Nationalized Healthcare-My Proposal for a Solution

Okay, so it stands to figure that the criticism from our Liberal friends(Whether we're independent, republican, anarchist or just outright politically cynical and depressed) is that we have no solutions to their mess. As if, by not having a solution that we should just accept crap as an alternative. The notion that "it could be worse" is deceptive, in that it's not like it was all that bad before.

We normally use that phrase "it could be worse" to describe a scenario in which B is worse than A and C is worse than A and B. But since in our case C cancels itself out(IE: It's the same system we always had), C was not worse than B. but B(ACA) was worse than A and C.

Doing nothing was better than the ACA. Taking away the Self-Determination Process to try to get a bunch of people hooked on health insurance and then increasing costs for those already in the system was just nefarious in the worse sense, and it went against years of American Tradition, including some of the good ideologies that progressivism brought to us(IE: Slavery was wrong. Everyone should have equal pay etc).

But if we must have a new HC System, then what should it be? For those on the left, it's a Single-Payer System. But those on the right object that'd cost even more, and that government obviously can't be trusted(any trust that was there or even healthy skepticism was blown away by ACA failures/criminals being hired to look over the system).

I've decided that there's a way to make Single-Payer affordable: Nationalize the System. A proposal would look like this:

-Get a sample size of the average income of the young, middle-aged and elderly who participate in the market.
-And create markets that meet their specific needs.

Simple, that's it. Have the Youth in "Group A", the Middle-Aged in "Group B" and the Elderly in "Group C".

Since the Elderly are specifically in Group C, insurance companies needn't worry about covering the larger groups B and A.

Likewise, Group B insurance companies don't have to cover the expensive elderly.

And obviously Group A insurance companies don't have to cover group B and C.

This is a win-win for everyone. Insurance companies can maintain their profits, and set market prices fairly for all 3 groups.
Individual Americans can participate in the markets of their own choosing within their age group. And it doesn't necessarily matter
if Individual Americans participate or not.

Since the burden is divided and now lessened among all areas. Yet everyone that participates can be covered.

As for who to regulate the system? Let's get the fear out of the way: A panel of Economists, doctors and experts.

No one will die, no one will be marginalized. Instead, the best possible decisions made in a democratic process between processer and processed will take place. I believe only having the best do the job, will make the best results possible.

I'm a believer in centralized, efficient government. This is much more efficient then forcing everyone into a borg hive.

 

Bump, SOME thoughts? Even if the idea's been proposed before(not sure if it has), we can at least discuss ways to improve it.

 

Force all the Congressmen, Senators, The President and his appointees, Lobbyists and federal employees in DC to have Obamacare nullifying their present Cadillac Healthcare insurance. That should shake them up.

 

The best solution is a hybrid system. Have a pure laissez faire healthcare system along side government run hospitals. That way everyone wins. The Left gets it's National Health Care they always wanted and the Right gets to keep a market based health delivery system. What is this system pattern after?

THE PUBLIC LIBRARY

Like the public library, the government hospital is there if you want to use it. You don't want to use it? Pay for it yourself. Just like the public library. You can borrow your books for free or buy it at Amazon.

Even the most fire breathing Conservative does not complain about the public library. And the benefit of government run hospitals is that it will put pressure on for profit hospitals to keep cost down because if they charge to much, people will just go to the free hospital.

 

Medicare for all taxpayers.

Medicaid for all poor people.

Medicare will have much better reimbursements than Medicaid.

 

Mind if I take this and run with it? I think that's a very doable alternative, it would promote competition and above all free choice in the markets. And "everyone" could be covered.

 

There is a fundamental problem with this. You are essentially dumping those who cannot afford private care to use the public hospitals, those who can afford private care will opt out. This means that the public hospitals will generally be dealing with people who are less healthy to begin with, those who have used up their private resources, especially the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions. This means that that pool will be much more expensive to treat. This is why it is more effective to have as broad a based pool as possible, the costs get distributed more evenly and it is easier to manage. The only way you could make this work is to have those who opt for the private market option is to permanently bar them from the public option, because as they age or get sick and find they can no longer afford the private market, they will want to utilize the public hospitals, thus raising the cost (the taxes they pay for the public system) for those already in the public market.

 

Everyone would be covered. Imagine if you can walk into a government run hospital and get free medicine, free operations, free doctor visits. No questions asked. You don't like government medicine. No problem. Pay for it yourself.

This protects choice and freedom. Unlike the ACA which handed over to Washington D.C. the right to force you to buy something against your will.

Liberals are not going anywhere. Conservatives are not going anywhere. Democracy is the art of the deal. The art of compromise. With my idea, everyone gets what they want.

 

This is EXACTLY the plan I have talked about in many posts. I'm a (flaming) liberal, according to conservatives.. but this is the most fair option.

It is analogous to school. Schools are paid for through everyone's taxes, whether you use the school or opt to send your child to private school. The option is there for public education and you still pay your piece of the pie. If you are unsatisfied you pony up your money for private school.

 

Thanks for the support.

Hopefully the Democrats will consider this option in the future.

 

I've always supported this idea it is extremely fair it gives the population access to universal public health care. It also preserves the free market and freedom of choice to purchase superior care. What more could people want?

 

Yep. As recent years have shown, we can not impose solutions on the other. If Conservatives want a Conservative nation they need to go to the people and share there ideas and win people over. Same goes for Liberals. At the moment the nation is evenly split. No one has an overwhelming majority that can impose their will on the other. That means compromise.

 

May I ask critics of a two tier system we have the VA system for veterans and the government system for those without other insurance would be a good enough option beggars can't be choosers.

Right now if I end up in the ER or go to the Free Clinic I have zero choice I get the medical providers I get, the care they choose and am done when they say its done this is no different I don't care about choice if I have access to care even if not the latest best care its better than NOTHING.

 

Consider this by two GP's​

Seeking ways to fund a diseased health care system will continue to result in inadequate funding and the most expensive per capita health care system in the modern world without proportionate global ranking.

The disease that first must be cured is a billing system based on procedures.
Consider the Cardiologist. We believe the Cardiologist should be reimbursed equally over time; whether he is conducting a physical examination, teaching a patient about their disease and how to affects its' course toward a more positive outcome or threading a catheter into a coronary artery regardless of whether none, one, two or three stents are placed.

Curing a procedure based billing systems will no doubt help reduce the excessive amount Americans spend on health care. It will encourage doctors to be physicians and remove any procedure fee inducements.
Unlike any other fee scheme revision proposed, “payment for time” does NOT involve any “denial of care” inducements such as diagnosis based reimbursement. The problem with such protocols is they fail to recognize differences in regional populations and their response to care. It is the “Protocol Disease” of one size fits all.

As long as the American medical billing system rewards procedures, General Family Practice Primary Care physicians will remain very under compensated and an unattractive career goal for students who do have loans to pay off. It is not suggested all physicians' time should be equally compensated. Only that billing be based on time spent with a patient regardless of the activity during that time. Today's computer systems can easily be programmed for fraud.


Respectfully, two bare foot G.P.s


Moi
One of the two barefoot GP's.