Documentary on a Fix for the Healthcare System

[LeafByNiggle]

There are forms of Catastrophic Health Insurance policies available for a fraction of the cost of Obamacare that will cover heart transplant, kidney dialysis, chemotherapy, or other high-cost items. A Health Savings Account (HSA) can cover all the “general sniffles and sneezes”…

Actually I would be in favor of changing Obamacare to cover only these catastrophic health issues, and let everyone pay for their own sniffles, sneezes, and birth control pills.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Your quote simply highlights we have a problem, it doesn’t support Master’s plan as a viable solution to the problem.

Anybody who truly understands how markets work would realize that there is no real solution to this problem. You just have to decide what set of problems you want to live with.

 

[Bspencer]

cant give any solutions, but some observations

1. agree with zoltan; gov’t- obamacare- attempts to fix a problem for a minority of folks

• for hospitals this has increased income because many of the folks that previously were no pay, now have obamacare. but its your increased taxe dollars that are increasing the hospitals income.

1. obamacare regulations have directly resulted in the primary care docs in my area to see 15-30% less patient volume per day. almost 100% of this reduction is due to more data entry required for each patient. and this data entry does not correlate with increase patient satisfaction/outcomes/etc
   
   some quick math: previously, a family doc could comofortably see 25 patients per day. reduce that by approx 30%, and he sees 18 patients per day. 7 patients less x 5 day work week = 35 x 4 weeks = 140 patients per month x 12 months = 1680 patients per year.

where are these patients going to go? The ER? there is already a shortage of FP docs, and their training takes years, so you wont see an increase in numbers for years.

so people aren’t seen. overall health declines.

1. there was a comment about faith based health care entities. while some of these entities truly do good works, many do not, and function in name only as a religious healthcare providers. these folks are like many others in squeezing every penny to the point of bankruptcy from patients.

 

[Biggin]

A lot of good comments, and observations. But I will add, that even before Obama care, I had a really good insurance plan. and was, even then ,able to get a better “rate” than that what was charged to insurance company.; and not just for the minor sniffles and boo boo’s.
Less red tape, even you don’t have all the cash up front, talk to them!!( the Dr. and facility)
Insurance companies have to make money, and the only thing Obama Care accomplished was providing them with a mandated client base, where they provided less coverage.

 

[JimG]

A lot of good comments, and observations. But I will add, that even before Obama care, I had a really good insurance plan. and was, even then ,able to get a better “rate” than that what was charged to insurance company.; and not just for the minor sniffles and boo boo’s.
Less red tape, even you don’t have all the cash up front, talk to them!!( the Dr. and facility)
Insurance companies have to make money, and the only thing Obama Care accomplished was providing them with a mandated client base, where they provided less coverage.

Yes, from what I have seen is that Obamacare simply pushed prices and deductibles for insurance, made insurance companies and hospitals richer, and limited choices for ordinary people. It would have been cheaper just to directly subsidize those who could not otherwise get insurance. Now, the ones who could afford it no longer can.

 

[Theo520]

Anybody who truly understands how markets work would realize that there is no real solution to this problem. You just have to decide what set of problems you want to live with.

I think the simple answer to the problem of helping the uninsured is obvious.

Put at tax on healthcare plans and provide the funds directly to county hospitals and clinics, who best serve the poor in a cost effective manner. It wouldn’t provide the poor with an insurance card but it would increase their access to basic care.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

It seems to me that the only physicians who are happy in their work now are the ones who have opted out of the government and insurance system. These are primary care physicians who don’t take insurance of any kind. Not private insurance, not government insurance. They are paid by their patients. This is called direct primary care. They usually charge a single monthly fee, to take care of all of a patient’s primary care services, including most lab work, tests, xrays, and sometimes drugs. They don’t do coding; they don’t hire insurance filers, there is minimal overhead.

The practices I have read about and their patients like it. Look up Direct Primary Care. Prices go down because a third or fourth party is not paying. It’s a patient-physician centered model.

yes this is correct

 

[PaulinVA]

People who talk about reducing the cost of healthcare are not taking into account one important fact. The people that are losing the money being saved (providers, plans, whomever) will make the money up some other way.

Remember when Congress was so happy with themselves when they reduced “swipe fees” on credit cards that merchants are charged? The banks just went marauding around looking for other way ways to make up the money in other fees.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Tens of millions of people today have healthcare coverage when they didn’t before Obamacare. Still too many people do not, due partly to not qualifying for a subsidy because they make too little to file a federal tax form but at the same time do not qualify for Medicaid under their state’s guidelines. The richest nation on the planet can’t seem to do what other nations do and make it so every living human person born has the right to adequate and affordable universal healthcare. And that means more than catastrophic coverage. No plan is going to be perfect. I know people cry about wait lists in other countries. But in this country healthcare has always been rationed by how much money one has. Medicare recipients overall seem satisfied enough with Medicare. The best fix and path would be for a single payer system, a Medicare for all approach. That’s my :twocents:

 

[Viki63]

People who talk about reducing the cost of healthcare are not taking into account one important fact. The people that are losing the money being saved (providers, plans, whomever) will make the money up some other way.

Remember when Congress was so happy with themselves when they reduced “swipe fees” on credit cards that merchants are charged? The banks just went marauding around looking for other way ways to make up the money in other fees.

Yes, but what if there were no insurance companies? Please tell me what insurance companies provide that is worth the money they make? All they do is ration care and charge for it.
I agree with Sy Noe, we need universal healthcare, so that our economy isn’t devastated by the costs and profits of the healthcare industry.
I’m glad the business world is starting to wake up and realize we can no longer compete internationally with the huge drain on our economy of for-profit healthplans.

.

 

[PaulinVA]

Yes, but what if there were no insurance companies? Please tell me what insurance companies provide that is worth the money they make? All they do is ration care and charge for it.
I agree with Sy Noe, we need universal healthcare, so that our economy isn’t devastated by the costs and profits of the healthcare industry.
I’m glad the business world is starting to wake up and realize we can no longer compete internationally with the huge drain on our economy of for-profit healthplans.​

Our government can not handle single payer, even if people wanted to go socialist. Big government in America is dysfunctional government. The government’s idea of keeping costs down is to reduce payments, with no regard for the cost to actually provide the service. No thank you.

So, if you make the for-profit health plans the bad guys, you think the non-profits are better? I agree that people should not gt rich on other people’s suffering.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Our government can not handle single payer, even if people wanted to go socialist. Big government in America is dysfunctional government. The government’s idea of keeping costs down is to reduce payments, with no regard for the cost to actually provide the service. No thank you.

So, if you make the for-profit health plans the bad guys, you think the non-profits are better? I agree that people should not gt rich on other people’s suffering.

I am not a fan of single payer, but the interesting thing is that Medicare is not significantly different from single payer and nobody argues we should get rid of that, even though medicare is bankrupting us.

 

[PaulinVA]

I am not a fan of single payer, but the interesting thing is that Medicare is not significantly different from single payer and nobody argues we should get rid of that, even though medicare is bankrupting us.

No one wants to take care from the elderly, BUT, it is rife with fraud and low reimbursements cause docs to only take a limited number of medicare patients.

It’s not efficient, but it’s a promise we have to keep. Operated at scale for the entire population it would be a disaster.

 

[stinkcat_14]

No one wants to take care from the elderly, BUT, it is rife with fraud and low reimbursements cause docs to only take a limited number of medicare patients.

It’s not efficient, but it’s a promise we have to keep. Operated at scale for the entire population it would be a disaster.

I think the elderly should pay their own way and if they can’t afford it, then family can pay, then charity. There is no reason the government has any business providing health insurance.

 

[PaulinVA]

I think the elderly should pay their own way and if they can’t afford it, then family can pay, then charity. There is no reason the government has any business providing health insurance.

Other than the fact that the government has been confiscating money from workers for generations, and there is an implied contract with everyone of working age.

“The elderly” have a wide range of economic status. Some can pay, and some can’t.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Other than the fact that the government has been confiscating money from workers for generations, and there is an implied contract with everyone of working age.

“The elderly” have a wide range of economic status. Some can pay, and some can’t.

So you are saying that anyone who pays taxes is owed welfare?

 

[PaulinVA]

So you are saying that anyone who pays taxes is owed welfare?

The concept of being “owed” something is interesting. But, for this discussion, I think Social Security and Medicare, which the government confiscates money to run, are different from the various welfare programs that are funded from state and federal income taxes.

I don’t think there is as strong a link for welfare programs as there is for SS and Medicare, but if you’ve been paying taxes for some years, expecting a safety net occasionally is not a bad expectation.They aren’t “owed” it.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I think the elderly should pay their own way and if they can’t afford it, then family can pay, then charity. There is no reason the government has any business providing health insurance.

I’ve seen this argued before. I don’t find it realistic at all. There is not enough charity in this country that can even come close to paying for the healthcare costs of everyone in need. Not with the cost of prescription drugs, dr visits, diagnostic testing and surgeries. 1 person’s surgery alone can easily be in the 5 figures. That’s why there needs to be a role for government along with individual and faith based charity.

 

[Viki63]

Other countries can do it, without bankrupting either the country via taxes or the people.

Please don’t fall for the anti-“socialist” propaganda that the insurance companies put out. Single payer health care would be publicly funded, and privately delivered.

It is not socialism. In socialism, the healthcare industry would be owned by the government, and medical people would be employees of the government.
In single payer, doctors would work privately, but be paid a reasonable salary by our taxes.

.

 

[PaulinVA]

Other countries can do it, without bankrupting either the country via taxes or the people.

No, they do it by rationing care, forcing people to come to America for treatment they really need.

Please don’t fall for the anti-“socialist” propaganda that the insurance companies put out. Single payer health care would be publicly funded, and privately delivered.

Well, that’s the worst of both worlds! Please don’t assume I am following for anyone’s rhetoric. I think for myself and find your arguments not very persuasive.

It is not socialism. In socialism, the healthcare industry would be owned by the government, and medical people would be employees of the government.
In single payer, doctors would work privately, but be paid a reasonable salary by our taxes.
.

Uh, that’s socialism. Confiscate people’s money and use it to pay for a service for everyone… Is it capitalism? Nope. The means of production, distribution, and exchange would be controlled by the government.