Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: It's time for national healthcare - Page 88







Post#2176 at 03-29-2011 10:09 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
03-29-2011, 10:09 PM #2176
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by TnT View Post
What difference does it make? No matter the insurance I "choose" I don't get to go to Mayo, or Cleveland Clinic, or Sloan-Kettering. If I change insurance companies, then instead of having to go to East Jesus for treatment, I have to go to West Jesus. The only thing I can hope for is that my insurance happens to contract with the healthcare providers that happen to be good at what I happen to get sick with. If I get something that my providers aren't good at ... tough s**t, I still get to go to them for its treatment.

Competition between payors merely causes dysfunction in the financing of healthcare provision.

Competition between providers will cause folks to get interested in those providers that make people well.
And how do you propose to get competition between the health care providers. This is getting to the root of the real problems, since the bulk of the costs are also with the health care providers. I have not seen any practical plan to do this.







Post#2177 at 03-29-2011 10:20 PM by herbal tee [at joined Dec 2005 #posts 7,116]
---
03-29-2011, 10:20 PM #2177
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
7,116

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
And how do you propose to get competition between the health care providers. This is getting to the root of the real problems, since the bulk of the costs are also with the health care providers. I have not seen any practical plan to do this.
As I see it, America already has a national health care system. It's generally called the county clinic.
We lack not a solution, just the will to take on the for profit health care model.

Taking them on seriously means also taking on that part of the finance industry to tries to collect on medical debt.
And that of course means taking on Wall Street.
Last edited by herbal tee; 03-29-2011 at 10:22 PM.







Post#2178 at 03-29-2011 10:34 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
03-29-2011, 10:34 PM #2178
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by herbal tee View Post
As I see it, America already has a national health care system. It's generally called the county clinic.
We lack not a solution, just the will to take on the for profit health care model.

Taking them on seriously means also taking on that part of the finance industry to tries to collect on medical debt.
And that of course means taking on Wall Street.
And I say take them all on by forcing them to compete for real and stop supporting their monopolies.







Post#2179 at 03-30-2011 09:23 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
03-30-2011, 09:23 AM #2179
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by herbal tee View Post
As I see it, America already has a national health care system. It's generally called the county clinic.
We lack not a solution, just the will to take on the for profit health care model.

Taking them on seriously means also taking on that part of the finance industry to tries to collect on medical debt.
And that of course means taking on Wall Street.
Actually, our most cost efficient medicine is performed by doctors who have never had to worry about school loans. The military is the most obvious example, though there are others ... primarily in the public health arena. We need to separate doctors form the profit motive before it becomes mandatory for their survival. Most of the European countries educate their physicians for free. Call it grades 17 - 20 in the US model. Why can't we do the same, with a transition period to the new model over some time period.

Why is medicine a profit center for the insurance and banking industries anyway? For that matter, who thought that was a good idea?
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#2180 at 03-30-2011 10:50 AM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
03-30-2011, 10:50 AM #2180
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
Actually, our most cost efficient medicine is performed by doctors who have never had to worry about school loans. The military is the most obvious example, though there are others ... primarily in the public health arena. We need to separate doctors form the profit motive before it becomes mandatory for their survival. Most of the European countries educate their physicians for free. Call it grades 17 - 20 in the US model. Why can't we do the same, with a transition period to the new model over some time period.

Why is medicine a profit center for the insurance and banking industries anyway? For that matter, who thought that was a good idea?
I like your comment about education for physicians.

However, we still need a real health care system vs. the badly evolved 'non-system' that we now have. After we solve the high overhead cost problem , which does invlove the multiple health insurance providers, the underlying cost drivers from the health care providers would remain. I don't like the idea of 'single payer', but could live with this provided we develop a real health care system for all US citizens.
I still maintain that using the federal health care system as a model would also bring down the administative costs because any provider with out of line costs would not attract customers. Blue Cross , for example, would have to provide a product that is competitive with products offered by Unions, Employee Associations, plus whatever group that wants to provide health insurance on a national level to all citizens.

It is not clear to me how the banking industry plays in this.







Post#2181 at 03-30-2011 11:22 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
03-30-2011, 11:22 AM #2181
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
I like your comment about education for physicians.

However, we still need a real health care system vs. the badly evolved 'non-system' that we now have. After we solve the high overhead cost problem , which does involve the multiple health insurance providers, the underlying cost drivers from the health care providers would remain. I don't like the idea of 'single payer', but could live with this provided we develop a real health care system for all US citizens.
The payment system enforces the problem you're trying to solve. Look at the payment model. Provider A does this and that, and bills for those services. Insurer X pays the bill, because the accountants can parse the charges, apply the compensation rules and OK the payment. Nowhere in all of that is a focus on the patient, her illness or the outcome of the treatment.

Quote Originally Posted by radind ...
I still maintain that using the federal health care system as a model would also bring down the administrative costs because any provider with out of line costs would not attract customers. Blue Cross , for example, would have to provide a product that is competitive with products offered by Unions, Employee Associations, plus whatever group that wants to provide health insurance on a national level to all citizens.
It still has the limitation of being procedure based rather than outcome based. By design, providers align their services to their best financial advantage, regardless of how frugal the payer may be with their customer's money. To do otherwise courts financial disaster. So changing that in any significant way means changing the posture of the provider community. Conservative forces (i.e. those benefiting most from the current system) will oppose that with everything they can muster.

Quote Originally Posted by radind ...
It is not clear to me how the banking industry plays in this.
They finance education, hospital bonds, provide loans of all types to doctors and their practices, and provide the money to influence policy that favors their involvement. They have the money to buy the power.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#2182 at 03-30-2011 11:59 AM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
03-30-2011, 11:59 AM #2182
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
...


It still has the limitation of being procedure based rather than outcome based. By design, providers align their services to their best financial advantage, regardless of how frugal the payer may be with their customer's money. To do otherwise courts financial disaster. So changing that in any significant way means changing the posture of the provider community. Conservative forces (i.e. those benefiting most from the current system) will oppose that with everything they can muster.


...
I agree that the current 'system' will resist mightly. Most Republicans won't even admit that we have a problem. We need to seek an approach with some chance of reaching a consensus. I would like to see the outline of a real system and followed by an understandable plan. This should not take thousands of pages to describe. Then some public dialogue could take place. I fault both parties for not seeking a viable approach. It is sad, but Congress seems unable to deal with hard problems. Maybe we need a series of "BRAC" style commisions to deal with the real problems, so Congress can sit on the sideline and just continue endless debates.
Last edited by radind; 03-30-2011 at 12:01 PM.







Post#2183 at 03-30-2011 02:17 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
03-30-2011, 02:17 PM #2183
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

This is why we need a single payer system of health care.

Maternal Mortality in the United States: A Human Rights Failure

March 24, 2011 by Healthcare-NOW!
Filed under Single-Payer News

By Francine Coeytaux, Debra Bingham, and Nan Strauss for ARHP –

With 99% of maternal deaths occurring in developing countries, it is too often assumed that maternal mortality is not a problem in wealthier countries. Yet, statistics released in September of 2010 by the United Nations place the United States 50th in the world for maternal mortality — with maternal mortality ratios higher than almost all European countries, as well as several countries in Asia and the Middle East.1, 2

Even more troubling, the United Nations data show that between 1990 and 2008, while the vast majority of countries reduced their maternal mortality ratios for a global decrease of 34%, maternal mortality nearly doubled in the United States.1 For a country that spends more than any other country on health care and more on childbirth-related care than any other area of hospitalization — US$86 billion a year — this is a shockingly poor return on investment.3, 4
http://www.healthcare-now.org/matern...ights-failure/
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#2184 at 03-30-2011 02:58 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
03-30-2011, 02:58 PM #2184
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
I agree that the current 'system' will resist mightily. Most Republicans won't even admit that we have a problem. We need to seek an approach with some chance of reaching a consensus. I would like to see the outline of a real system and followed by an understandable plan. This should not take thousands of pages to describe. Then some public dialogue could take place. I fault both parties for not seeking a viable approach. It is sad, but Congress seems unable to deal with hard problems. Maybe we need a series of "BRAC" style commissions to deal with the real problems, so Congress can sit on the sideline and just continue endless debates.
Assuming that you have no problem using the experience of others, then there is a panoply of systems to use as models. The French system seems to be the best-of-the-best, but there are many others. T. R. Reid did a good cross sample study and published it in his book The Healing of America. We could do worse than starting there.
Last edited by Marx & Lennon; 03-30-2011 at 03:02 PM.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#2185 at 03-30-2011 03:36 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
03-30-2011, 03:36 PM #2185
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
This is why we need a single payer system of health care.

Maternal Mortality in the United States: A Human Rights Failure

http://www.healthcare-now.org/matern...ights-failure/
The concern I have with single payer so far is that the plans address the administrative costs( which is necessary) , but I don't see a clear plan to develop a working health care delivery system. Right now, some doctors are dropping out of the current Medicare system and leaving the patients stranded, unless they can afford to pay these doctors up front.
I think that a good plan could be developed, but the idea of thousands of pages of law just to start makes me skeptical. To me this is a critical first step to convince a strong majority of voters to back the plan. I would not be thrilled, but I would support a clear, solid single payer plan.
This needs to be an American plan and not just another Democratic plan or a Republican plan. I don't see Congress doing this without a strong grassroots voter push. In my opinion , it would be easier to appeal to rational conservatives with a plan that retains some competition ,but still works for the individual American. Without a joint effort, we seem to have continued stalemate.







Post#2186 at 03-30-2011 03:42 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
03-30-2011, 03:42 PM #2186
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
Assuming that you have no problem using the experience of others, then there is a panoply of systems to use as models. The French system seems to be the best-of-the-best, but there are many others. T. R. Reid did a good cross sample study and published it in his book The Healing of America. We could do worse than starting there.
I have no problem at all using the experience of others. I have felt for a long time that we should be able to take the current US spending on health care to provide a first class system. Some of the existing systems are underfunded. This may take a "BRAC " approach since Congress cannot even close bases without an outside group taking the lead to absorb the political heat.
Last edited by radind; 03-30-2011 at 04:41 PM.







Post#2187 at 03-30-2011 03:45 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
03-30-2011, 03:45 PM #2187
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
The concern I have with single payer so far is that the plans address the administrative costs( which is necessary) , but I don't see a clear plan to develop a working health care delivery system. Right now, some doctors are dropping out of the current Medicare system and leaving the patients stranded, unless they can afford to pay these doctors up front.
The one thing that single payer does best is eliminate the substitution ploy. Saying that you won't work for the only employer in town merely guarantees starvation. Today, providers can play payers off against one another, and get better deals.

Quote Originally Posted by radind ...
I think that a good plan could be developed, but the idea of thousands of pages of law just to start makes me skeptical. To me this is a critical first step to convince a strong majority of voters to back the plan. I would not be thrilled, but I would support a clear, solid single payer plan.
This needs to be an American plan and not just another Democratic plan or a Republican plan. I don't see Congress doing this without a strong grassroots voter push. In my opinion , it would be easier to appeal to rational conservatives with a plan that retains some competition ,but still works for the individual American. Without a joint effort, we seem to have continued stalemate.
You get thousands of pages of law and regulations when the system is complex and subtle. Multiple payers, and a vast and varied list of providers, virtually guarantees complexity.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#2188 at 03-30-2011 03:48 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
03-30-2011, 03:48 PM #2188
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
... This needs to be an American plan and not just another Democratic plan or a Republican plan. I don't see Congress doing this without a strong grassroots voter push. In my opinion , it would be easier to appeal to rational conservatives with a plan that retains some competition ,but still works for the individual American. Without a joint effort, we seem to have continued stalemate.
HCA is exactly what you describe, and it got zero support from the GOP.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#2189 at 03-30-2011 03:49 PM by Silifi [at Green Bay, Wisconsin joined Jun 2007 #posts 1,741]
---
03-30-2011, 03:49 PM #2189
Join Date
Jun 2007
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Posts
1,741

Quote Originally Posted by TnT View Post
We'd be a lot better off if the competition was between healthcare PROVIDERS. If there was a single PAYOR, then the good healthcare systems would have to compete for customers. If I had my choice of Provider, why wouldn't I go to Sloan Kettering for my cancer treatment, instead of East Jesus Memorial Cancer Money Tree in Yellowstream, Montana?
Now this just doesn't make sense. Yes, if there is single payer, there would be competition for quality, but this would only cause prices to go up. If there is only one customer (the government) that will pay pretty much any price, then there is nothing to push prices down. A provider could offer lower prices, but there is no incentive for the patient to choose the lower cost option. They will always go for the premium (the perception of premium, really, because it's easy for consumers to be manipulated by branding) if the government is the one footing the bill.

The only way that could possibly work is if the government instituted price controls, which is just bad news all around.
Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
-Phil Ochs

INTP 1989 Millenial







Post#2190 at 03-30-2011 03:52 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
03-30-2011, 03:52 PM #2190
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

This is based on a quick search. I will continue to research.
T.R. Reid’s “The Healing of America” - PNHP's Official Blog
://pnhp.org/blog/2009/08/24/t-r-reids-the-healing-of-america/

..."But the biggest problem is not with the private insurers; it’s with Congress. They have decided to move forward with our patched-together system, primarily by expanding the use of U.S.-style, business-model private plans. We will be forced to use inadequate subsidies to purchase private plans that are too expensive and that provide inadequate protection in the face of medical need. This is a program that will expand expensive mediocrity – hardly the solution we seek."...







Post#2191 at 03-30-2011 03:58 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
03-30-2011, 03:58 PM #2191
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by Silifi View Post
Now this just doesn't make sense. Yes, if there is single payer, there would be competition for quality, but this would only cause prices to go up. If there is only one customer (the government) that will pay pretty much any price, then there is nothing to push prices down. A provider could offer lower prices, but there is no incentive for the patient to choose the lower cost option. They will always go for the premium (the perception of premium, really, because it's easy for consumers to be manipulated by branding) if the government is the one footing the bill.

The only way that could possibly work is if the government instituted price controls, which is just bad news all around.
That's exactly the opposite of real-world experience of Medicare. For example –



I believe the differential is even greater for drug costs.

How do you explain this?
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#2192 at 03-30-2011 03:59 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
03-30-2011, 03:59 PM #2192
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
Government-funded medicine always comes with either price controls or limitations on covered treatment.
Whoops you beat me to the punch. I did have a pretty graph though.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#2193 at 03-30-2011 04:00 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
03-30-2011, 04:00 PM #2193
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
The one thing that single payer does best is eliminate the substitution ploy. Saying that you won't work for the only employer in town merely guarantees starvation. Today, providers can play payers off against one another, and get better deals....
I agree with you about the current 'system'. This does not apply to Govt. workers in the federal health care system. Each employee can select from several national plans. This puts the power back in the hands of the consumer for the health care insurance. The issue that is not addressed is how to put the consumer in control in terms of the health care providers. This is a harder problem and it seems to me that this part gets overlooked by many in the push for 'single payer'.







Post#2194 at 03-30-2011 04:03 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
03-30-2011, 04:03 PM #2194
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
HCA is exactly what you describe, and it got zero support from the GOP.
Then we need to go directly to the voters.







Post#2195 at 03-30-2011 04:07 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
03-30-2011, 04:07 PM #2195
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
The concern I have with single payer so far is that the plans address the administrative costs( which is necessary) , but I don't see a clear plan to develop a working health care delivery system. Right now, some doctors are dropping out of the current Medicare system and leaving the patients stranded, unless they can afford to pay these doctors up front.
First, there will always be exceptional physicians who seek exceptional (that is, very rich) clients. Surely you have heard of "society doctors"; some physicians are snobs.

Second, there are also physicians who have innovative, fiendishly-expensive procedures that give hope where it is otherwise unavvailable. If we want those innovative physicians around, then maybe we need to accept that there always will be a dual-tier system of medical care. Such is freedom, and freedom doesn't always give
everyone what he wants. Could an American single-payer system afford to pay $1 million each to successfully treat a cancer that afflicts people only in extreme old age? It might have been worth it for Sam Walton even if the government paid for it, but I can think of better priorities -- like ensuring childhood nutrition and vaccinations.

Third, there are physicians on the margin of practice, most notably those on the brink of retirement or those whose competence or integrity is suspect.


I think that a good plan could be developed, but the idea of thousands of pages of law just to start makes me skeptical. To me this is a critical first step to convince a strong majority of voters to back the plan. I would not be thrilled, but I would support a clear, solid single payer plan.
This needs to be an American plan and not just another Democratic plan or a Republican plan. I don't see Congress doing this without a strong grassroots voter push. In my opinion , it would be easier to appeal to rational conservatives with a plan that retains some competition ,but still works for the individual American. Without a joint effort, we seem to have continued stalemate.
Thousands of pages? Someone who reads an average of ten pages of reading material every day reads 3652.5 pages a year. Do you know of any professional who reads that little?

Maybe you can tell me how many pages of federal law are dedicated to workplace safety, environmental laws, or the regulation of banks.

....

We are in a 4T, and rapid change of social priorities is the norm in a 4T even without cataclysmic violence -- much in contrast to the degenerate 3T in which almost all that is new is rot. We have huge social problems that have festered because of the atomization of American life. Such is unsustainable.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#2196 at 03-30-2011 04:08 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
03-30-2011, 04:08 PM #2196
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
I agree with you about the current 'system'. This does not apply to Govt. workers in the federal health care system. Each employee can select from several national plans. This puts the power back in the hands of the consumer for the health care insurance. The issue that is not addressed is how to put the consumer in control in terms of the health care providers. This is a harder problem and it seems to me that this part gets overlooked by many in the push for 'single payer'.

The problem you are getting to is that the usual supply-and-demand doesn't work when it's a breast, testicle or, if not too far gone, a mind of yours or a loved one.

The current system has a way of dealing with this revolving around money - how much insurance you bought and/or how much money you have to afford a good lawyer. A single payer system makes it more a social issue - and the usual philosophical divides then ensue.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#2197 at 03-30-2011 04:33 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
03-30-2011, 04:33 PM #2197
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
First, there will always be exceptional physicians who seek exceptional (that is, very rich) clients. Surely you have heard of "society doctors"; some physicians are snobs.

Second, there are also physicians who have innovative, fiendishly-expensive procedures that give hope where it is otherwise unavvailable. If we want those innovative physicians around, then maybe we need to accept that there always will be a dual-tier system of medical care. Such is freedom, and freedom doesn't always give
everyone what he wants. Could an American single-payer system afford to pay $1 million each to successfully treat a cancer that afflicts people only in extreme old age? It might have been worth it for Sam Walton even if the government paid for it, but I can think of better priorities -- like ensuring childhood nutrition and vaccinations.

Third, there are physicians on the margin of practice, most notably those on the brink of retirement or those whose competence or integrity is suspect.




Thousands of pages? Someone who reads an average of ten pages of reading material every day reads 3652.5 pages a year. Do you know of any professional who reads that little?

Maybe you can tell me how many pages of federal law are dedicated to workplace safety, environmental laws, or the regulation of banks.

....

We are in a 4T, and rapid change of social priorities is the norm in a 4T even without cataclysmic violence -- much in contrast to the degenerate 3T in which almost all that is new is rot. We have huge social problems that have festered because of the atomization of American life. Such is unsustainable.
The doctors that I am aware of are not 'society' doctors. They just got fed up with the level of Medicare payments and the extra paperwork.
I don't have any information of the vast number of pages of federal law. I just object making things overly long without a real reason. ( I have had a strong interest in a better health care system for a long time and have not spent much thought on the other topics)
On a different topic, my concern extends to the tax law which should be simplified to eliminate special interest breaks.







Post#2198 at 03-30-2011 04:36 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
03-30-2011, 04:36 PM #2198
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
I have no problem at all using the experience of others. I have felt for a long time that we should be able to take the current US spending on health care to provide a first class system. Some of the existing systems are underfunded. This may take a "BRAC " approach since Congress cannot even close bases without an outside group taking the lead to absorb the political heat.
Some of the best analyses of health care reform that I have seen have been in The Economist.

http://www.economist.com/node/138996...id=E1_TPRJJGQS
The power of sunshine

..."A second big factor pushing up health costs is the lack of competition among operators of American hospitals. Thanks to a wave of consolidation in recent years, argues Harvard’s Ms Herzlinger, “most parts of the United States are dominated by oligopolistic hospital systems.” George Halvorson, who heads Kaiser Permanente, insists that “there is an almost total lack of price competition among providers.”"...

..."More competition and transparency would help, but the main goal of any reform plan must be to address the perverse incentives that encourage overconsumption and drive up costs. Medicare has been tinkering with “pay for performance”, a promising experiment. Mr Halvorson insists that by rejigging incentives other health providers can also create their own “virtual Kaisers”."...
Last edited by radind; 03-30-2011 at 04:39 PM.







Post#2199 at 03-30-2011 04:47 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
03-30-2011, 04:47 PM #2199
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

radind;363939]The concern I have with single payer so far is that the plans address the administrative costs( which is necessary) , but I don't see a clear plan to develop a working health care delivery system. Right now, some doctors are dropping out of the current Medicare system and leaving the patients stranded, unless they can afford to pay these doctors up front.
Perhaps some doctors are confused and don't realize the potential benefits.

There was an article last week in regards to many doctors who indicated they would move to Vermont if it passed a single payer system.

One doctor explained it this way.

One of the out-of-state doctors who would consider relocating is Scott Graham, a family physician in Marion, Ky. “I would certainly consider moving to Vermont if it passed single payer,” he said. “The idea of having one set of rules, one form for billing, and knowing that all patients are covered – that would be wonderful.”
I think he sums up the benefits quite nicely. Not to mention that most of us who work for single payer are requesting an improved Medicare where payments to doctors are increased.

Here's the link to the article I mentioned: http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/03/22-21
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#2200 at 03-30-2011 04:54 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
03-30-2011, 04:54 PM #2200
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
Whoops you beat me to the punch. I did have a pretty graph though.
If you look a the trend lines, it's the private insurers that are off-trend.

There is also the not insignificant matter of bad performance at exceedingly high cost. This has nothing to do with efficiency or generosity, it has to do with the fundamental structure of the system. I'm glad I get good health care. I wish it was better. But I also know that my plan costs far more than it should. I pay only a portion of the plan but get 100% of the care. What do you think is my primary concern?
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
-----------------------------------------