DRR Blog Favorites

Save Medical Care In America- Universal Care Is Possible-

 

   Universal healthcare is possible with the application of non profit facilities that treat minor medical problems and give initial diagnosis. Or, non profit minor care facilities that operate their services to the community, insured or Medicaid/Medicare, for far less expense than private major care facilities.

   Non profit minor care facilities are necessary for cost control and to help guarantee that money is available for those in desperate need of diagnosis and treatment at major medical facilities.

   America can afford major medical universal coverage, if the costs are cut on minor care in the private system. The private care system does not profit from treating patients at major medical facilities, they lose money on minor care patients. The costs are transferred to other areas to pay for the losses. This practice needs to stop.

   We need universal care for medical patients in America. Having a system of non profit minor care while preserving the excellence of the major care private facilities is what is needed. 

   

 

Two Payer System that Works- Why- One Payer System Wont Work- Why

 One payer system in healthcare wont work in America because the only way to make it affordable is to socialize healthcare. Socializing healthcare would be a monumental task of changing the profit based system into a completely non-profit system. 

     Utilizing the private healthcare system to care for the poor and under insured was never a good idea. It would be much better to employ a partial non profit basic healthcare package for the poor and under insured. While using the private system for major medical concerns and necessary specialized care. 

     The private system working in accordance with a non profit basic care facility system format would drastically reduce costs and create more opportunities for the poor to receive major medical and specialized diagnosis and treatment when called for. 

     *Non profit basic care hospitals, in community, supported by the cities and states, working along with the private sector in providing a broad spectrum of care would be the best solution to the coverage and costs problems in the healthcare system in America.

    We need some non profit facilities in the system but not a total non profit system. The two payer system is the way to go but the system we have now needs modifications.

     Care and treatment in certain facilities, costs an extreme amount, more than in non profit facilities. 

     Basic diagnosis and treatment of patients  should not be conducted in facilities that are geared towards major medical operational functions, or major medical and specialized care.

A non profit facility that can give the patient diagnosis and treatment for minor ailments can also refer patients to other facilities if warranted by the physician. A basic treatment schedule after diagnosis in a clinical setting that can give proper diagnostics will cost at least one fifth of the costs for the same exact care in a major medical clinic.

    A system that effectively utilizes non profit in basic care and incorporates private care for major medical such as hospitals and specialty clinics is the best system. 

    Not for profit care centers in communities that specialize in minor treatment and basic diagnosis with testing, are what is needed.   

   Clinics or basic care hospitals, like general hospitals doing checks on colds, flu shots, blood sugar screening, initial diagnosis on minor complaints, and minor treatments and basic in clinic  care, is what cuts costs out of basic care. The reason is because of facility expenses to treat patients for minor care issues. It isn't the bill that is sent out that reflects the true cost of the care the patient receives, it's the actual expense per patient in the facility that is five times the cost of a basic care facility or clinic. And in reality a lot of times the actual costs are far more than five times more.

   Democrats shun the idea of basic care facilities and community hospitals operating in a non profit way. The reason is simple, it's because they want to justify Planned Parenthood clinics. To throw basic diagnostics and primary care in with abortion so that the abortion clinics have a validation to remain and operate under the idea that they are necessary for primary care to other patients.

    When it comes to real cost savings the line is drawn at the Planned Parenthood clinic. But it should not be that way. 

    We need non profit community hospitals that can help to care for Medicare/Medicaid patients. Give initial diagnosis to any patient. Treat patients at a nominal fee level of cost. 

   This system will save private care. Don't let radical Democrats destroy private healthcare in America. Two payer system can save Americans billions of dollars a month in costs that would otherwise be wasted on over expensive facilities using cost transference. 

    Up to 80% of the actual expense of patient care for minor medical treatment can be transferred to other bills to spread the costs out evenly in the facility. In this case, the bill is not the actual expense of care. 

  This is called cost transference. Cost transference hides the actual expenses of patient care in facilities that don't need to be used for minor care concerns. Unless the patients insurance is charged the actual amount the the care costs the facility to provide. 2500 dollars for checking diaper rash, in actual expenses, would be a good example. While the bill may be three hundred dollars, the rest of the charge is placed on other services to cover it. There is no profit in this activity. It is really completely unnecessary and a huge waste of time and money. 

      You don't get better diaper rash checks by spending more money in actual expense per patient. In those facilities, it doesn't matter what the minor treatment is, the truth is that it isn't necessary. If people want to pay out of pocket or have the insurance billed for the actual costs, fine. But if not, the practice needs to be stopped.

   Cutting costs on minor medical treatment and diagnostics is simple and doable. It should be done with cooperation by anyone who wants to save the medical system in America. Basic non profit care facilities wont cost private care a penny. Community hospitals can help take 40% of the waste in unnecessary expense out of the present system.

   That is what is needed, now.

   One payer system wont work.  Two payer system will. 

 Better care. More coverage. Less cost. Save money. That's what we need. 

   

   

      

The Starting Point Needs To Be Standard Care For Every American

 

      Both nations in America, Democrat Party/Republican Party, want to guide the system in a direction that will result in a favored political outcome. Like a continual tug of war. One wants to go in one direction, the other wants to go in another direction. One wants the system to favor the east, the other the west. Americans just want what needs to be fixed, fixed without the continual tug of war. Politics sometimes gets in the way of reason. What should Americans do when this happen more and more in the continual legislative battles fought over every topic in Washington D.C.? How can we end the system of deadlock and stalling in our government when it comes to passing legislation, or, changing legislative decisions from the past that don't work? Like, in the matter of healthcare legislation.

    I think that in the matter of healthcare it comes down to the right of all Americans to have adequate healthcare. Americans should have the right to quality healthcare.  

    Knowing that to be true, a watchdog group in Washington should be allowed to call for immediate passage of legislation that guarantees the right of all Americans to have healthcare, equal to a standard of care that is set by the medical community. At that point, the politicians and states can work out the policies that will be put in place and can argue over what comes after that level of consideration.  Like how to get supplemental policies to lower income Americans and the care of the elderly. There is plenty to discuss. But the starting point needs to be standard care for everyone. 

   

    

      

Medicaid With Supplemental Private Insurance Policies- Non Profit Facilities Needed

   Medicaid with supplemental insurance.  That would be the best overall system for Medicaid patients. Medicaid with supplemental private insurance is the best policy.

   Like Medicare except Medicaid. That would help people and take some of the costs out of federal government expenditures. Saving the government tax dollars and giving better care to the poor. Sounds like a winner!

   All Americans deserve standard -equal rights in medical care. Equal rights to standard medical care should be the basic fundamental right of all citizens. This is the place to start in dealing with a legislative bill in Washington. 

   The right to care should be guaranteed to all Americans. Policies that help to cover costs, and regulating programs should be built around the right to adequate care, first.

     Minor care facilities that are non profit can take some of the cost out of the overall expenditures. Supplemental policies paid for by the working people who have Medicaid should be the model of coverage.

     Community facilities operating on a non profit basis that handle initial diagnosis and referrals, with emphasis on minor ailments, to treat, with major ailment diagnosis  referred out to hospitals and specialized care.   Some non profit support is needed in a system that employs private care to treat everyone.    

 

 

    

The Mystery of Medical Care Coverage vs. Costs (How To Fix The Problem)

   

    Cost transference. Basic care providers. Facility costs. Primary care. Access. Policies. Medicaid. Medicare. Budget. Federal expenditures. State grants. Rights. Patient care. Standards. Procedural. Elective. Preventative.  Long term. Equal access. Criteria. Technologies. Specialized care.

    The number one concern in the medical industry isn't any of these factors. The number one concern is something that is never discussed. It is the hidden agenda. It is the reason that things stay the same and seldom change in the ultimate decision making process. The reason that the problem with medical care costs that result in coverage inadequacies and voids in coverage continues. 

   The priorities that govern medical care are the same as any corporate venture, with exceptions, but those exceptions don't sway the consensus of political and corporate powers in Washington, or Wall Street.

    And then there was Global Economics.

    Ultimate economic reasoning verses the publics need for medical care at reasonable costs and provider ship for the poor and disadvantaged.

     Could costs be managed better? What was the reason for higher and higher costs in the system, looking at the overall perspective? A lot to consider. But yet, if there is a problem, there is a reason for the problem. If you find the reason for the problem then you might be able to find an answer to the problem. A solution to fixing the problem. But when the controlling interests don't want the answer to the problem found and don't want the problem fixed, there is a reason. There has to be a reason.

    Going through all of those variables but still not coming up with an answer as to the reason for the problem that caused so many other problems. And then it became obvious for a reason to me. The problem is in the manipulation of the cash flow at the highest financial levels of investments and politics. This control over things that most people are never aware of causes decisions to be made by investors, financiers, and politicians in the government. They want the money in the system to stay at a certain level or go higher. That means that they don't care about the high cost of basic care, in fact they want it to be high. The money that starts out at the doctors winds up in a river of cash flow somewhere out there in financial land. And controlling that money reserve is the most important thing to them, not medical care for the patients. Not community care for towns and counties. Not adequate care for the poor. Not considerations for the terminally ill and those in need of long term or specialized care. But with care some people could vastly improve their lives. Some could survive illnesses that would otherwise kill.

    Money flow cannot be the dictator of policy in industry or in politics anymore. We have to incorporate the practice of reducing the costs of basic care so the system doesn't collapse from its own weight. Savings in basic care means everyone gets a fair shot at quality care and the overall system is affordable. More people can be treated for illnesses that are expensive to diagnose and treat. And regardless of costs, those considerations of care should be made by the doctor and specialists.

    The billions saved on basic and primary medical would allow the costs to treat those not covered and help those with partial coverage. Regardless of the Global Economic reasoning that has affected the judgement of Washington politicians.

    

Fixing The Problem Of Rising Costs In Medical Care

Article to read. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/one-simple-solution-to-skyrocketing-medical-costs/

Fixing The Medical Care Facility Expense Problem Saving the System A private healthcare system being employed by the government to care for the medical needs of the poor and under insured became very expensive. Mostly because of (minor) healthcare visits to medical facilities set up to provide care to the wealthiest population on earth. Expenses came into play when making decisions on how to provide for the poor and uninsured. Because of costs and cost transference within the system, the cost of program expenditures rose exponentially. Over the years since the end of community based ( non profit) care facilities. funded through tax dollars locally, the overall costs associated with basic treatments and the real costs of visits continually rose.

It is necessary to understand that transferring people from community based non profit facilities into private care and specialized care was more expensive. But the greater costs associated with policies was transference of costs from basic care upon visits to other treatment and care giving within the facilities and hospitals. Even small locally ran community hospitals could do a lot of things just as well as larger and more expensive private (for profit) operations.

The promises of the government, that the private system could be used to provide universal diagnosis and treatment to uninsured and poor patients was a false promise to begin with. The private system was never meant to be used specifically, alone, for the welfare of the poor. Insurance rates climaxed and the working poor also found insurance rates out of their budgets range. Many people depended on Medicaid to cover them when they did not have insurance. And that is the way providers got money for treating the uninsured. The rest of the bills were sent to the patients in hopes that they would pay the remaining balances on the bills.

When profit based systems are used to provide care for patients with money to purchase insurance policies, the matter of convenience and luxury, comfort, aesthetics, and such come into play to keep the customers satisfied. Many expenses are incurred that would normally cost far less for simple care and visits. If you look at the real cost per visit and the real costs for basic care in a not for profit setting verses a profit based setting the differences are staggering. With respect to real costs. Just think of a person going to a higher cost facility to be checked for a cold in the winter, a patient with the sniffles. The cost to see that patient may be as much as three thousand dollars! Just to check the patient for a cold. The bill is three hundred dollars instead of three thousand dollars. The other money is spread around to cover the actual costs of the visit. But it’s a matter of convenience and a matter of luxury that is paid for.

The inconvenience of going to a non profit based facility for basic needs is bankrupting the system Mandates of using non profit facilities by everyone with certain needs is the answer to the cost problem. The savings to the system and government would be enough to insure that everyone gets fair treatment in the system. Without modifying the private system to incorporate some non profit based care facilities the costs will continue to rise unchecked. The cost of using the profit based system for all needs is what keeps the system from being used and operated as a universal healthcare system.

Community Care Working With Private Care For Better Care

  

   A private healthcare system being employed by the government to care for the medical needs of the poor and under insured became very expensive. Mostly because of (minor) healthcare visits to medical facilities set up to provide care to the wealthiest population on earth. Expenses came into play when making decisions on how to provide for the poor and uninsured.

   Because of costs and cost transference within the system, the cost of program expenditures rose exponentially. Over the years since the end of community based ( non profit) care facilities. funded through tax dollars locally, the overall costs associated with basic treatments and the real costs of visits continually rose.

   It is necessary to understand that transferring people from community based non profit facilities into private care and specialized care was more expensive. But the greater costs associated with policies was transference of costs from basic care upon visits to other treatment and care giving within the facilities and hospitals. Even small locally ran community hospitals could do a lot of things just as well as larger and more expensive private (for profit) operations.

   The promises of the government, that the private system could be used to provide universal diagnosis and treatment to uninsured and poor patients was a false promise to begin with.  The private system was never meant to be used specifically, alone,  for the welfare of the poor.

   Insurance rates climaxed and the working poor also found insurance rates out of their budgets range. Many people depended on Medicaid to cover them when they did not have insurance. And that is the way providers got money for treating the uninsured. The rest of the bills were sent to the patients in hopes that they would pay the remaining balances on the bills.

   When profit based systems are used to provide care for patients with money to purchase insurance policies, the matter of convenience and luxury, comfort, aesthetics, and such come into play to keep the customers satisfied.  Many expenses are incurred that would normally cost far less for simple care and visits. If you look at the real cost per visit and the real costs for basic care in a not for profit setting verses a profit based setting the differences are staggering. With respect to real costs.

  Just think of a person going to a higher cost facilitiy to be checked for a cold in the winter, a patient with the sniffles. The cost to see that patient may be as much asd three thousand dollars! Just to check the patient for a cold. The bill is three hundred dollars instead of three thousand dollars. The other money is spread around to cover the actual costs of the visit. But it's a matter of convenience and a matter of luxury that is paid for. The inconvenience of going to a non profit based facility for basic needs is bankrupting the system

  Mandates of using non profit facilities by everyone with certain needs is the answer to the cost problem. The savings to the system and government would be enough to insure that everyone gets fair treatment in the system. Without modifying the private system to incorporate some non profit based care facilities the costs will continue to rise unchecked.

    The cost of using the profit based system for all needs is what keeps the system from being used and operated as a universal healthcare system.

A Two Payer System That Can Work- Partial Insurance Coverage( With Medicaid)

A Two Payer System That Can Work (Not Obamacare)

If lower income people are placed on Medicaid and they have a private policy that covers most of what Medicaid doesn't, that is necessary, that's good.
If the costs of the policy is less because of the Medicaid coverage, the policy is affordable to the working people who have lower paying jobs. No one is cut back or laid off.
Medicaid is alleviated financially by the policies paying some on the care. This is good.
Pre- existing conditions can be met.
Policies can be kept.
As the income or financial circumstance of the family or individual improves, more can be transferred to the private policy.

 

Partial Insurance Coverage( With Medicaid) - Verses Obamacare

Contributions into the insurance pool funds is better than no contributions into the insurance funds.

With Obamacare, the people who are placed into Medicaid coverage are not contributing to the pool. This puts pressure onto the other policies , regardless of how you politically spin it. (The facts.)

It is better to have most of the people who are working at lower wages, to contribute by having extra coverage on private policies. The policies in this case, compliment their Medicaid coverage.
It is also more economically feasible to have those with partial coverage, phase into full coverage, over a period of time.

I was saying that partial coverage (with private sector policies) would be far less expensive to the working poor and others, because of Medicaid coverage. And vice versa.
Partial Medicaid with partial insurance coverage would be the best way to cover the uninsured.

There would be far less pressure on other policies, with respect to cost transference.

The main costs with Medicaid is subsidies paid out. The actual payout would be less, to a possibly greater degree, with partial coverage on policies from insurance companies that cover enough to alleviate a good deal of the burden on Medicaid.

A less expensive policy is possible with a partial coverage policy. This could also cover areas that Medicaid does not cover. Taking into consideration the necessary modifications on Minimum Coverage that is mandated by Obamacare.
The coverage that was actually necessary was once again left out and more money was to be spent on what was called Mental Healthcare, which was actually just testing and medical tests after assessments on substance abuse.
Keep it in mind, that, the testing that can be mandated after assessments, that are not done by professionals, can be expensive. In that case, also possibly unnecessary.

 

    

Two Payer System- (First Problem Solved) -Groundwork.

Technically, Obamacare is a one payer system. One payer on Medicaid. And one payer on exchange policy.
Looking at the huge problem associated with the voluntary part of the one payer on exchanges, where the healthy dollars are not showing up, in order to compensate for the needy in the insurance money pool; it is predictable, that, a lack of interest will cause a short fall of usable capitol. This will lead to sharp increases in the cost of related policies. This cause and effect is called cost transference. Spreading the cost out evenly, so to speak.
It is better to use Medicaid as a support on coverage, for young people and working healthy people (at lower income levels), who will purchase policies for half the cost in the private sector. The split on Medicaid and insurance policies makes lower costs possible. This keeps more money flowing into the pool for insurance coverage, without driving up costs for other policy holders. (First problem solved.)