C: Someone at the heritage foundation did propose an individual mandate as a means of sharing healthcare costs. (the healthy pay for the unhealthy) But that doesn't mean it was backed by the Heritage Foundation. Think tanks (like the heritage foundation) throw any number of ideas at the wall to see what sticks.
The Democrat's solution was the ACA. What was the Republic solution or attempts to help solve the problems above?
The data is there on tort reform. Tort reform does NOTHING MEANINGFUL to lower healthcare costs. Total Medical Tort costs are ~1-1.5% of total healthcare costs. Doing away with all medical torts wouldn't do a damn thing to lower medical costs. Tort reform would do even less.
So if Obamacare is successful you and the Dems will credit the Heritage Foundation and republicans?
Arguably, eliminating medical malpractice could actually raise the real price of health care by removing a disincentive against medical negligence. If the torts system functions properly, it lowers overall costs by encouraging cost-effective prudence.
the madate and exchanges distribute the costs toan individual.
It still will cost $1K to go to the ER. (Paid by insurance less deductible/copay)
It will still cost $100 to visit your local MD (Paid by insurance less deductible/copay)
It will still cost $50 for blood work by Quest. (Paid by insurance less deductible/copay)
How is the added insurance coverage going to lower those costs.
A person needing to go to the UR will still go to the ER. Payment is just a different color of paper
As long as the insurance can pass the costs onto the subscriber; you still have the base costs driven by the provider.
Insurance costs will come down when the total care comes down. The added insurance premiums are not going to reduce the costs of medical care.
Markets. Unless you don't believe in capitalism. Markets create competition. Competition creates incentives to lower costs. Its the lack of competition that's driving healthcare costs.
Better care. Its cheaper to diagnose and treat many diseases at early stages then it is to let people get sicker then try to save them when they show up at the emergency room.
People with decent insurance are more likely to get treatment.
If you get down to the fundamentals and really analyze them, there's no way that having healthier population is more expensive than having a sicker population.
Its like not understanding that poor roads don't save money versus good roads. The roads might be cheaper but the damage to vehicles, and losses due to congestion and slow speed, is greater than the savings due to bad roads.
That is one of the basic misunderstandings about government spending. A lot of the time there's no savings from cutting spending, there's just cost shifting and frequently more inefficiency.
I disagree 100%. Threat of lawsuits lead to over-testing and frivolous procedures.
Every doctor I know does some tests simply for the CYA factor if something goes wrong. Nothing "cost-effective" about it.
I think the best solution for torts is let doctors be exempt from lawsuits if they will give X amount free healthcare to those without insurance. Many of the worst docs would take that offer, but beggars can't be choosers.
They also GET PAID when tests and procedures are done.
You think doctors require office visits to renew prescriptions because of fear of being sued ?
Its all part of the business plan. There are literally colonoscopy factories. Has nothing to do with not getting sued.
They also GET PAID when tests and procedures are done.
You think doctors require office visits to renew prescriptions because of fear of being sued ?
Its all part of the business plan. There are literally colonoscopy factories. Has nothing to do with not getting sued.
A MD will not issue a renew to a prescription because the meds are such that the patient safety could be compromised. The meds are intended to modify the patients system. After a point of time; they need to be followed up.
It is not a business decision; it is a patient safety issue.
A chargeable office visit every 180 days isn't uniformly necessary to accomplish patient safety for all patients and with all medications.
But it does generate revenue for the business.
Sometimes they do testing that doesn't get reimbursed directly because that is the standard of care. They just have to eat the testing costs and make it up elsewhere, like on a procedure related to the tests.
I mean, sure some doctors do all kinds of unneeded tests for the money and that should be cleaned up too. Honestly it depends on the specialty how bad it is in either direction.
Either way, the "solution" of simply holding the payments on many of these tests leads to a situation where doctors play chicken with liability:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgo...gnostic-tests-patients-will-feel-the-effects/
A chargeable office visit every 180 days isn't uniformly necessary to accomplish patient safety for all patients and with all medications.
But it does generate revenue for the business.
So if Obamacare is successful you and the Dems will credit the Heritage Foundation and republicans?
Was it also a mandate that everyone buy healthcare?
A MD will not issue a renew to a prescription because the meds are such that the patient safety could be compromised. The meds are intended to modify the patients system. After a point of time; they need to be followed up.
It is not a business decision; it is a patient safety issue.
Sure, it's fun to gloat with an idea that they had at one point but turned on just because Obama supported it.