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.
...I'm a consultant/problem solver who disagrees with it. ...
With all due respect, as I've waded through your posts, I haven't seen much problem solving. I haven't seen much thinking out of the box...which is what problem solvers need to do. What I have seen is you pushing your one-sided agenda.
With all due respect, as I've waded through your posts, I haven't seen much problem solving. I haven't seen much thinking out of the box...which is what problem solvers need to do. What I have seen is you pushing your one-sided agenda.
Any conventional business sense or accounting will not solve our long term HC cost issue. Because there is simply not enough money. The solution i.e. the money has to come from out of the box. The money will have to be conjured.
The basic problem with this approach is that it does not understand that medicine in general does not follow much in the way of free market principles. That being supply and demand. In too many cases and so many medical encounters, the typical supply and demand equation fails in medicine. For all sorts of reasons.
So the gist of that is that more docs means more HC spending. Not less due to competition.
Overheads are another topic. So much of overheads are necessary for patients safety.
Automation in medicine will not lower costs, they will increase them. The more patients I see in a day, the more testing and such that gets ordered. My salary is very meager compared to the total HC spending volume that I control as one doc.
Agreed, agreed, and agreed.
I just did the math on my phone... I thought I was a digit off! I didn't want to be but thanks for the correction.
You are also correct on aggregate cost. I just used the formula for a basic sic for some sort of baseline. I ran it through multiples and had the expected 20% variance.
Therein again lies an issue few don't understand: cost valuation between private and Medicare/Medicaid are vastly different. How much does it truly cost to ensure there is enough money to cover and pay for every American.
With all due respect, as I've waded through your posts, I haven't seen much problem solving. I haven't seen much thinking out of the box...which is what problem solvers need to do. What I have seen is you pushing your one-sided agenda.
The problem solving occurs in the technical aspects. Those in this field know the problem. Correcting those problems occurs in the testing phase. This whole exercise is cba related.
Keep in mind, I've worked in the industry for a long time. Private, state, federal level. From claims to contracting, regulation to transactions, benefit configuration, finance, trend, and data analysis.
Whenever I hear the term, my first question does one mean single payer or coverage for all.
Maybe I can be convinced but how do those that advocate it systematically see it set up? Who administers it? Provider rates? Who sets coverage guidelines?
I could post a long list but either we'll get there or not. I just want to hear how it well 'work'.
Thanks
I look at obamacare this way. if the government can force you to buy a private product such as health care, then they can force you to use and buy any product. even if you are totally against the product.
I look at obamacare this way. if the government can force you to buy a private product such as health care, then they can force you to use and buy any product. even if you are totally against the product.
I'm not a fan of the Aca. I'm not even an advocate of uhc or single payer. Going through the motion, it could be done right outside of gov control if reviewed extensively.
I'm not a fan of the Aca. I'm not even an advocate of uhc or single payer. Going through the motion, it could be done right outside of gov control if reviewed extensively.
telling someone that they have to have health insurance or pay a tax if they do not, would be like me telling a gun hating liberal that they shall own an AR-15 and a Glock both complete with ammo and magazines or pay a huge tax.
telling someone that they have to have health insurance or pay a tax if they do not, would be like me telling a gun hating liberal that they shall own an AR-15 and a Glock both complete with ammo and magazines or pay a huge tax.
I'm totally against penalizing those who opt out.
As stated, I'm not for a single payer-uhc. However, there are some that could make it work but it will take a total revamp and, estimated, we are looking at $1800 pmpm to cover and fund it.
I did this as an exercise who claim 'Medicare for all'. That's an unfeasible plan. I was asking proponents how they envision. Most, so far, don't realize all that has to change.
I just did the math on my phone... I thought I was a digit off! I didn't want to be but thanks for the correction.
You are also correct on aggregate cost. I just used the formula for a basic sic for some sort of baseline. I ran it through multiples and had the expected 20% variance.
Therein again lies an issue few don't understand: cost valuation between private and Medicare/Medicaid are vastly different. How much does it truly cost to ensure there is enough money to cover and pay for every American.
In 2050, 20% of $40T GDP will be a bunch, and can only happen through new money creation.
I'm not a fan of the Aca. I'm not even an advocate of uhc or single payer. Going through the motion, it could be done right outside of gov control if reviewed extensively.
Nor I. I never liked the 'Mandate'.
I still support a public option. I would basically leave the privates as they and the markets desire.
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.