In this series of threads, we will attempt to fix various and sundry problems plaguing the world, the United States or other issues nobody can quite figure out.
This thread will attempt to fix the United States Healthcare System.
Note that the following must be followed:
- We are not beholden to any lobbyists and thus can act with impunity and without fear of repercussion.
- We are not running for office so we don't have to pander to any singular group.
- YOU MUST SAY HOW WE WILL PAY FOR THIS!
- If you have concrete views on something (public option, abortion, etc) please state this and why.
I'm interested to see what we come up with or if anyone even bothers to try.
And how are we going to pay for it?[/QUOTE]serious, succinct answer: full single-payer
this is already pretty much done unofficially in the United States. Capitalism beat you to it.Comedy answer: Enslave the poor and institute a breeding program so that all menial labor is done for free, removing a vast chunk of people who would otherwise need healthcare.
And how are we going to pay for it?[/QUOTE]serious, succinct answer: full single-payer
this is already pretty much done unofficially in the United States. Capitalism beat you to it.[/QUOTE]Comedy answer: Enslave the poor and institute a breeding program so that all menial labor is done for free, removing a vast chunk of people who would otherwise need healthcare.
3.) Increase capability of doctors - Raise the bar on requirements for becoming a medical doctor
Or you can go crazy and do both...The real solution is to identify the high cost areas of insurance and find ways to ease them. Tort reform would help to streamline treatment as the doctors will be able to stop worrying about covering every single base, and instead being able to focus on getting the patient the treatment needed faster.
Even Adam Smith, first guy that talked about the invisible hand said that it only work if everyone is honest... instead companies do this: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-11-2010/eamon-javersOpening up competition will better allow the laws of supply and demand to keep the costs at their natural levels.
The inherent flaw, however, is that one assumes that corruption is less of a factor in centralized (socialist) systems. The difference between centralized and decentralized systems is that in a decentralized system, corruption happens on a case by case basis, and corruption of many working in concert becomes easy to find and thus to stomp on. However, in a centralized system, all the records you have to fudge and people you have to bribe are in one convenient location. Corruption harms any system, be it capitalist or socialist. However, capitalism makes it less difficult to bust the corrupt businessman because he's not in charge of government... whereas under socialism the corrupt businessman IS the government, and you're screwed with no options outside of revolt.Even Adam Smith, first guy that talked about the invisible hand said that it only work if everyone is honest... instead companies do this: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-11-2010/eamon-javers
3.) Increase capability of doctors - Raise the bar on requirements for becoming a medical doctor
3.) Increase capability of doctors - Raise the bar on requirements for becoming a medical doctor
There are hundreds of medical insurance companies already existing, so "breaking into the market" won't be as much of a factor. However, you have a good point in that we need to make sure companies like Blue Cross don't consolidate and form an ubercorp like pre-baby-bell AT&Ts that can drive others out of business simply by sheer mass. The aim here is to increase competition. It may, sometimes, become necessary to break big companies into multiple smaller companies, which is (in my libertarian fantasy world) the only true and valid use of government intrusion into the private sector.[*]Insurance needs to be able to cross state lines. Currently each state makes their own laws regarding health insurance and the lack of portability causes prices to go up. But if we allow carriers to cross state lines, we'd run into the problem that some states already have which is monopolization and lack of choices for consumers. I know that allowing the state line crossing will help a little, but the Blue Crosses will just get bigger and make it that much harder to break into the market.
Without profit incentive, there's very little drive to expand or innovate. The much-maligned profit motive is what made our country the consumer's paradise that it is. The trick is, you have to get the profiteers to have no choice but to shave their own profits and/or find cost-saving methods. You do this through ensuring competition - that they have competitors also trying to give as-good-or-better service for incrementally lower prices. Sort of like how Cable companies enjoyed a monopoly until satellite TV came along, and now the two hold each other in check, keeping prices going down and service going up outside of a few notable exceptions.Oh, and insurance companies shouldn't be for profit. It creates a conflict of loyalty for the company. The loyalty isn't to the customer, but to the share holders.
It'll be like when all the corporations skirt paying taxes by being in Delaware. And why Credit Card companies can get away with doing heinous shit because they're in South Dakota.The problem with allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines is insurance regulation is controlled by state laws. In Alabama, for instance, the laws are fairly lenient. In California, they are more strict. Companies would move to Alabama to sell insurance in this example because they would have more freedom and would have to follow Alabama laws, not California laws, even if the buyer is in California.
Just an FYI on why they can't sell across state lines right now.
I had a really bad cough that causing to barely breath (not sure what caused it) so I was checked in. A nurse took my temp, blood pressure, and give me some Oxygen (help with breathing). After like 2 hours, the nurse check up on me and I was release. I don't have the bill with me since it was like 4 years ago, but I remember paying (since I paid it) over 2000$Oh, and insurance companies shouldn't be for profit. It creates a conflict of loyalty for the company. The loyalty isn't to the customer, but to the share holders.
We have that. That is what HIPAA legislation is. However, it creates a minimum requirement which is often expanded upon by each state.Right, which is why we need a FEDERAL set of insurance guidelines.
We have that. That is what HIPAA legislation is. However, it creates a minimum requirement which is often expanded upon by each state.[/QUOTE]Right, which is why we need a FEDERAL set of insurance guidelines.
I had a really bad cough that causing to barely breath (not sure what caused it) so I was checked in. A nurse took my temp, blood pressure, and give me some Oxygen (help with breathing). After like 2 hours, the nurse check up on me and I was release. I don't have the bill with me since it was like 4 years ago, but I remember paying (since I paid it) over 2000$Oh, and insurance companies shouldn't be for profit. It creates a conflict of loyalty for the company. The loyalty isn't to the customer, but to the share holders.
I had a really bad cough that causing to barely breath (not sure what caused it) so I was checked in. A nurse took my temp, blood pressure, and give me some Oxygen (help with breathing). After like 2 hours, the nurse check up on me and I was release. I don't have the bill with me since it was like 4 years ago, but I remember paying (since I paid it) over 2000$Oh, and insurance companies shouldn't be for profit. It creates a conflict of loyalty for the company. The loyalty isn't to the customer, but to the share holders.
HIPAA is a failed bad idea that has NEVER been prosecuted. All HIPAA did was create the CCC (certificates of creditable coverage) which does work...and everything else that doesn't.[/QUOTE]Blue Cross Blue Shield is already not for profit. Trust me. I worked there for a LONG time.
---------- Post added at 03:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:22 PM ----------
We have that. That is what HIPAA legislation is. However, it creates a minimum requirement which is often expanded upon by each state.Right, which is why we need a FEDERAL set of insurance guidelines.
Yeah, a lot has changed since 1996. Never mind disaster contingency plans, designated record sets, clear rules for individual rights and access to health information, and uses and disclosures for health information. You do realize that there are constantly changes to these things, right? Coding standards were observed... mostly. Hospital admission forms and data requirements were... mostly observed. That kind of thing right there is why it's important to require it.Krisken, I say that HIPAA is flawed because even though privacy is included, it has never been prosecuted! Never. Not once. People have been fired for violating HIPAA, but that's just through the company for which they worked. The electronic transfer from paper has a whole SLOUGH of things wrong with it and has unreasonable and impossible demands (I was part of the team who helped set some of this up when HIPAA first came into being) and the coding standards were already industry-wide with the ICD-9 & CPT coding systems. NOTHING HIPAA did except for the CCC portability has worked and costs the health care system billions.
How's that been working for ya?I think I'll sit this one out and watch the armchair experts take it on.
How's that been working for ya? [/QUOTE]I think I'll sit this one out and watch the armchair experts take it on.