We Need to Design Health Care Reform That Puts Patients Before Profits
rooseveltinstitute.org
We Need to Design Health Care Reform That Puts Patients Before Profits
1–10 of 206 posts
Re: We Need to Design Health Care Reform That Puts Patients Before Profits
#2> We can and must design the next round of insurance reforms with patients as a priority. With low deductibles that actually facilitate the consumption of care, our health care system can directly benefit the well-being of low- and middle-income people—not just the holders of for-profit hospital stock.
No, we need to get rid of private insurance with Medicare for All. The amount of money, corruption, and lobbying insurance companies engage in is staggering, especially given that their whole profit model is designed around limiting or denying access to healthcare. Denying access to treatment for the disabled, the chronically ill, and others, often unto their deaths or bankruptcy.
In a more civilized country, corporations that have behaved like US insurance companies have would have been done away with along time ago.
Re: We Need to Design Health Care Reform That Puts Patients Before Profits
#3You need to design new country.
Re: We Need to Design Health Care Reform That Puts Patients Before Profits
#4> We can and must design the next round of insurance reforms with patients as a priority. With low deductibles that actually facilitate the consumption of care, our health care system can directly benefit the well-being of low- and middle-income people—not just the holders of for-profit hospital stock. No, we need to get rid of private insurance with Medicare for All. The amount of money, corruption, and lobbying ins…
Other countries, yes even in Europe, have better healthcare than us with multi-payer systems. Medicare for All is a joke.
Re: We Need to Design Health Care Reform That Puts Patients Before Profits
#5> We can and must design the next round of insurance reforms with patients as a priority. With low deductibles that actually facilitate the consumption of care, our health care system can directly benefit the well-being of low- and middle-income people—not just the holders of for-profit hospital stock. No, we need to get rid of private insurance with Medicare for All. The amount of money, corruption, and lobbying ins…
>No, we need to get rid of private insurance
Insurance works well for rare events. Using insurance for an annual physical (or any other routine thing) is just pissing money away.
Cutting insurance out of routine and preventative care will require far less political capital and should have a massive impact on costs. No need to go all the way to eliminating private insurance. A government option would have benefits but there's no reason private insurance can't exist also.
Re: We Need to Design Health Care Reform That Puts Patients Before Profits
#6Until Americans find Physicians (and Pharmacists) as the enemy, it will never happen.
They(AMA and APA) are top lobbyists that entrench themselves using monopolistic practices.
Sure school can cost 500k, but with 200 to 300k+ per year salaries, they can kill that debt. (This is their common defense)
Re: We Need to Design Health Care Reform That Puts Patients Before Profits
#7Until Americans find Physicians (and Pharmacists) as the enemy, it will never happen. They(AMA and APA) are top lobbyists that entrench themselves using monopolistic practices. Sure school can cost 500k, but with 200 to 300k+ per year salaries, they can kill that debt. (This is their common defense)
So you mean ... the government that enables such licensing, monopolistic behavior, and moat building?
Re: We Need to Design Health Care Reform That Puts Patients Before Profits
#8Until Americans find Physicians (and Pharmacists) as the enemy, it will never happen. They(AMA and APA) are top lobbyists that entrench themselves using monopolistic practices. Sure school can cost 500k, but with 200 to 300k+ per year salaries, they can kill that debt. (This is their common defense)
I don’t know any pharmacist making $200k, and their pay is getting crushed right now due to tons of supply since there is no limit on the number of new pharmacists. Anyone currently pursuing pharmacy is in a poor ROI situation, especially if they’re paying for school.
Their pay is in now way comparable to doctors, who have a structural advantage due to the limited number of new doctors each year.
Re: We Need to Design Health Care Reform That Puts Patients Before Profits
#9Until Americans find Physicians (and Pharmacists) as the enemy, it will never happen. They(AMA and APA) are top lobbyists that entrench themselves using monopolistic practices. Sure school can cost 500k, but with 200 to 300k+ per year salaries, they can kill that debt. (This is their common defense)
I think you're stumbling on a root cause of America's healthcare crisis. I think most American's don't understand just how much physicians make--and where did you get those figures because clinicians I know make a good deal more than 200-300k
Re: We Need to Design Health Care Reform That Puts Patients Before Profits
#10> We can and must design the next round of insurance reforms with patients as a priority. With low deductibles that actually facilitate the consumption of care, our health care system can directly benefit the well-being of low- and middle-income people—not just the holders of for-profit hospital stock. No, we need to get rid of private insurance with Medicare for All. The amount of money, corruption, and lobbying ins…
>No, we need to get rid of private insurance Insurance works well for rare events. Using insurance for an annual physical (or any other routine thing) is just pissing money away. Cutting insurance out of routine and preventative care will require far less political capital and should have a massive impact on costs. No need to go all the way to eliminating private insurance. A government option would have benefits but…
It’s possible that there could be some boutique secondary private insurance market, like what compliments the NHS in the UK, although I think given the vast, predatory behavior of US health insurance companies, it’s better that they’re just done away with. It’s not as if they haven’t show themselves to be bad actors, preying on the vulnerable as much as is legally possible, time and time again.
Costs and the barrier to care they impose are primary problem in the US. Mixed systems perform far worse at controlling them (look at the history of South Africa’s transition to a mixed system as an example).
Given how far things have gone with costs in the US, I don’t see how a “public option” would resolve them, short of the kind of literal government price setting as is done in Japan, in which case, a single payer system is more efficient anyway.