Conservative solutions for healthcare reform

I know this sounds like an oxymoron, but stay with me. Joe writes, “…common sense health insurance reform will cost the government little to nothing.” I always liked these common sense solutions. They make me smile. The reason I smile it is that if they were so simple and easy we would’ve tried them already. Congress has been desperately looking for something simple and easy to try for the last 25 years. During this time both Republicans and Democrats have controlled the House and the Senate and could’ve passed “common sense” solutions. Especially, especially if those common sense solutions didn’t require insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies to lose money. Congress would have been all over it.

1. Allow people to band together to buy group health insurance without being an employee-based group.

This sounds nice. You have to find a way to get millions of people to band together, not just a few. As far as I know, Americans have not banded together to buy gas or to buy groceries. Small bands of Americans (a couple thousand) would be almost the same as a small business and its employees. The reason any given small business has stopped covering employees, as a rule, is cost. There’s no way a small band of Americans is going to be able to figure out how to decrease the cost. Now, the exception would be small bands of young healthy Americans. They could easily band together and cover themselves for little or nothing. Basically, this is Kent Conrad’s idea, which has been thoroughly vetted. This is about co-ops. Co-ops will not be competitive because they don’t have the numbers to negotiate drug prices and fees for service.

2. End exemptions for a self-insured plans.

If we are going to end exemptions, why isn’t that the case in the healthcare exemption? The benefit of health insurance is not taxed. Our treasury loses $110 billion every year because of this. This seems to be a much fairer solution, don’t you think?

3. Standardized insurance forms and information systems.

This will cost millions. It will cost insurance companies and doctors’ offices and hospitals millions of dollars to change from what they have to something else. Who’s gonna decide what the standard is? Clearly, we’re not gonna trust the government to do that, so we are going to wait for business to come up with a committee to do this? Expect a decision in three to four years… and a voluntary implementation of this will never happen. There’s no incentive for business to do this. Unless you want to pass regulations — no way. Conservatives hate regulations.

4. End cost shifting.

Cost shifting doesn’t end. Just because you tell them to stop it, doesn’t mean it will end. Hospitals and doctors have incentives to continue cost shifting. They get paid. Personally, as a physician, I’ve been down this road, where we “aggressively” go after those without money and those who don’t pay. The bills simply never get paid off. They end up spending a lot of money trying to track down people who have moved out of state. They end up spending a lot of money on people who are paying $25 and $50 a month on bills that are $50,000 and $100,000 or more. Neither hospitals nor physicians will willingly take this hit.

Remember, we are obligated to provide medical care for those people who are dying. This isn’t like a car dealership. No matter how badly you want a car, if you don’t have cash or financing you don’t get that car. If you come in to the emergency room because of a heart attack or a bleeding ulcer, we take care of you. This is the way it should be. It also should be that we get paid for the services that we render. How we get paid by those who don’t have money to pay is a question that society needs to answer.

So far, none of the suggestions that have been made by some conservatives that I’ve reviewed here amount to any significant cost savings. None of the suggestions will control costs. With healthcare costing $2.2 trillion in 2007, I’m sorry to say that these solutions are weak at best.

  • Joe White
    I am shocked to see you simply reject evidence (claiming 'there is NO evidence') simply because you dont like the result.

    Doesnt this run counter to your scientific training?

    The fact is that most Americans DO want to keep their current coverage, whether you can convince yourself to believe the truth or not.

    Perhaps you should place facts first and your politics second.

    Now, we can certainly discuss whether specific treatments should or should not be covered, or whether consumers are adequately informed and whose fault it is if they are not.

    But that doesnt change the fact that as things stand now (not as you wish they were) the overwhelming majority of Americans want to keep what they have.

    They support the nebulous concept of 'reform' inasmuch as they hope or understand that OTHERS could benefit.

    But they want to keep their insurance coverage.
  • Joe White
    I am shocked to see you simply reject evidence (claiming 'there is NO evidence') simply because you dont like the result.

    Doesnt this run counter to your scientific training?

    The fact is that most Americans DO want to keep their current coverage, whether you can convince yourself to believe the truth or not.

    Perhaps you should place facts first and your politics second.

    Now, we can certainly discuss whether specific treatments should or should not be covered, or whether consumers are adequately informed and whose fault it is if they are not.

    But that doesnt change the fact that as things stand now (not as you wish they were) the overwhelming majority of Americans want to keep what they have.

    They support the nebulous concept of 'reform' inasmuch as they hope or understand that OTHERS could benefit.

    But they want to keep their insurance coverage.
  • ecthompson
    So you are saying that you don't mind government. It is government spending that you have a problem with?

    there is NO evidence that Americans like their health insurance coverage. I completely reject these polls who don't ask people who have had to use their health insurance. I know that millions of Americans don't like their health insurance because most have no idea what's in it. I have had to tell hundreds of people that they can't go to rehab because it isn't in their policy. Cognitive rehab was experimental. The list goes on and on. There is no way that most Americans have any idea of the fine print in their coverage. This is the problem with insurance. And don't blame the policy holders.

    more later, I got to run.
  • Joe White
    Dr Thompson wrote:

    "I'm sorry that you hate Americans. Americans run thegovernmentand are in the government and you hate them"

    Dr Thompson, it is very sad to see you slide into this type of cheap rhetoric. 'oh you're just a hater' Good grief.

    Did Madison and Jefferson 'hate' their countrymen when they wrote a Constitution that put severe limits on the aggregation of political power?

    Get real.

    This isn't about 'hate'.

    Over 80% of Americans have insurance coverage that they like and want to keep, and you want to deny them that right by pushing them into a single payer government run system.

    Even though you are working against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of American citizens, I have not stooped to accusing you of 'hate'.

    But I would like to know why you would like to deny them their right to choose how their health care is paid for.

    Do you really want Congress handing out funding for specialists, medical equipment, etc to politically powerful colleagues' districts in the same manner they horse trade roads and bridges in pork spending bills today?

    The American people deserve better than that. And that's not 'hate'.
  • ecthompson
    So you are saying that you don't mind government. It is government spending that you have a problem with?

    there is NO evidence that Americans like their health insurance coverage. I completely reject these polls who don't ask people who have had to use their health insurance. I know that millions of Americans don't like their health insurance because most have no idea what's in it. I have had to tell hundreds of people that they can't go to rehab because it isn't in their policy. Cognitive rehab was experimental. The list goes on and on. There is no way that most Americans have any idea of the fine print in their coverage. This is the problem with insurance. And don't blame the policy holders.

    more later, I got to run.
  • Joe White
    Dr Thompson wrote:

    "I'm sorry that you hate Americans. Americans run the government and are in the government and you hate them"

    Dr Thompson, it is very sad to see you slide into this type of cheap rhetoric. 'oh you're just a hater' Good grief.

    Did Madison and Jefferson 'hate' their countrymen when they wrote a Constitution that put severe limits on the aggregation of political power?

    Get real.

    This isn't about 'hate'.

    Over 80% of Americans have insurance coverage that they like and want to keep, and you want to deny them that right by pushing them into a single payer government run system.

    Even though you are working against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of American citizens, I have not stooped to accusing you of 'hate'.

    But I would like to know why you would like to deny them their right to choose how their health care is paid for.

    Do you really want Congress handing out funding for specialists, medical equipment, etc to politically powerful colleagues' districts in the same manner they horse trade roads and bridges in pork spending bills today?

    The American people deserve better than that. And that's not 'hate'.
  • Christian
    The controversial health care reform had been one of the centers of controversy since it involved a big amount. If you're one of the 47 million Americans without health insurance finding a place for insurance in your budget may seem like an insurmountable task. Options do exist, however, and the expenses of the options must be weighted against the cost of an unpredictable medical emergency - a $ 50,000 surgery is harder to cope with than a couple hundred bucks a month. Aside from health care reform the government also came up with energy conservation program. The government has announced a plan for a new program called Cash for Caulkers. The program means well: conserving energy and saving money for homeowners. The idea is that the government will reimburse homeowners to the tune of 50 percent of the cost of any projects that conserve energy around the home. Don't count on paying for home improvements with a short term personal loan and getting the government's reimbursement in time to pay it back.
  • Christian
    The controversial health care reform had been one of the centers of controversy since it involved a big amount. If you’re one of the 47 million Americans without health insurance finding a place for insurance in your budget may seem like an insurmountable task. Options do exist, however, and the expenses of the options must be weighted against the cost of an unpredictable medical emergency - a $ 50,000 surgery is harder to cope with than a couple hundred bucks a month. Aside from health care reform the government also came up with energy conservation program. The government has announced a plan for a new program called Cash for Caulkers. The program means well: conserving energy and saving money for homeowners. The idea is that the government will reimburse homeowners to the tune of 50 percent of the cost of any projects that conserve energy around the home.  Don’t count on paying for home improvements with a short term personal loan and getting the government’s reimbursement in time to pay it back.
  • ecthompson
    Joe you are right and wrong at the same time. Our mothers only told us not be like everyone else when we wanted to something wrong, bad or against her wishes.

    Did you every try, Mom, I would like to stay home and study like the rest of my friends? I bet you she would have gone for that one. Why? Because it was a good idea.

    I'm sorry that you hate Americans. Americans run thegovernmentand are in the government and you hate them. I'm not saying that we should be England, France or any other country. I'm saying it is a good idea and we should adopt it knowing that it will work differently here because we are Americans and we will demand different care.
  • ecthompson
    I think that they would adapt. The bigger companies would buy out the smaller companies and we would be right back to where we started from in a couple of years - a couple of companies controlling prices.

    Thanks for your comments.
  • ecthompson
    :)
  • ecthompson
    Joe you are right and wrong at the same time. Our mothers only told us not be like everyone else when we wanted to something wrong, bad or against her wishes. 

    Did you every try, Mom, I would like to stay home and study like the rest of my friends? I bet you she would have gone for that one. Why? Because it was a good idea. 

    I'm sorry that you hate Americans. Americans run the government and are in the government and you hate them. I'm not saying that we should be England, France or any other country. I'm saying it is a good idea and we should adopt it knowing that it will work differently here because we are Americans and we will demand different care.
  • ecthompson
    I think that they would adapt. The bigger companies would buy out the smaller companies and we would be right back to where we started from in a couple of years - a couple of companies controlling prices. 

    Thanks for your comments.
  • ecthompson
    :)
  • Jack Damage
    Weak at best??? Personally, I think you are being too kind. As regards conservative 'solutions' tohealth care reform? Pathetic is closer to the truth regarding these so-called soluotions.
  • Joe White
    Since you are Brian's cheering section, let's hope that you don't support 'evil' and 'immoral' for-profit operations either.

    Like farmers and food processing companies.

    Those wicked #*@ .

    They know we need food to live.

    How dare they presume to make a profit.

    lol

    You know why it's good to allow profits, dont you?

    Its a great way to make sure someone works their tail off for you.

    If their livelihood is on the line, you're more likely to get good, honest service.
  • Jack Damage
    Weak at best???  Personally, I think you are being too kind.  As regards conservative 'solutions' to health care reform?  Pathetic is closer to the truth regarding these so-called soluotions.
  • Joe White
    Since you are Brian's cheering section, let's hope that you don't support 'evil' and 'immoral' for-profit operations either.

    Like farmers and food processing companies.

    Those wicked #*@ .

    They know we need food to live.

    How dare they presume to make a profit.

    lol

    You know why it's good to allow profits, dont you?

    Its a great way to make sure someone works their tail off for you.

    If their livelihood is on the line, you're more likely to get good, honest service.
  • Joe White
    As your mom used to tell you, 'I don't care if everyone else is doing it '.

    Why don't we remove anything from our Bill of Rights that other industrialized countries don't have? They don't have it, why should we, right?

    Listen up.

    We don't want to be 'another France' or 'another Britain' or 'another Canada'.

    Is that really the only rationale you can come up with Brian, 'everyone else is doing it' ?

    Good grief.

    I wonder if you stand by your principles and refuse to visit any doctor whose practice is 'for profit'.

    I doubt it.

    Is your doctor 'evil' and 'immoral' for maintaining a 'for profit' practice?

    Wake up.
  • Joe White
    As your mom used to tell you, 'I don't care if everyone else is doing it '.

    Why don't we remove anything from our Bill of Rights that other industrialized countries don't have? They don't have it, why should we, right?

    Listen up.

    We don't want to be 'another France' or 'another Britain' or 'another Canada'.

    Is that really the only rationale you can come up with Brian, 'everyone else is doing it' ?

    Good grief.

    I wonder if you stand by your principles and refuse to visit any doctor whose practice is 'for profit'.

    I doubt it.

    Is your doctor 'evil' and 'immoral' for maintaining a 'for profit' practice?

    Wake up.
  • AlE
    The other "brilliant" idea that you do not mention is the proposal toallow out of state insurance companies to compete. The reality is that insurance companies did everything possible to create monopolies and oligopolies inside state borders. The chance of suddenly turning around and bring prices down competing against each other is unrealistic.
  • MH
    Bravo... Brian
  • AlE
    The other "brilliant" idea that you do not mention is the proposal to allow out of state insurance companies to compete. The reality is that insurance companies did everything possible to create monopolies and oligopolies inside state borders. The chance of suddenly turning around and bring prices down competing against each other is unrealistic.
  • MH
    Bravo... Brian
  • Brian
    Gee, this is so difficult. Why don't we study what every other industrialized nation on the planet did a long time ago? And virtually all do it better and cheaper than this absolute joke of a "system." The most obvious reason is they don't have or allow our immoral for profit insurance which makes obscene profits off of the sick and dying. But of course we can't do that because they're evil "socialists" and we're just too damn greedy!
  • Brian
    Gee, this is so difficult. Why don't we study what every other industrialized nation on the planet did a long time ago? And virtually all do it better and cheaper than this absolute joke of a "system." The most obvious reason is they don't have or allow our immoral for profit insurance which makes obscene profits off of the sick and dying. But of course we can't do that because they're evil "socialists" and we're just too damn greedy!
  • ecthompson
    $7200 - the average amount of healthcare dollars spent on Americans in 2007.

    When I click on your sfgate article I get that the Item is not found.

    I didn't say that reducing paperwork wasn't important or that it couldn't save money. If I did then I need to be clearer. After Obama has pushed and passed legislation for everyone to go to electronic medical records, thisproposalis yesterday's news. Sorry I wasn't clearer. Probably 90% of insurance companies and all of the government programs require electronic billing. How is your proposal different?

    Thanks again.
  • ecthompson
    $7200 - the average amount of healthcare dollars spent on Americans in 2007. 

    When I click on your sfgate article I get that the Item is not found

    I didn't say that reducing paperwork wasn't important or that it couldn't save money. If I did then I need to be clearer. After Obama has pushed and passed legislation for everyone to go to electronic medical records, this proposal is yesterday's news. Sorry I wasn't clearer. Probably 90% of insurance companies and all of the government programs require electronic billing. How is your proposal different?

    Thanks again.
  • Joe White
    "you really haven't mentioned anything that is going to reduce costs"

    I think reducing the administrative/paperwork burden ( estimated to be about 20% http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/11/BUGM8FM8I11.DTL ) actually IS a significant way to reduce cost. Maybe you don't.

    But insuring more people, even if it cost more, is more important.

    "your target is $7200 per person"

    Not sure what you are referring to here.

    There are already insurance plans available for a lot less http://www.bcbsks.com/HealthPlans/Under65/AFBlue_prem_quote.htm
  • Joe White
    "you really haven't mentioned anything that is going to reduce costs"

    I think reducing the administrative/paperwork burden ( estimated to be about 20% http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/11/BUGM8FM8I11.DTL   ) actually IS a significant way to reduce cost. Maybe you don't.

    But insuring more people, even if it cost more, is more important.

    "your target is $7200 per person"

    Not sure what you are referring to here.

    There are already insurance plans available for a lot less http://www.bcbsks.com/HealthPlans/Under65/AFBlue_prem_quote.htm
  • ecthompson
    You have yet to put any numbers on your thoughts. Your common sense solutions are simply poking around the edges.



    As far as I know, there are no physicians who don't believe that they're in business. Since, you're playing junior psychiatrist, what if you learned about collection rates on these delinquent accounts? What is the risk benefit ratio? How much effort (investment) you need to put in an order to get your return? As far as I know, every physician I've ever worked with understands that they are in business. Maybe, you have some data to support your jaded point of view. furthermore, as physicians become more aggressive at chasing down delinquencies, they get a reputation in the community that they are "moneygrubbing" then they begin to lose patients. Did you factor this into your equation? It is a real phenomenon. I have seen it. I've heard it from patients. How to physicians combat this image? How to hospitals combat this image?

    Where did you get this data about every $.20 of every health care dollar is spent on paperwork? Wouldn't electronic medical record and electronic billing fix this? Since Congress has already appropriated money for an electronic medical record isn't a suggestion old, out of date and passeacute?

    I do not underestimate the entrepreneurial spirit of Americans. This is one of the reasons why health care is so expensive. People find ways to make money. Whether it is breast implants or tummy tucks, whether it is laparoscopic gallbladders or outpatient hernia repair, American ingenuity can be found everywhere. Yet, you make this proposal and you have yet to back it up with any data. Please provide data where somebody has put pen to paper and found that Americans banding together to provide their own healthcare will be beneficial. By the way, I know you know this but I think it's worth me pointing out, your target is $7200 per person. The cost of providing health care for your group has to be less than that in order for it to be beneficial.

    Finally, you really haven't mentioned anything that is going to reduce costs (I must admit, this is my opinion) or improve access. I appreciate your time.
  • ecthompson
    You have yet to put any numbers on your thoughts. Your common sense solutions are simply poking around the edges. 



    As far as I know, there are no physicians who don't believe that they're in business. Since, you're playing junior psychiatrist, what if you learned about collection rates on these delinquent accounts? What is the risk benefit ratio? How much effort (investment) you need to put in an order to get your return? As far as I know, every physician I've ever worked with understands that they are in business. Maybe, you have some data to support your jaded point of view. furthermore, as physicians become more aggressive at chasing down delinquencies, they get a reputation in the community that they are "moneygrubbing" then they begin to lose patients. Did you factor this into your equation? It is a real phenomenon. I have seen it. I've heard it from patients. How to physicians combat this image? How to hospitals combat this image?

    Where did you get this data about every $.20 of every health care dollar is spent on paperwork? Wouldn't electronic medical record and electronic billing fix this? Since Congress has already appropriated money for an electronic medical record isn't a suggestion old, out of date and passé?

    I do not underestimate the entrepreneurial spirit of Americans. This is one of the reasons why health care is so expensive. People find ways to make money. Whether it is breast implants or tummy tucks, whether it is laparoscopic gallbladders or outpatient hernia repair, American ingenuity can be found everywhere. Yet, you make this proposal and you have yet to back it up with any data. Please provide data where somebody has put pen to paper and found that Americans banding together to provide their own healthcare will be beneficial. By the way, I know you know this but I think it's worth me pointing out, your target is $7200 per person. The cost of providing health care for your group has to be less than that in order for it to be beneficial.

    Finally, you really haven't mentioned anything that is going to reduce costs (I must admit, this is my opinion) or improve access. I appreciate your time.
  • Joe White
    Cost savings, IMHO, is important. But it is secondary to providing access to health care.

    Increasing the number of insureds and the quality of that coverage are primary concerns.

    I think you vastly underestimate the intelligence of the American people if you think they cant figure out how to get together and negotiate favorable rates.

    A few thousand people is not equivalent to a 'small business'. It is actually quite a large business and would have significant clout in the marketplace.

    Besides this first one is a matter of simple fairness. It makes no sense to have the definition of a 'group' limited to those who are employed together.

    ---------

    On the second one, you cant seem to make up your mind. You want to reduce costs, yet you want to raise taxes by ending the tax free status of health insurance.

    OK I know that Democrats never saw a tax hike they didn't like, but I don't think your idea of taxing health benefits is gonna fly with the general public.

    Instead, the newly formed NONemployment based groups that I propose should also get the same tax free benefit. It would be one of the primary incentives for encouraging their formation.

    Maybe that's why you don't think they would succeed, because you'd tax them out of existence.

    Besides the exemption for self insured plans that I'm referring to is not a tax exemption. It is a regulatory exemption.

    Employers who 'play insurance company' are often exempt from many of the state regulations that a real insurance company must abide by.

    The effect of ending the exemption would be better quality coverage under employer plans and no dodging of consumer protections.

    -------

    Standardizing insurance forms and information systems will indeed costs millions.

    And it will save billions. (About 20 cents of every healthcare dollar is spent on paperwork).

    Your objection was what again?

    Oh yeah that it might take regulations. You might be surprised to know that I have no objection to that. We require banks to use compatible systems to talk with one another and complete transactions.

    Since the states are in charge of insurance regulation, the State Insurance Commissioners and the state legislatures should be at the forefront of making this happen. No federal meddling needed, thank you very much.

    ------

    Ending cost shifting is, again, another matter of simple fairness. Those who pay for private insurance should not have to pay for those who refuse to pay.

    Doctors don't like the messy business of stepping up collections efforts. It seems to offend their professional sensibilities and reminds them that they are in a business.

    Fine. Don't do it. But don't charge me the difference. This will lower costs for the great majority of Americans (ie those who buy insurance).
  • Joe White
    Cost savings, IMHO, is important. But it is secondary to providing access to health care.

    Increasing the number of insureds and the quality of that coverage are primary concerns.

    I think you vastly underestimate the intelligence of the American people if you think they cant figure out how to get together and negotiate favorable rates.

    A few thousand people is not equivalent to a 'small business'. It is actually quite a large business and would have significant clout in the marketplace.

    Besides this first one is a matter of simple fairness. It makes no sense to have the definition of a 'group' limited to those who are employed together.

    ---------

    On the second one, you cant seem to make up your mind. You want to reduce costs, yet you want to raise taxes by ending the tax free status of health insurance.

    OK I know that Democrats never saw a tax hike they didn't like, but I don't think your idea of taxing health benefits is gonna fly with the general public.

    Instead, the newly formed NONemployment based groups that I propose should also get the same tax free benefit. It would be one of the primary incentives for encouraging their formation.

    Maybe that's why you don't think they would succeed, because you'd tax them out of existence.

    Besides the exemption for self insured plans that I'm referring to is not a tax exemption. It is a regulatory exemption.

    Employers who 'play insurance company' are often exempt from many of the state regulations that a real insurance company must abide by.

    The effect of ending the exemption would be better quality coverage under employer plans and no dodging of consumer protections.

    -------

    Standardizing insurance forms and information systems will indeed costs millions.

    And it will save billions. (About 20 cents of every healthcare dollar is spent on paperwork).

    Your objection was what again?

    Oh yeah that it might take regulations. You might be surprised to know that I  have no objection to that. We require banks to use compatible systems to talk with one another and complete transactions.

    Since the states are in charge of insurance regulation, the State Insurance Commissioners and the state legislatures should be at the forefront of making this happen. No federal meddling needed, thank you very much.

    ------

    Ending cost shifting is, again, another matter of simple fairness. Those who pay for private insurance should not have to pay for those who refuse to pay.

    Doctors don't like the messy business of stepping up collections efforts. It seems to offend their professional sensibilities and reminds them that they are in a business.

    Fine. Don't do it. But don't charge me the difference. This will lower costs for the great majority of Americans (ie those who buy insurance).
blog comments powered by Disqus