Congress has not come close to addressing the drivers of health care spending. We have to understand, as pointed out in Dr. Deborah Cohen and Dr. Tom Farley's book, "Prescription for a Healthy Nation" and former Surgeon General Dr. David Satcher's comment that over 80 percent of what drives health happens outside the health care system. How we design communities, price food, educate people, and create peer groups supportive of healthy behaviors will drive down health care spending far more than tinkering with health insurance coverage or negotiating lower rates with insurance plans.
When Congress intervenes in the health care system, the best thing it could do would be to support more integrated health care, with a focus on building community-based health care teams led by a trusted clinician in a medical home. The current legislative proposals are far too timid in moving in this direction. The President got it right when he mentioned great examples like Kaiser-Permanente, Intermountain Health and Geisinger in his health care speech to Congress in September. These integrated systems are most likely to reduce cost increases over time.
Unfortunately, the multiple bills passed through various House and Senate Committees do not go far enough to create a broad-based payment system that rewards integrated, low-cost, high-quality care. The fundamental flaw in all of these proposals is that they are based on the assumption that if everyone has health insurance, they will get more and better health care. However, health insurance access is not the same as health care access, and getting easier access to health care does not significantly improve population health. Until we make people so much healthier that they do not need to use the health care system as much, we will not reduce cost increases.
There are far to many powerful opponents to allow a public option to get a fair hearing. To-date the opponents of a government option have spent $53 billion with false information trying to sink even a fair debate. This amount of money is only spent when the threat is real and they know there monopoly is under serious competition
When a government as hold of the purse strings, insurance company’s have no choice but to get real and stop taking there clients/customers to the cleaners with unfair costs and exclusions.
There is more than enough evidence to prove beyond doubt, people get better health care and live longer when there is a Government option. Surely its about giving people a choice, and if the insurance company’s are treating there customers fairly, then they have nothing to worry about. America as 1 in 7 people without insurance, and another 2 in 7 with exclusions, due to pre existing illness.
Where is the fair choice for these people? insurers have no risk they just price people out of health care and exclude them. Call this competition? This why a public/people's plan will work
Why not have a people's plan, and see how it goes, it cant be any worse than the existing system. Why are the opponents frightened of such a system be given a try????. Of course they wont be able to fleece all there customers for much longer.
Health is more about people than profits “Well in every country other than America” Why do Canadians and Europeans live longer, they have access to health-care, that’s not based on the means to pay, but based humanity and fairness, no-matter what your current health or financial position.
There are far to many powerful opponents to allow a public option to get a fair hearing. To-date the opponents of a government option have spent $53 billion with false information trying to sink even a fair debate. This amount of money is only spent when the threat is real and they know there monopoly is under serious competition
When a government as hold of the purse strings, insurance company’s have no choice but to get real and stop taking there clients/customers to the cleaners with unfair costs and exclusions.
There is more than enough evidence to prove beyond doubt, people get better health care and live longer when there is a Government option. Surely its about giving people a choice, and if the insurance company’s are treating there customers fairly, then they have nothing to worry about. America as 1 in 7 people without insurance, and another 2 in 7 with exclusions, due to pre existing illness.
Where is the fair choice for these people? insurers have no risk they just price people out of health care and exclude them. Call this competition? This why a public/people's plan will work
Why not have a people's plan, and see how it goes, it cant be any worse than the existing system. Why are the opponents frightened of such a system be given a try????. Of course they wont be able to fleece all there customers for much longer.
Health is more about people than profits “Well in every country other than America” Why do Canadians and Europeans live longer, they have access to health-care, that’s not based on the means to pay, but based humanity and fairness, no-matter what your current health or financial position.
There are far to many powerful opponents to allow a public option to get a fair hearing. To-date the opponents of a government option have spent $53 billion with false information trying to sink even a fair debate. This amount of money is only spent when the threat is real and they know there monopoly is under serious competition
When a government as hold of the purse strings, insurance company’s have no choice but to get real and stop taking there clients/customers to the cleaners with unfair costs and exclusions.
There is more than enough evidence to prove beyond doubt, people get better health care and live longer when there is a Government option. Surely its about giving people a choice, and if the insurance company’s are treating there customers fairly, then they have nothing to worry about. America as 1 in 7 people without insurance, and another 2 in 7 with exclusions, due to pre existing illness.
Where is the fair choice for these people? insurers have no risk they just price people out of health care and exclude them. Call this competition? This why a public/people's plan will work
Why not have a people's plan, and see how it goes, it cant be any worse than the existing system. Why are the opponents frightened of such a system be given a try????. Of course they wont be able to fleece all there customers for much longer.
Health is more about people than profits “Well in every country other than America” Why do Canadians and Europeans live longer, they have access to health-care, that’s not based on the means to pay, but based humanity and fairness, no-matter what your current health or financial position.
Kathy-Ellen - "Although I am convinced a public option will work if you look at over 50 years of success in other countries."
Name me another country that has a public OPTION. They all require basic coverage, written and priced by the government for everyone. Like Medicae for All.
To date there doesn't seem to have been enough incentive for private insurance companies to create plans more palatable to the American people. The threat of losing their monopoly may just get them to step back into the ball park. Although I am convinced a public option will work if you look at over 50 years of success in other countries.
I agree that a public option would not work and for some of the same reasons you offer. But the solution is just the opposite of what you propose.
The goal of a well run corporation is to make money for shareholders. In the case of health insurance companies this is in conflict with providing good efficient health care to the country.
The for profit insurers have learned that the way to get a high stock price is to have a low Medical Loss Ratio which is the percentage of inflow (premiums) paid out in medical benefit to patients. Notice that they consider medical benefits as "losses."
They do this in two ways. They make the numerator smaller by making it difficult for doctors and patients to collect. They make the denominator larger by obscene executive compensation, high profits, billions spent processing complicated forms they require of physicians and patients, and still more billions spent on fighting with doctors and patients over coverage and payments.
What we need is HR676, Medicare for all. I am a mathematician. If you look at the figures, you will see that because of the waste of for profit insurers and the maketing costs of the drug companies, we can easily give an improved Medicare to everyone at no more than we are now paying.