Regulate, don't Operate

[Hobo1]

Regulate, don't Operate .. that is the rightful position for the government on health care.

We need better regulations to:

1. Use a standard, electronic reporting forms for all insurance companies,
   
2. Make tort reform regulations so doctors don't order extra tests to protect themselves against lawsuits,
   
3. Require doctors and hospitals to disclose the cost of treatment in advance,
   
4. Empower nurses to perform more routine medical care tasks,
   
5. Prevent doctors from owning laboratory test facilities where they send patients - this is conflict of interest,
   
6. Allow all American citizens to purchase health insurance,
   
7. Standardize health care plans so Americans can easily shop and choose for health insurance like they would automobile insurance,
   
8. Prevent price fixing to encourage competition among insurance providers,
   
9. And more

We don't need government to OPERATE health care.

There is the short and sweet and to the point health care sound bite.

REGULATE. DON'T OPERATE.

 

[GenSeneca]

Don't operate,
Don't regulate,
LIBERATE healthcare.

Government regulations are already in place and they have been a major factor in driving up the cost of insurance. Regulations prevent insurance companies from operating over state lines, like auto insurance companies are free to do.

Regulations already HAVE "standardized" insurance plans, making them far more expensive than they need to be and the mandate is responsible for eliminating such affordable options as catastrophic care insurance.

Nurses are barred from engaging in more productive activities because of the malpractice insurance doctors and hospitals must have and government refuses to pass tort reform to limit monetary awards in suits and eliminate frivolous suits by instituting a loser pays system.

Lower costs and better service are a result of competition. The regulations already on health insurance companies prevent such competition from taking place but ensure companies certain strangleholds over their territories, which is why they have jumped on board for the proposed "reforms" of the healthcare system... It would strengthen their regional monopolies and eliminate further competition.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Don't operate,
Don't regulate,
LIBERATE healthcare.

Government regulations are already in place and they have been a major factor in driving up the cost of insurance.

You call Federal $ub$idie$ government-regulations????

​

"That last phrase, of course, is key: It’s the profit margin that matters to these companies, which is why they shouldn’t be in the Medicare business in the first place—especially if they require extra government $ub$idie$ just to make enough money to satisfy their greed. The insurers know that in order to maintain their high profits, they’ll now be “forced” to cut the benefits on their private plans, and more and more Medicare patients will just switch back to conventional, government-run Medicare."

I'm sure the insurance-companies will make-every-effort to cut their administrative-costshttp://www.pnhp.org/publications/nejmadmin.pdf....as-long-as no one touches their bonu$e$!!!!!!!​

 

[Greco]

Not so sure about that "tort reform" change.

On Friday the Tulsa World published a story about a hospital patient in Skiatook, Oklahoma that went in to the hospital for knee surgery. He got it. However, it was on the wrong knee. While he was still groggy they told him and got his permission to perform the surgery on the correct knee.

The hospital, doctor and anastesiologists have billed him for TWO operations. He's suing them. Hope he wins and wins big.

Maybe if there were less stories like this the doctors would be less at risk of being sued.

 

[Hobo1]

Don't operate,
Don't regulate,
LIBERATE healthcare.

Government regulations are already in place and they have been a major factor in driving up the cost of insurance. Regulations prevent insurance companies from operating over state lines, like auto insurance companies are free to do.

Regulations already HAVE "standardized" insurance plans, making them far more expensive than they need to be and the mandate is responsible for eliminating such affordable options as catastrophic care insurance.

Nurses are barred from engaging in more productive activities because of the malpractice insurance doctors and hospitals must have and government refuses to pass tort reform to limit monetary awards in suits and eliminate frivolous suits by instituting a loser pays system.

Lower costs and better service are a result of competition. The regulations already on health insurance companies prevent such competition from taking place but ensure companies certain strangleholds over their territories, which is why they have jumped on board for the proposed "reforms" of the healthcare system... It would strengthen their regional monopolies and eliminate further competition.

Maybe I should have said, "cost-saving regulations". I think you prove my point in a way... government regulations can drive up or bring down the cost of health insurance. Let the health insurance companies operate nationwide - or world wide. There is no good reason to limit the places where they can operate. Tort reform should be passed to bring down costs ... if this is a time for change, then the lawyer's lobby must be brought down.

When I buy car insurance, I can have "comprehensive", "liability only" and several other combinations. Insurance companies have so many different forms of coverage it is virtually impossible for the ordinary person to make a determination of which form of insurance fits their needs and still understand which insurance company is offering the best deal. There are some 1300 health insurance companies - if I could compare apples and apples, and the government stopped getting in the way by requiring coverage (like pregnancy), I am sure the insurance companies would become truly competitive.

 

[Hobo1]

Not so sure about that "tort reform" change.

On Friday the Tulsa World published a story about a hospital patient in Skiatook, Oklahoma that went in to the hospital for knee surgery. He got it. However, it was on the wrong knee. While he was still groggy they told him and got his permission to perform the surgery on the correct knee.

The hospital, doctor and anastesiologists have billed him for TWO operations. He's suing them. Hope he wins and wins big.

Maybe if there were less stories like this the doctors would be less at risk of being sued.

Stories like this one that have a huge ripple effect in driving up the cost of health care. Tort reform does not mean complete indemnification and hold-harmless of doctors. Yes, careless mistakes will always be made - doctors are human. But the remedy for this man should be to something like not charging him for his entire hospital stay. And this should be determined by arbitration, not in a court room, with limits on damages.

Just because the man had the wrong knee operated upon does not entitle him to $1 million settlement. The punishment doesn't fit the crime.

The real problem comes in when a doctor take so many preventive steps, using the latest technology that he is no longer thinking like a doctor, he is thinking like a lawyer. "How can I absolutely prevent a malpractice suit?" Over treatment to prevent a law suit unnecessarily drives up the cost of health care.

In many ways health care is still an art, and every profession requires personal decisions. As a civil engineer, I know ever step of the design process I have choices. For example, I can always use a little (or a lot) of extra steel to make sure the building is strong. But to be fair to the client, I must consider his his cost of construction as well. What if every building (and house) were constructed to withstand an airplane crash like 9-11?

When doctors are looking down the gun barrel of ambulance chasing lawyers and teary eyed juries, they are going to move far past the point of prudent care and into the zone of "save your ass".

Like I said, tort reform doesn't mean doctors can cut off the wrong leg and walk away scot-free.