Pelosi Healthcare Bill Blows a Kiss to Trial Lawyers

[scotty 0]

For all you republicans who say health reform should not include some kind of public option (even indeed a single payer system) this cannot be right in this day and age it is pure greed, when many people can't afford the soaring costs. and pre-existing conditions are a big no no..The insurance giants just want to have a monopoly over the whole health system.

I think it will be a sad day for America if this again get's booted in to touch by the greed of corporate America.

America the land of the free (don't make me laugh) where is the freedom when you can't even get medical attention without putting your hand deep into your wallet.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I think it will be a sad day for America if this again get's booted in to touch by the greed of corporate America.

The sad day has already arrived. There isn't any public option in any bill anymore - how can it be called a public option if the public doesn't have the option to subscribe to it? What's left is publicly financed coverage for some of those that either can't afford or can't get health care coverage because they cost too much. The essence of America lives on as profits continue to be privatized while risks are socialized. Bend over, grab those ankles, corporate America would like to, well, you know...

[Heracles 417]

Hardly chump change considering Germany's health care and social security budget is $85 billion.

Germany's GDP is roughly $2.8 trillion and Germany spends about 11% of GDP on health care - that's $300 billion. Germany also has only about 1/4 of the US population. The German health care system would then cost roughly $1.2 trillion - half of that in the US - if the population was 320 million i/o the 80 million they have. If you want to make a point, at least try and get yer figures right.

Budget not GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_budget_process

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Hardly chump change considering Germany's health care and social security budget is $85 billion.

Germany's GDP is roughly $2.8 trillion and Germany spends about 11% of GDP on health care - that's $300 billion. Germany also has only about 1/4 of the US population. The German health care system would then cost roughly $1.2 trillion - half of that in the US - if the population was 320 million i/o the 80 million they have. If you want to make a point, at least try and get yer figures right.

Budget not GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_budget_process

What value does the German health care and social security department budget add to the discussion? Not much. In fact the German HHS budget is larger than the US HHS budget - does that mean that Germany spends more on health care than the US? Of course not. The HHS budget has little, if anything, to do with the cost of health care.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

What is really driving the cost of health care in the long run is patients. Sooner, or later, patients are going to have to do with less, or continue paying the high premiums, to the insurance companies, or to some sort of government quasi-insurance fund.

There are too many services rendered in the US without producing better results. The rewards for health care providers need to be revised to steer the system towards better results rather than more procedures.

What the plan? How are you going to remove the profit incentive out of the healthcare providers and suppliers? We are back to assigning a gatekeeper that is willing, and capable, to open and close that gate to lower costs overall. That's rationing, and it is long overdue.

It's not really rationing as long as medically necessary care is available and provided. That is all a public health system should ever cover. If you want more, pay for it out of your own pocket or buy additional insurance coverage that takes care of it.

But, who decides what is medically necessary, and what is not? We left that up to the insurance companies, HMO's, PPO's and whatever variety you want to call it. Healthcare costs (premiums) are still rising.

Medicare caps the increase in payments to providers, and that is how they try to manage costs. If not rationing, then do we do price controls? You see where this is going?

The decision on what is medically necessary and what isn't needs to be with the doctor not with the payor for the service. The controls that the payor institutes should be remuneration based on best practices not on number of procedures. While not easy, this isn't rocket science either. All of the developed countries worldwide demonstrate that it can be done. They're doing it and we're failing miserably.

You can't just leave it to the doctor, or healthcare providor, if someone else is paying the bill. That is the system we have now, and that is why healthcare costs continue to rise. Doctors will give patients anything they ask for, as long as it is provided for by the patients plan. Otherwise, the patient will just go to another doctor who will. Remember, it took the DEA to slow down doctors from writing pain prescriptions for anyone who asked, without checking medication history. That's recent history. Most Doctors are entrepreneurs of the worst kind, or didn't you notice?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What is really driving the cost of health care in the long run is patients. Sooner, or later, patients are going to have to do with less, or continue paying the high premiums, to the insurance companies, or to some sort of government quasi-insurance fund.

There are too many services rendered in the US without producing better results. The rewards for health care providers need to be revised to steer the system towards better results rather than more procedures.

What the plan? How are you going to remove the profit incentive out of the healthcare providers and suppliers? We are back to assigning a gatekeeper that is willing, and capable, to open and close that gate to lower costs overall. That's rationing, and it is long overdue.

It's not really rationing as long as medically necessary care is available and provided. That is all a public health system should ever cover. If you want more, pay for it out of your own pocket or buy additional insurance coverage that takes care of it.

But, who decides what is medically necessary, and what is not? We left that up to the insurance companies, HMO's, PPO's and whatever variety you want to call it. Healthcare costs (premiums) are still rising.

Medicare caps the increase in payments to providers, and that is how they try to manage costs. If not rationing, then do we do price controls? You see where this is going?

The decision on what is medically necessary and what isn't needs to be with the doctor not with the payor for the service. The controls that the payor institutes should be remuneration based on best practices not on number of procedures. While not easy, this isn't rocket science either. All of the developed countries worldwide demonstrate that it can be done. They're doing it and we're failing miserably.

You can't just leave it to the doctor, or healthcare providor, if someone else is paying the bill. That is the system we have now, and that is why healthcare costs continue to rise. Doctors will give patients anything they ask for, as long as it is provided for by the patients plan. Otherwise, the patient will just go to another doctor who will. Remember, it took the DEA to slow down doctors from writing pain prescriptions for anyone who asked, without checking medication history. That's recent history. Most Doctors are entrepreneurs of the worst kind, or didn't you notice?

Read the bold part. It's an important component of the reform. As long as you pay doctors more for rendering more services, of course the doctor has an incentive to render more services. If you remunerate based on best practices, then the doctor has an incentive to do what's necessary rather than merely do more regardless of whether that improves the outcome or worsens it. Again, this is done in other developed countries and it works. It may be less than perfect but it sure works better than what we've got.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

What is really driving the cost of health care in the long run is patients. Sooner, or later, patients are going to have to do with less, or continue paying the high premiums, to the insurance companies, or to some sort of government quasi-insurance fund.

There are too many services rendered in the US without producing better results. The rewards for health care providers need to be revised to steer the system towards better results rather than more procedures.

What the plan? How are you going to remove the profit incentive out of the healthcare providers and suppliers? We are back to assigning a gatekeeper that is willing, and capable, to open and close that gate to lower costs overall. That's rationing, and it is long overdue.

It's not really rationing as long as medically necessary care is available and provided. That is all a public health system should ever cover. If you want more, pay for it out of your own pocket or buy additional insurance coverage that takes care of it.

But, who decides what is medically necessary, and what is not? We left that up to the insurance companies, HMO's, PPO's and whatever variety you want to call it. Healthcare costs (premiums) are still rising.

Medicare caps the increase in payments to providers, and that is how they try to manage costs. If not rationing, then do we do price controls? You see where this is going?

The decision on what is medically necessary and what isn't needs to be with the doctor not with the payor for the service. The controls that the payor institutes should be remuneration based on best practices not on number of procedures. While not easy, this isn't rocket science either. All of the developed countries worldwide demonstrate that it can be done. They're doing it and we're failing miserably.

You can't just leave it to the doctor, or healthcare providor, if someone else is paying the bill. That is the system we have now, and that is why healthcare costs continue to rise. Doctors will give patients anything they ask for, as long as it is provided for by the patients plan. Otherwise, the patient will just go to another doctor who will. Remember, it took the DEA to slow down doctors from writing pain prescriptions for anyone who asked, without checking medication history. That's recent history. Most Doctors are entrepreneurs of the worst kind, or didn't you notice?

Read the bold part. It's an important component of the reform. As long as you pay doctors more for rendering more services, of course the doctor has an incentive to render more services. If you remunerate based on best practices, then the doctor has an incentive to do what's necessary rather than merely do more regardless of whether that improves the outcome or worsens it. Again, this is done in other developed countries and it works. It may be less than perfect but it sure works better than what we've got.

The "best practices" format is already being used by insurance companies and HMO's. One of the reasons that so many proceedures are being performed is because the carrier wants to get off on the cheap, by using the least expensive proceedures first, not the most effective. In the name of cost cutting, as well as conforming treatments, often the software in the examining physicians console tells him/her what proceedures are available for a given set of symptoms, and makes reccomendations as well. Frankly, I don't like it, since I know what has worked for me in the past, but often my doctor can no longer offer that treatment, because that is not the treatment that is being "preferred" by a consensus of physicians somewhere in cyberland.

[mawilson 2,133]

Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation.

[but]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages

.

So, you can’t try to seek alternatives to lawsuits if you’ve actually done something to implement alternatives to lawsuits.

Makes sense. Why should you get federal funding for something that's already there?