cool beans. I want the goberment subsidized my health insurance. wait... where does the goberment get the money to subsidize?
By cutting waste already in the system for 2/3 of it, and then there are several other possibilities out there to cover the last 1/3.
That is why the co-ops, coupled by reasonable regulation of insurers, would (IMO) lead to better coverage for the money from private insurers. If you do not offer better coverage than the co-op at a higher cost, you are going to be in trouble because your customers will go away. It brings a unique type of competition. One in which, if it is done right and the co-ops provide good coverage, we will all win.
I don't understand why you keep saying this. Where? Where are they going to cut waste that is not cut already? Pay doctors less? Not pay for certain expensive procedures? You're expecting that the most wasteful entity in this country is going to cut health care down to 2/3 and still offer the same amenities to everyone? Don't fall for the, "we're going to negotiate with the pharmaceuticals" bs. I'll reassure you the pharmaceuticals are not going to jump on this bandwagon with a 2/3 cut in their profit w/out accepting a bone from somewhere else. Its more likely you'll find 2/3 waste in the current federal budget. Cut my taxes by 2/3 and I can afford health care.
Cries of discrimination against a minority. Though this instance in Florida certainly helps deflect that were this to happen to a non-christian religion.
I have no idea which Florida case Bucman is referring to but if you could pelase start another thread on that instead of continuing to derail this one.
On this point I agree with SpaceGhost and I think he is correct that pharmaceuticals wouldn't just go along with this if they believed that they were going to see a severe cut in their profit. As for cutting the 2/3rd in waste I am still highly skeptical that the government will be able to do that.
I believe it has already been done (or agreed upon). Unfortunately, I don't have a link to back that up at the moment.
It's been talked about. The repetition of testing that goes on will be cut for one. If in the course of treatment you need to see 4 different doctors they currently do the same test 4 different times. Under this plan they will be doing the test once and e-mailing it to the other doctors. It isn't the services that are being cut, it's the waste.
As to the notion that 2/3 of the reform plan will be paid for via savings... here's a link that mentions it:[rquoter] Q: How would Obama's overhaul proposal rein in spending on federal healthcare programs? A: The OMB report spells out some $622 billion in proposed savings for Medicare and Medicaid over the next 10 years that are likely to be part of the final reform legislation. The administration argues that things like improving productivity, promoting efficiency and accountability and reducing hospital readmission rates can save billions of dollars while improving the quality of care provided to patients.[/rquoter]http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSN2522261320090825 (emphasis mine)
Now I cant think of any sane patient who wouldn't want this kind of thing to go thru. One test, share the results for differing opinions....
Currently, most doctor's offices and hospitals have an army of non-medical billing specialists, whose only function is to duke it out with their counterparts with the insurance companies over the arcania of billing rules and regulations. Streamlining that would be a great cost saver. These people add absolutely no value to patient care, and they incur great added cost for both insurance companies and doctors. The elimination of monks and priests of billing arcania was one of the core tenants of French health care reform, and the French still have total freedom to choose providers.
An office visit without an insured co-pay is typically what.... $75? Just for walking in the door and creating "paperwork!"
Well if that was all that it was, it is much more sane than taking the same test 4 different times. But that isn't all that it is. It would be used if the GP thought it might be one ailment, and then that would require one specialist, and the specialist might think that some kind of therapy, or whatever was needed, and referred the patient to yet someone else. Each doctor could view the test results, rather than do the same test over.
