractors left industry analysts wondering how badly Humana and Health Net would be hurt by the loss of that business, and if it would precipitate the sale of one or both companies -- sales frequently rumored but never discussed by the plans themselves. Both plans, like their competitors, have lost commercial membership as the economy has deteriorated.