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 know that those on the right who read my posts on health care probably believe that I am some commie pinko liberal or whatever, based on the fact that I support UHC. Not true. In my mind there really is only two ways to make health care affordable. Not just my opinion by the way. One is full regulation of the healthcare industry. The Costs per person could be held low and stable and everyone could have access. The downside is that the freemarket is gone and you won't always get the "Best" healthcare.
The second way, which no one talks about or even considers is a free market health care industry. I know you will hear a lot of conservatives opposing Obama or any national health care plan say yes that is what we want. A true classical capitalist has a much broader view of what is necessary for free market system. Here is what you would need to do to have complete competition, which I am not opposed to. If you say you are a conservative and a capitalist then by definition you would have to agree that the free market system is the best. You don't pay for anyone else, you as intelligent consumer shop for the best deal and quality. The ones providing the best quality at the best price do well. The others don't. To have a free market health care system the government would have to be completely removed. Here is what would be required.
1. Most important - no more tax deductions from the fed (your taxes) to businesses that provide health insurance. If they want to pay on their own fine, pure market...completely up to them. The result - more companies will drop health insurance which then produces - consumers shopping for low cost health care insurance or lower cost health care. (Demand from intelligent consumer looking for best deal)
2. Allow anyone in the united states who wants to start a medical school, nursing school, or health care related occupation to start their school. Free market. The fact is who really cares how qualified you are when you start your training, what matters is how qualified you are at the end of your training. To that end, establish a base line skill and knowledge requirement per occupation that a person must pass in that field to practice. (works for commercial pilots). The schools that best prepare applicants to pass the requirement will do well and the others won't. Free market. This will eliminate the strangle hold the AMA has on the medical field to reduce the supply. The skill level required does not go down but the supply goes up. (Supply). When you have more doctors looking for business and more consumers looking for better deals, free market...prices go down.
People miss the bigger picture. You can't control the cost of health insurance unless you control the cost of health care. The only way to control the cost of health care is to regulate the cost...public insurance, medicaid, medicare or free market system with little or no government intervention (Competition). If you give the health care industry the choice between these two options, they will take public insurance every time. Competition is not what they want. NO business wants competition. It is natural. Personally, I would be happy with either choice.
I have been advocating a free market health system for years. Like this idea you have "Allow anyone in the united states who wants to start a medical school, nursing school, or health care related occupation to start their school. Free market. The fact is who really cares how qualified you are when you start your training, what matters is how qualified you are at the end of your training. To that end, establish a base line skill and knowledge requirement per occupation that a person must pass in that field to practice. (works for commercial pilots). The schools that best prepare applicants to pass the requirement will do well and the others won't. Free market. This will eliminate the strangle hold the AMA has on the medical field to reduce the supply. The skill level required does not go down but the supply goes up. (Supply). When you have more doctors looking for business and more consumers looking for better deals, free market...prices go down." It is simple fact that deregulation of the health care industry would improve quality and lower cost as busineses compete to provide service. The training area can be medical centers that care for the poor or those unable to afford medical care. The reform of the legal system needs to go hand in hand with this The only function Government would have would be to enforce standards of practice agreed on by the medical providers and patients. I even advocate self-service medical care where a patient can self-diagnose based on a database maintained by the national institutes of health from medical practitioners and schools for the benefit of everyone. You type in your symptoms and the computer instructs you what to do next. If needed you can be directed to a doctor or nurse to withdraw blood or a medical center for further testing.
I have been advocating a free market health system for years. Like this idea you have "Allow anyone in the united states who wants to start a medical school, nursing school, or health care related occupation to start their school. Free market. The fact is who really cares how qualified you are when you start your training, what matters is how qualified you are at the end of your training. To that end, establish a base line skill and knowledge requirement per occupation that a person must pass in that field to practice. (works for commercial pilots). The schools that best prepare applicants to pass the requirement will do well and the others won't. Free market. This will eliminate the strangle hold the AMA has on the medical field to reduce the supply. The skill level required does not go down but the supply goes up. (Supply). When you have more doctors looking for business and more consumers looking for better deals, free market...prices go down." It is simple fact that deregulation of the health care industry would improve quality and lower cost as busineses compete to provide service. The training area can be medical centers that care for the poor or those unable to afford medical care. The reform of the legal system needs to go hand in hand with this The only function Government would have would be to enforce standards of practice agreed on by the medical providers and patients. I even advocate self-service medical care where a patient can self-diagnose based on a database maintained by the national institutes of health from medical practitioners and schools for the benefit of everyone. You type in your symptoms and the computer instructs you what to do next. If needed you can be directed to a doctor or nurse to withdraw blood or a medical center for further testing.
Yes, but you have to deregulate it all. If most people paid for healthcare out of their pocket or out of a health care account and the supply of health care professionals went up. The free market would control the price.
"Allow anyone in the united states who wants to start a medical school, nursing school, or health care related occupation to start their school. Free market. The fact is who really cares how qualified you are when you start your training, what matters is how qualified you are at the end of your training. To that end, establish a base line skill and knowledge requirement per occupation that a person must pass in that field to practice.
Just what do you think is going on regarding this now? AFIK, anyone can start such a school now. There are standards for what medical, nursing, physical therapy, etc, education entails. They would have to obtain the agreements with hsopitals, etc, for clinical experiences. This isn't as easy as you think. There are necessarily prerequisites. I mean, do you really want your physician to have never had a course in biology? In re: "establish a baseline skill", what do you think licensing is for? My daughter just passed a 5 hour exam to be licensed as a physical therapist.
"Allow anyone in the united states who wants to start a medical school, nursing school, or health care related occupation to start their school. Free market. The fact is who really cares how qualified you are when you start your training, what matters is how qualified you are at the end of your training. To that end, establish a base line skill and knowledge requirement per occupation that a person must pass in that field to practice.
Just what do you think is going on regarding this now? AFIK, anyone can start such a school now. There are standards for what medical, nursing, physical therapy, etc, education entails. They would have to obtain the agreements with hsopitals, etc, for clinical experiences. This isn't as easy as you think. There are necessarily prerequisites. I mean, do you really want your physician to have never had a course in biology? In re: "establish a baseline skill", what do you think licensing is for? My daughter just passed a 5 hour exam to be licensed as a physical therapist.
Of course. Your daughter had to pass the exam to be licensed. If she had not passed the exam she would not be licensed. I believe that is what I put in my original post. They have to meet the skill and knowledge requirements. I was talking about licensing exams and practical skill level exams. The requirements for licensing would not change, with the exception that the school that you attended would not have to be certified by some organization trying to limit the amount of people in that field. I don't see schools changing prerequisites. We do not have a problem getting on an airplane with commercial pilots with basically the same type of system. Why would have to be a different standard for a physical therapist.
Of course. Your daughter had to pass the exam to be licensed. If she had not passed the exam she would not be licensed. I believe that is what I put in my original post. They have to meet the skill and knowledge requirements. I was talking about licensing exams and practical skill level exams. The requirements for licensing would not change, with the exception that the school that you attended would not have to be certified by some organization trying to limit the amount of people in that field. I don't see schools changing prerequisites. We do not have a problem getting on an airplane with commercial pilots with basically the same type of system. Why would have to be a different standard for a physical therapist.
Where would you get that from anything that I wrote? The end requirements would be no more lenient than they are now, actually I would say they should be more strict. The only change would be to open up more schools and remove the control of the AMA. Did you know in the last 20 years the number of law schools have tripled but the number of medical schools has stayed the same. Do you see a problem there. Actually it should have been the other way around. There have been 16,000 med. graduates every year for the past 20 years while the population has increased and grown older. You see the problem. It is not about quality it is about artificial restrictions. The article attached states it better than I can.
You're on the right track with a free market but, you're confusing the insurance industry with the health care industry (or at least you're mixing the two together, I think).
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2
I know that those on the right who read my posts on health care probably believe that I am some commie pinko liberal or whatever, based on the fact that I support UHC. Not true. In my mind there really is only two ways to make health care affordable. Not just my opinion by the way. One is full regulation of the healthcare industry. The Costs per person could be held low and stable and everyone could have access. The downside is that the freemarket is gone and you won't always get the "Best" healthcare.
Here you're talking strictly about controlling the cost of health care.....what health care providers are allowed to charge, correct? Health insurance would be necessary for catastrophic illnesses but, would be more competitive and have lower premiums because of the regulations the health care industry would have, correct or incorrect? Is this what you're saying?
The second way, which no one talks about or even considers is a free market health care industry. I know you will hear a lot of conservatives opposing Obama or any national health care plan say yes that is what we want. A true classical capitalist has a much broader view of what is necessary for free market system. Here is what you would need to do to have complete competition, which I am not opposed to. If you say you are a conservative and a capitalist then by definition you would have to agree that the free market system is the best. You don't pay for anyone else, you as intelligent consumer shop for the best deal and quality. The ones providing the best quality at the best price do well. The others don't. To have a free market health care system the government would have to be completely removed. Here is what would be required.
1. Most important - no more tax deductions from the fed (your taxes) to businesses that provide health insurance. If they want to pay on their own fine, pure market...completely up to them. The result - more companies will drop health insurance which then produces - consumers shopping for low cost health care insurance or lower cost health care. (Demand from intelligent consumer looking for best deal)
What, businesses don't shop for the best deal? I got news for you, they shop EVERY year at renewal by requesting all new quotes from their broker on every company serving their market. Group health insurance is a whole different ball game from individual, it's more expensive because groups that apply can not be declined like individuals can when they apply for individual insurance (in most states). A group can be rated up as much as 400% because of health status but, not declined (the larger the group the less likely they are to have any rate-up at all). Once the group has agreed to the coverage (and price) their being quoted though, new employees that get hired and their family, can have any kind of health problem and they can't get declined nor will the premium for them be any different than the other employees. After one year at renewal, there's always a rate increase but, depending on the state there are limits but, that's why businesses usually request all new quotes each year (at the very most, every two years).
Businesses that offer health insurance as a benefit to their employees, are paying all or part of the premium for them and sometimes their family as well.....that's a cost of doing business....it's an expense just like anything else they buy, it gets deducted from their bottom line.
Individual insurance is a lot less expensive in most states (because there are not mandates that force carriers to accept any one that applies as well as cover all/any pre-existing conditions), since applicants can be declined for health status. In this case the carrier is able to limit their risk by accepting only healthy people. The rate and or frequency of healthy people developing various illnesses can be predicted through statistical data and is what allows insurance companies to determine the rates they'll have to charge for a given area. Having to accept people that are already ill is something that is unpredictable in terms of how many a company may have apply/enroll with them. This is why group insurance is more expensive from the start.....to compensate for that unknown factor. The larger the groupthough, usually makes it less of a problem (there are exceptions, like companies that cover their retirees with benefits) so, in states where carriers offer individual insurance and can not decline any one applying, it's a huge problem and rates are sky high.
If you want to see want to see the effect this kind of mandate has on rates, go do an online quotes for your self pretending you're an Arizona resident buying health insurance (where you can be declined if unhealthy) and then one as a New York resident (where you can't be regardless of how unhealthy).
2. Allow anyone in the united states who wants to start a medical school, nursing school, or health care related occupation to start their school. Free market. The fact is who really cares how qualified you are when you start your training, what matters is how qualified you are at the end of your training. To that end, establish a base line skill and knowledge requirement per occupation that a person must pass in that field to practice. (works for commercial pilots). The schools that best prepare applicants to pass the requirement will do well and the others won't. Free market. This will eliminate the strangle hold the AMA has on the medical field to reduce the supply. The skill level required does not go down but the supply goes up. (Supply). When you have more doctors looking for business and more consumers looking for better deals, free market...prices go down.
The problem is people still need insurance coverage for catastrophic illnesses. That beig the case, the insurance company sees the bill and pays the bill. People don't know what there going to be paying for health care....there are no price lists and even if there were, they don't know what or how much treatment they will be receiving when hospitalized. You have to go to the hospital your doctor has priviledges at any way....there can only be so many doctors at a given hospital and they're going to be nearby by too.....and what about emergencies....are you going to hope in the ambulance like a cab and tell the driver which hospital you'd like to go to.
People miss the bigger picture. You can't control the cost of health insurance unless you control the cost of health care. The only way to control the cost of health care is to regulate the cost...public insurance, medicaid, medicare or free market system with little or no government intervention (Competition). If you give the health care industry the choice between these two options, they will take public insurance every time. Competition is not what they want. NO business wants competition. It is natural. Personally, I would be happy with either choice.
You're right about regulating the price of health care though....that's the key....that's the problem....and then you will have lower insurance premiums. Medicare and Medicaid are through the government so, they pay less any way but, they're still in the same boat insurance carriers are now. You have to have private insurance, Medicare and Medicaid for things like a heart attack, that's not going to be cheap with your idea of a free market or not. The problem is how do you regulate the cost?
I am fine with increasing the number of med school, nursing school, etc graduates. Nursing is trying to do that right now, and can't find enough qualified faculty. Starting these schools is not as easy as it sounds, and the public needs some assurance that the graduates have an adequate education. The education needs to take place with safeguards in place. Health care is not commercial piloting, to borrow from the analogy.
You're on the right track with a free market but, you're confusing the insurance industry with the health care industry (or at least you're mixing the two together, I think).
You're right about regulating the price of health care though....that's the key....that's the problem....and then you will have lower insurance premiums. Medicare and Medicaid are through the government so, they pay less any way but, they're still in the same boat insurance carriers are now. You have to have private insurance, Medicare and Medicaid for things like a heart attack, that's not going to be cheap with your idea of a free market or not. The problem is how do you regulate the cost?
I think you missed my point, but that is probably my fault. I did talk about insurance a great deal but I meant to focus more on how much costs would go down if the individual was shopping for their own health care...not health insurance. If you needed a knee replacement and it was not covered by health insurance you would shop around for the best price and you would make sure you got billed for what was done. You would look at the whole bill and question every item. On simply an economic basis no different than purchasing anything else.
Of course, to havecompetition you would have to have a greater supply of doctors and hospitals who want to compete for your business.
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.
