tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2694822185932524193.post2972663627182201431..comments2023-12-27T06:31:50.532-05:00Comments on Health Management Rx: Back of the Napkin Healthcare Policy: The HMRx 25/75 Solution to Reforming the American SystemJen S McCabehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12280837167883024960noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2694822185932524193.post-15036715973064674552008-09-23T23:09:00.000-04:002008-09-23T23:09:00.000-04:00I like your idea of going into what specifically w...I like your idea of going into what specifically would/should be covered for everyone; however, I would not use the term 'right' to define these benefits we as a nation agree to provide to everyone.<BR/><BR/>I do not believe you can make something a 'right' that requires someone else's product. Meaning, if your 'right' to health care requires me to work to provide it to you; you've basically turned me into a slave. <BR/><BR/>Free speech is a 'right' because it does not require me to work to provide it to you; perhaps work to protect that right, but not to actually grant you the right in the first place.<BR/><BR/>Instead, we need to call this 'right' by it's proper name; a name that is used to describe similar programs, an entitlement. I don't use this in the negative way many people do; but it is the proper name to give a program that a country agrees to fund based on it's ability to do so. <BR/><BR/>This is similar to social security; as a country we decided we were too rich to allow old people to be destitute, so we set up social security to provide for old people.Kottcamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17022910739547625619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2694822185932524193.post-20060948503558579112008-08-15T11:10:00.000-04:002008-08-15T11:10:00.000-04:00Jennifer - Good thoughts overall. I've probably b...Jennifer - <BR/><BR/>Good thoughts overall. I've probably been to at least half of the health insurance companies in the United States over the past 15 years and I can tell you I really don't hear them discussing how they can fix the problems. <BR/><BR/>Not sure if you've read the book: Healthcare, Guaranteed: A Simple, Secure Solution for America. While it leaves a lot on the table and doesn't address real specifics it is a high level plan (one that a politician could understand). However it does layout a basic universal plan for everyone in the United States. <BR/><BR/>Currently, people in the United States who have "white collar" jobs are the privledged and paid for by employers. However small businesses are being taxed even greater for things like health insurance and more and more are not offering health insurance. With 50M uninsured in the U.S. it's only going to get worse. I just received my United Health Premium "renewal" for next year - a nice 20% increase the same increase % they have done for the last 3 years - so we keep downgrading our plan. <BR/><BR/>I've met owners of businesses who can't go to the "privledged" doctors and are going to places like "Clinica Campansena" - e.g hispanic medical clinics. It's getting to where real hardworking people cannot afford health insurance anymore. <BR/><BR/>Anyway take a look at the book, i've added your blog to our blog site.<BR/><BR/>www.facetofacehealth.org<BR/><BR/>Aren't napkins great!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07152434895088081925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2694822185932524193.post-50637245169290345112008-08-08T14:36:00.000-04:002008-08-08T14:36:00.000-04:00Ms. Gorman,Thanks for throwing this out there to d...Ms. Gorman,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for throwing this out there to debate. It would be interested in exploring how this solution differs from what we have now. Essentially you have a bunch of insured people who get the “privileged” stuff and a bunch of non-insured who get the “right” stuff. Granted in the case of the latter, it is extremely inefficient.<BR/><BR/>Additionally, a general and more political problem that I see is a “feature creep” issue with the “right” vs “privilege”. What is viewed as a “privilege” today is viewed as a “right” tomorrow and this will incrementally raise global costs.<BR/><BR/>Also, I would argue that since the change to the system is really in gaining a bit of efficiency in distribution and administration of healthcare from where we are now, to what you propose, that at the end of the day we have not addressed several more fundamental issues which are:<BR/><BR/>1) % of GDP which will be spent on Healthcare as the Baby Boomers age. I have seen estimates that Healthcare Costs will double by 2016 to approximately 20% of GDP. This is outrageous for the outcomes we receive. AND, it will only get worse. So, we can’t afford to deliver more care in the same way that we have been.<BR/>2) There is currently a shortage of caregivers. CMS has indicated that they would like to reduce reimbursement by 40% by 2016. If CMS reduces reimbursement, which will trickle to private payor reimbursement reductions at a similar rate, you will have care givers leave the profession. Thus, there may not be resources to address the “right” side and only the very affluent will be able to have either. Clearly, from an economic standpoint, reducing wages will reduce supply of those interested in working for those wages.<BR/><BR/>At the end of the day, we must figure out a way to get $ per patient lower and/or increase global throughput of the system (caregivers can provide more care in the same amount of time).<BR/><BR/>If you want to see what I believe will be the results and potential outcomes, send me an email to jspears at weston dot com and we can continue the dialogue.<BR/><BR/>Thank you again for putting yourself and ideas out there. <BR/>Wes SpearsAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13802422560303608624noreply@blogger.com