41–50 of 206 posts
> 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…
the profit motive is what has driven healthcare to what is possible today. if there is an uncoupling of health outcomes and profit motive, the solution is not to delete the profit motive! the government needs to enact only the necessary and sufficient regulation to realign making money with the desired results. avoid regulatory capture, make the information transparent and available.
i dont understand this demonization of capitalism. the world involved in (and adjacent to) capitalism is, by almost _every.single.measure_, vastly better than even as recently as 50 years ago. communist china sure didnt do that.
its capable of corruption! lets fix that corruption and not throw the baby out with the bathwater
public schools and subsidized, inflated, university tuition are examples of roads we dont want to travel down.
It maybe is obvious, or maybe it's controversial, but patients will never be put before profits by for profit corporations.
I'm really not sure why this isn't mentioned: USA should commission a study of health care systems in other countries. Include costs, challenges, issues of bringing it to scale in US, etc. Then we can implement something based on real world experience and data. It seems that these highly complex topics are dealt at the ideological level only. Which is absurd, as details can make anything from any ideology horrible. I…
If you take the view that the goal is winning instead of solving the problem it ceases to be quite as absurd.
Until 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)
edit: https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/08/18/ama-gets-out-w...
> 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. We have this already to an extent with managed care. The old system of fee for service incentivizes healthcare provi…
For example, often times, healthcare professionals are encouraged/pressured to report improvements during the managed care plan at ambiguous levels (lie) to continue regimes to the allowable extent before they're discharged. Those patients are frequently then readmitted for the same or other health problems after new hospital visits. Healthcare providers are often pressured to not report their judgement tells them a specific treatment program won't help a patient much in their professional opinion.
Ultimately, the incentive for continued treatment to maximize profit is still there, the approaches just change/adapt to fit within new rule systems.
It's really down to individual healthcare professionals to resist continual unethical business pressures concerned with profit over patient outcome which can put their employment/livelihood at risk if they don't have their own practice. This happens in large and small healthcare providers from my sample pool of 3 huge national providers, 3 local/regional hospitals, and several in home healthcare from varied business size.
The only leverage healthcare professionals have is that they're in such high demand and under supplied that they can often resist these pressures. If that changes, their hours are often reduced or they're replaced by people with more ethical flexibility.
So we (our society) still don't care about patient outcomes. We can pretend we do and often the healthcare professional working directly with you probably does care about your outcomes (most people aren't sociopaths) but they may have to frequently weight milking you and your insurance provider against their livelihoods which shouldn't be the case (healthcare will always have continual demand, pretty much guaranteed business).
It maybe is obvious, or maybe it's controversial, but patients will never be put before profits by for profit corporations.
It maybe is obvious, or maybe it's controversial, but patients will never be put before profits by for profit corporations.
Is it obvious? I went to a fancy Japanese dinner last night. It was, obviously, a for-profit venture. At any point during that dinner, was anyone in the restaurant worried about the restaurant putting its "profits" above its patrons?
Until 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?
> 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…
We do need Health Care reform, but I'm not convinced single payer government is going to lead to better outcomes. > No, we need to get rid of private insurance with Medicare for All. That would shift the incentivization from maximizing profits, to instead solely minimizing tax payer dollars. Lobbying would still exist (see defense industry). Denying care wouldn't be based on health reasons (dubious), but shift to cla…