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.
Ohh, so you don't have regulations to comply with, billing issues to deal with, underwriting to figure out premiums, claims people to deal with paying people. Its like magic, this is amazing! Sign me up!
That is correct. Welcome on board to advocacy of a single payer system.
Quote:
a single-payer system, all hospitals, doctors, and other healthcare providers would bill one entity for their services. This alone reduces administrative waste greatly, and saves money, which can be used to provide care and insurance to those who currently don’t have it.
Access and Benefits
Everyone would receive comprehensive medical benefits under single-payer. Coverage would include all medically necessary services, including rehabilitative, long-term, and home care; mental healthcare, prescription drugs, and medical supplies; and preventive and public health measures.
Care would be based on need, not on ability to pay.
Payment
Hospital billing would be virtually eliminated. Instead, hospitals would receive an annual lump-sum payment from the government to cover operating expenses—a “global budget.” A separate budget would cover such expenses as hospital expansion, the purchase of technology, marketing, etc.
a single-payer system, all hospitals, doctors, and other healthcare providers would bill one entity for their services. This alone reduces administrative waste greatly, and saves money, which can be used to provide care and insurance to those who currently don’t have it.
Access and Benefits
Everyone would receive comprehensive medical benefits under single-payer. Coverage would include all medically necessary services, including rehabilitative, long-term, and home care; mental healthcare, prescription drugs, and medical supplies; and preventive and public health measures.
Care would be based on need, not on ability to pay.
Payment
Hospital billing would be virtually eliminated. Instead, hospitals would receive an annual lump-sum payment from the government to cover operating expenses—a “global budget.” A separate budget would cover such expenses as hospital expansion, the purchase of technology, marketing, etc.
Unless you are going to tell me that "administrative waste" is well over 50% of the work load, you are completely wrong. There is a large amount of administrative necessity that isn't "waste" Its like when they say they want to eliminate fraud from government programs, thats great an all but its generally a very small percentage of the problem. Nothing more than some clever but misleading wording.
Unless you are going to tell me that "administrative waste" is well over 50% of the work load, you are completely wrong. There is a large amount of administrative necessity that isn't "waste" Its like when they say they want to eliminate fraud from government programs, thats great an all but its generally a very small percentage of the problem. Nothing more than some clever but misleading wording.
Here is more info for you that I am sure you will like
Quote:
Billing and insurance-related administrative costs in the U.S. health care system totaled approximately $471 ($330 – $597) billion in 2012. This includes $70 ($54 – $76) billion in physician practices, $74 ($58 – $94) billion in hospitals, an estimated $94 ($47 – $141) billion in settings providing other health services and supplies, $198 ($154 – $233) billion in private insurers, and $35 ($17 – $52) billion in public insurers. Compared to simplified financing, $375 ($254 – $507) billion, or 80%, represents the added BIR costs of the current multi-payer system.
Conclusions
A simplified financing system in the U.S. could result in cost savings exceeding $350 billion annually, nearly 15% of health care spending.
Nitpick!? Are you kidding? The difference between 300M+ people is not nitpicking. You made a wildly inaccurate claim, no backing out of that by placing the blame on me, sorry.
My arguments aren't about the number of persons covered, but will of the American electorate to participate in any sort of true national health scheme. *YOU* are the one focused the entire USA population at large.
So your whole argument rests upon the theory USA cannot have any sort of comprehensive or national health plan because the country has too large a population?
Those are total costs, what % of it is this so-called "waste" that we are saving?
In the conclusion.
A simplified financing system in the U.S. could result in cost savings exceeding $350 billion annually, nearly 15% of health care spending.
Quote:
Figure 2 shows each health care sector’s share of total added BIR costs. Private insurers contributed much of added BIR spending at 49%, though providers collectively represented nearly half of the total.
So MAYBE we can save ALMOST 15%....like I said, this waste is only a small portion of the problem. Its just a bunch of estimates with clever wording to make it sound better than it will likely be.
You lost me right there in red. We aren't at all similar to "many European countries" in any way shape or form...demographics, geography, health of the population, you name it. There is no comparing the US to any other country on the planet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal
My arguments aren't about the number of persons covered, but will of the American electorate to participate in any sort of true national health scheme. *YOU* are the one focused the entire USA population at large.
So your whole argument rests upon the theory USA cannot have any sort of comprehensive or national health plan because the country has too large a population?
No, that is not my whole argument, you actually replied to the basis for my argument which directly states that its more than just the population difference that makes our situation so much different.
So MAYBE we can save ALMOST 15%....like I said, this waste is only a small portion of the problem. Its just a bunch of estimates with clever wording to make it sound better than it will likely be.
350 billion dollars.....15% of all healthcare spending...........addresses a significant portion of the problem.
350 billion dollars.....15% of all healthcare spending...........addresses a significant portion of the problem.
Again, thats a "maybe" and an "almost" which I'm fine with because I do believe that its worth exploring, I just question the actual reality of the situation. Does it also take into account the transition to a new system and any ramp down of the existing system? Does it take into account a ramp up in volume and stress to the system of all the newly covered people actually using the system?
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.
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.
