What do you want to see happen with Health care reform? Tell me what you think is essential for reform.?

The fact is that we have by far, the best health care in the world, everyone wants to come here for health care. If you wish to cut health care costs, we could return to 1950;s medicine and remove all of the expensive drugs and expensive machinery that saves lost(over half of the increased costs of health care in the last 20 years is from purchasing new and improved equipment).

3 things you need for health care reform, compared to health care destruction,:

1) Insurers may not deny coverage to someone based on any pre-existing conditions;

2) Small businesses may form co-operatives for the strict purposes of bargaining for lower cost insurance for their employees.;

3) To engender competition between insurers, companies may cross state lines to sell insurance.

whale

Any final reform bill will be near 1,000 pages for two reasons.

First, health care is that complex. Take a look at your autoinsurance policy, its about 40 pages long. Health care is much more complex than auto insurance which only has to cover four possibilities (injuries or death to others, property damgage to others, injuries or death to the insured,and property damage to the insured).

Second, like it or not, legislation does not enforce itself. Ultimately, the insured has to go to court to enforce it against the insurance company. If the legislation does not cover all of the cute tricks that insurance companies play, they will skate right through the loopholes.

Having said that, what should the final bill include.

1) Some administrative mechanism for setting reimbursement rates for medicare equivalent to the base-closure commission that we had in the 1990s. Right now Congress gets to tinker with recommended changes to reimbursement rates which typically is a field day for the lobbyists. A requirement for a simple up-down vote would make it easier to get a handle on reimbursement rates.

2) Some mandate to obtain health insurance equivalent to the mandate to have auto insurance combined with a ban on denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. (These two have to be linked.)

3) Whether through a medicare-like program or through mandating that insurance companies participate in state-run exchanges with "best price" requirements, a procedure by which small businesses and individuals can get equivalent rates to those for big employers.

4) Some mechanism or incentive for adopting best practices and a move away from a fee-for-service system that has you billed by five different people when you go in for a simple check-up and rewards giving multiple tests.

No health care reform bill that is any good is going to be short. In any effective reform there are many issues to be addressed and spelled out in detail so that businesses and individuals know how to proceed. This is an important area, affecting people's lives and ambiguity is not acceptable.

Also, the House bill 3200 tries to address the issue of the shortage of trained health care professionals by providing funds for training, including funds for training family doctors and general internists.

Remember that one of the goals is to try to address the constantly increasing cost of insurance coverage through universal coverage and another is the creation of some minimum standards of coverage for insurance companies. The House bill tries to address those concepts and that takes a few pages.

I actually like the proposed bill. I realize that it is not perfect but, as mild as it is, look at the ferocious reaction against it that has erupted.

We waste too much money on processing insurance claims and the process of getting bills paid is more than you can deal with when you are really sick. We need to make it simpler so not so many mistakes are made

We need someway of covering people with pre existing conditions combined with preventing people from waiting until they are sick to buy insurance.

We need to change the incentives for doctors about ordering test that cost a lot of money but do not improve patient outcomes.

We need to make medical education cheaper or even free so more people will become doctors and they are not be burden with debt when they get out of school

We need more facilities to treat people with urgent but not life threatening problems so our high tech emergency rooms that cost a lot of money are not used to take care of people that need an antibiotic prescription..

I am not sure how may pages of legalese it would take to enacted the suggestions into law. but how ever many it took you can be sure that the people who are profiting from the status quo would complain about it.

There needs to be a government option for those who want it. If some prefer their current insurers fine, but the millions that are uninsured NEED to have an option.

"i desire to be sure why the dems are so against the determining to purchase in the process state line and tort reform recommendations." determining to purchase in the process state strains will convey approximately all the coverage firms moving to states with minimum rules. the cost ought to come down a splash , yet purchasers will pay dearly for this in misplaced client secure practices. As for tort reform, somebody already defined that lawsuits purely account for approximately 2% of wellbeing care expenditures. The final Republican attempt at tort reform replace into to cap soreness and suffering payouts to $250,000. So if i flow into the scientific institution with one undesirable kidney and that they by probability eliminate the coolest one, the main i ought to wish to get for the existence of soreness and suffering that could reason me is $250,000. Sounds somewhat Machiavellian to me. "shielding drugs is between the main effective aspects driving the upward push in wellbeing care expenditures. If every person does not have faith that then they do no longer be responsive to something approximately wellbeing care." Do you have a source for that Mike, or are we merely meant to take your notice for it? ________________ "ok, for all you rabid progressives available..." enable's no longer call names. i do no longer think of every person noted as you a rabid conservative. loosen up, this is okay to disagree. "i desire to assist you to be responsive to that the Democratic mantra approximately shielding drugs being purely 2% of scientific expenditures is merely an out-and-out lie. I surely have 3 docs in my instant kinfolk and that i will assist you to be responsive to that so lots extra desirable than 2% of our scientific expenses is for techniques to cover criminal liabilities." that's no longer what I mentioned. I mentioned lawsuits account for under 2% of scientific spending. Do you have an estimate of what number of scientific spending shielding drugs money owed for? are you able to offer me an actual definition of shielding drugs? What reforms are you offering? Tort reform shouldn't cease shielding drugs. docs can nonetheless be sued for malpractice under tort reform. it ought to help a splash with the aid of capping the entire damages that would nicely be presented.

* A truly inclusive and accessible health care system in which no one is left out.

* A choice of a private insurance plan, including keeping the insurance you have if you like it, or a public health insurance plan that guarantees affordable coverage without a private insurer middleman.

* A standard for health benefits that covers what people need to keep healthy and to be treated when they are ill. Health care benefits should cover all necessary care including preventative services and treatment needed by those with serious and chronic diseases and conditions.

* Health care coverage with out-of-pocket costs including premiums, co-pays, and deductibles that are based on a family’s ability to pay for health care and without limits on payments for covered services.

* Equity in health care access, treatment, research and resources to people and communities of color, resulting in the elimination of racial disparities in health outcomes and real improvement in health and life expectancy for all.

* Health coverage through the largest possible pools in order to achieve affordable, quality coverage for the entire population and to share risk fairly.

* A watchdog role on all plans, to assure that risk is fairly spread among all health care payers and that insurers do not turn people away, raise rates, or drop coverage based on a person’s health history or wrongly delay or deny care.

* A choice of doctors, health providers, and private and public health insurance plans, without gaps in coverage or access and a delivery system that meets the needs of at-risk populations.

* Affordable and predictable health costs to businesses and employers. To the extent that employers contribute to the cost of health coverage, those payments should be related to employee wages rather than on a per-employee basis.

* Effective cost controls that promote quality, lower administrative costs, and long term financial sustainability, including: standard claims forms, secure electronic medical records, using the public’s purchasing power to instill greater reliance on evidence-based protocols and lower drug and device prices, better management and treatment of chronic diseases, and a public role in deciding where money is invested in health care.

We need Congressional and White House reform, before we have Health Care reform or any other type reform************************

Take the 1000 pages and let the liberal use it to wipe their butts, that's all it's good for.