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.

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. 

“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’.

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.  

Thanks for your comments. 

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.

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.

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. 

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

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.

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).