Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-22-2008, 09:38 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,224 posts, read 4,985,399 times
Reputation: 908

Advertisements

Another tidbit from that same website; Proposal of the Physicians' Working Group for Single-Payer National Health Insurance | Physicians for a National Health Program

Our private health insurers and HMOs now consume 13.6 percent of premiums foroverhead1, while both the Medicare program and Canadian NHI have overhead costs below 3 percent. Our multiplicity of insurers forces U.S. hospitals to spend more than twice as much as Canadian hospitals on billing and administration, and U.S. physicians to spend about 10 percent of their gross incomes on excess billing costs2. Only a true single payer system would realize large administrative savings. Perpetuating multiple payers - even two - would force hospitals to maintain expensive cost accounting systems to attribute costs and charges to individual patients and payers. In the U.K., market-based reforms that fractured hospital payment have swollen administrative
costs3 4.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-22-2008, 09:42 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,224 posts, read 4,985,399 times
Reputation: 908
This one is particularly for GreatDay..as far as hospitals are concerned

Taken from Proposal of the Physicians' Working Group for Single-Payer National Health Insurance | Physicians for a National Health Program

The NHI would pay each hospital a monthly lump sum to cover all operating expenses - that is, a global budget. The hospital and the NHI would negotiate the amount of this payment annually, based on past expenditures, previous financial and clinical performance, projected changes in levels of services, wages and input costs, and proposed new and innovative programs. Hospitals would not bill for services covered by the NHI. Hospitals could not use any of their operating budget for expansion, profit, excessive executives’ incomes, marketing, or major capital purchases or leases. Major capital expenditures would come from the NHI fund, but would be appropriated separately based upon community needs. Investor-owned hospitals would be converted to not-for-profit status, and their owners compensated for past investment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2008, 09:46 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,126,235 times
Reputation: 4937
Thank you TM for your efforts.

We, as a group, have read these reports

Again -thanks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2008, 09:56 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,224 posts, read 4,985,399 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
Thank you TM for your efforts.

We, as a group, have read these reports

Again -thanks

I find these solutions address ALL of the issues that are affecting our health care system today.. very comprehensive, well thought out.. a REAL solution. The proposals from your committee do just the opposite.. with more paperwork, doesn't address the overhead adminsitrative costs that are sucking the system dry..actually ADDS to it and just complicates an already complicated system.. NOW THIS type of plan is very mainstreamed and highly efficient..

And.. most importantly.. leaves NO ONE out!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2008, 09:59 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,126,235 times
Reputation: 4937
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
I find these solutions address ALL of the issues that are affecting our health care system today.. very comprehensive, well thought out.. a REAL solution. The proposals from your committee do just the opposite..
Really TM? Funny - we have not made any proposals yet. We are considering various recommendations - but, no proposals yet.

We will not do that until early next year.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2008, 10:08 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,224 posts, read 4,985,399 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
Really TM? Funny - we have not made any proposals yet. We are considering various recommendations - but, no proposals yet.

We will not do that until early next year.


oh.. excuse me.. forgive me for calling it a proposal.. the whatever it was that you outlined on the other board was what I was referring to.

This website goes on to show how other "bandaid" type "plans" suggested severely fall short incuding the "tax voucher" idea.. etc. Like below also taken from Proposal of the Physicians' Working Group for Single-Payer National Health Insurance | Physicians for a National Health Program

2 - Tax subsidies and vouchers for coverage for the uninsured.
President Bush, as well as some Democrats, would offer tax credits to low income families who purchase private coverage.

The $2000 per family subsidy ($1000 per single person) that the President has proposed falls far short of the cost of adequate insurance; in Massachusetts, HMO family premiums average about $6000 annually. Hence, few of the uninsured could afford adequate coverage even with the subsidy. This problem would increase over time; premiums would surely rise more rapidly than subsidies. Most of the tax credits would subsidize premium payments for people who already have coverage, since employers would be tempted to drop insurance for employees eligible for subsidies. As a result, large outlays for tax subsidies would buy little new coverage; $13 billion annually would cover only 4 million (less than 10%) of the uninsured28.
Moreover, tax credits would amplify administrative inefficiency. If the IRS paid the year’s subsidy when tax returns were filed (i.e. the following April), it would come too late to provide the cash flow that low income families need to purchase coverage. Paying the credit with each paycheck would create an administrative nightmare; it would require ongoing monitoring of household income, qualification for the subsidy, etc.
In addition, the new coverage would be purchased from private insurers whose average overhead/profits consumes 13.6% of premiums - six times that of Medicare. Not surprisingly, the health insurance industry supports the tax credit approach; additional tax dollars would end up in their coffers, with little public oversight.


I'm quite enjoying my reading tonight.. funny.. the stuff that they are saying on this website have been the things I've been saying this entire time on the board.. and I'm just a "layperson"!! These people are physicians in the fray! Just goes to show that a UHI or NHI.. however you want to call it is.. well common sense!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2008, 10:13 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,126,235 times
Reputation: 4937
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
oh.. excuse me.. forgive me for calling it a proposal..
Well - I'm not surprised you misrepresented what the group I'm part of is involved with.

You have been misrepresenting my posts all along - this was simply one more misrepresentation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2008, 10:15 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,224 posts, read 4,985,399 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
Well - I'm not surprised you misrepresented what the group I'm part of is involved with.

You have been misrepresenting my posts all along - this was simply one more misrepresentation.
I haven't misrepresented anything.. I think you called it a "plan" and since you had outlined a "plan" I guess I assumed that you were going to propose such a "plan" therefore I called it a "proposal"..

Whatever it is.. YOU are the one that put the outline of it out there on the boards and touted it as something you and your "committee" came up with.

Talk about misrepresentation.. you always take my posts out of context and then twist it to fit your argument.. now THAT is misrepresentation. You've done that to me on atleast 3 occassions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2008, 10:18 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,224 posts, read 4,985,399 times
Reputation: 908
Here is a link to the page with all the research that has gone into the PNHP's outline for an NHI with data to back it all up. VEry very interesting and pretty darned cool!

PNHP Research: The Case for a National Health Program | Physicians for a National Health Program
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2008, 10:19 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,126,235 times
Reputation: 4937
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
I haven't misrepresented anything..
I'm sorry TM but, you have misrepresented my posts - frequently.

You are posting from a position of pure emotion - and, when one speaks from emotion, it is not uncommon to make misrepresentations -

But, I do respect your fervor on this very important issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top