- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Out of the Box Healthcare Ideas
Posted on 3/28/17 at 1:15 pm to Antonio Moss
Posted on 3/28/17 at 1:15 pm to Antonio Moss
The IBFreeman Subscription Based plan for medicare and medicaid
Recipients would receive vouchers to subscribe to providers of primary care and catastrophic care. They would be free to shop among the providers that would have such plans---basically all of them would quickly move to this.
If in their shopping they find a plan less than the voucher they can keep the difference.
Why this works?
1) pre existing conditions are not nearly as big a deal if the providers is going to get paid monthly whether people are sick or not
2) hospitals have tremendous fixed cost and most would prefer this type of income stream
3) shopping becomes easier and instead of having one buyer--the government--we would have hundreds of millions and that will bring down cost as it would bring competition into play
4) subsidies would become easier to define. Democrats should like this--
5) the corruption of government direct buying of healthcare services would be over.
Recipients would receive vouchers to subscribe to providers of primary care and catastrophic care. They would be free to shop among the providers that would have such plans---basically all of them would quickly move to this.
If in their shopping they find a plan less than the voucher they can keep the difference.
Why this works?
1) pre existing conditions are not nearly as big a deal if the providers is going to get paid monthly whether people are sick or not
2) hospitals have tremendous fixed cost and most would prefer this type of income stream
3) shopping becomes easier and instead of having one buyer--the government--we would have hundreds of millions and that will bring down cost as it would bring competition into play
4) subsidies would become easier to define. Democrats should like this--
5) the corruption of government direct buying of healthcare services would be over.
This post was edited on 3/28/17 at 1:16 pm
2
Posted on 3/28/17 at 1:15 pm to Ingloriousbastard
quote:
That's pretty much the definition of insurance.
Not even close.
Insurance is a risk-hedging system. You pay small amounts against the relative risk of an event occurring with the promise that if the event occurs, it will be financially covered by the pool.
Honestly, insurance is one of the best economic creations since the industrial revolution. It literally saves millions and millions of people from financial ruin every week.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 1:16 pm to NOFOX
quote:100%.
Are you suggesting that doctors and hospitals would prefer not to render inefficient treatment at that time and forego the financial incentives to prolonging life?
Not just that. I am telling you point-blank it is an ignorant assertion.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 1:17 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
End of life discussions occur all the time. They are routine. DNR orders are routine.
Patients dying in the hospital with no one ever having an end of life discussion is routine. Patients being referred to hospice and dying within hours is routine. We are uncomfortable with death in our society and doctors aren't exempt.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 1:18 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
100%. Not just that. I am telling you point-blank it is an ignorant assertion.
So you've never met an oncologist.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 1:18 pm to roadGator
quote:
No one actually believes that everyone would be healthy with proper decision making.
Idk, whenever someone seems to propose a solution to our healthcare issue, they always begin at that assumption and then go from there. Sure it makes the discussion easier, but also makes it unrealistic.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 1:18 pm to NC_Tigah
Absolutely.
I remember a 90 something year old woman "coding".
I responded to the code with the ER doc while they were mid compressions. He asked when did they start compressions. The nurses stated 3:15. He said great, thats time of death. Good bye.
While we were walking down the hallway, he went on a rant about how there is a special place in hell for people who prolong life cruelly like that.
I remember a 90 something year old woman "coding".
I responded to the code with the ER doc while they were mid compressions. He asked when did they start compressions. The nurses stated 3:15. He said great, thats time of death. Good bye.
While we were walking down the hallway, he went on a rant about how there is a special place in hell for people who prolong life cruelly like that.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 1:20 pm to I B Freeman
Hospitals want whatever gives them the most revenue.
You show me a hospital without a construction boom on the property and I'll show you a critical access hospital.
You show me a hospital without a construction boom on the property and I'll show you a critical access hospital.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 1:21 pm to Antonio Moss
Not even close? His post was insinuating that there was something wrong because most people pay into something more than they use, but very few benefit from large payments...which is essentially how insurance works. Insurance works on the law or large numbers. Many pay into something, but few reap benefits.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 1:21 pm to the808bass
quote:
Hospitals want whatever gives them the most revenue.
You can't take care of patients without money.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 1:21 pm to Tiguar
quote:
responded to the code with the ER doc while they were mid compressions. He asked when did they start compressions. The nurses stated 3:15. He said great, thats time of death. Good bye.
God bless him.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 1:21 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Not just that. I am telling you point-blank it is an ignorant assertion.
The idea that every doctor and facility go along with care they know will only prolong life only because they are scared of lawsuits is 100% bullshite.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 1:22 pm to Tiguar
quote:
Absolutely. I remember a 90 something year old woman "coding". I responded to the code with the ER doc while they were mid compressions. He asked when did they start compressions. The nurses stated 3:15. He said great, thats time of death. Good bye. While we were walking down the hallway, he went on a rant about how there is a special place in hell for people who prolong life cruelly like that.
Not a day goes by where we're not trying to talk a family member from proceeding with surgery for their demented 90yo mother who fell and broke her hip.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 1:22 pm to Tiguar
quote:
You can't take care of patients without money.
I'm not denigrating them for it. I'm saying they're not going to take a 5% reduction in revenue for cash flow management.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 1:23 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Idk, whenever someone seems to propose a solution to our healthcare issue, they always begin at that assumption and then go from there. Sure it makes the discussion easier, but also makes it unrealistic.
We need to discuss in generalities because of the size of the system and, in general, better decision-making will result in healthier life styles which will result in lower health costs.
The problem is that this really isn't a healthcare issue; it's a poor decision-maker issue. We already have tons of programs available for free or extremely low costs preventive health care and the vast majority of people for whom its intended never use it.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 1:23 pm to the808bass
quote:
Hospitals want whatever gives them the most revenue.
You think pressing forward with all life sustaining measures = more revenue for most hospitals?
Posted on 3/28/17 at 1:24 pm to onmymedicalgrind
People still don't understand reimbursement... Or reimbursement fall outs.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 1:25 pm to Ingloriousbastard
quote:
Not even close? His post was insinuating that there was something wrong because most people pay into something more than they use, but very few benefit from large payments...which is essentially how insurance works. Insurance works on the law or large numbers. Many pay into something, but few reap benefits.
The benefit is the hedge against the risk and it is immediately realized.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 1:25 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Not a day goes by where we're not trying to talk a family member from proceeding with surgery for their demented 90yo mother who fell and broke her hip.
Plot twist: she wasn't ambulatory to begin with and upon post op discharge she goes to rehab for the surgery.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 1:25 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
1) pre existing conditions are not nearly as big a deal if the providers is going to get paid monthly whether people are sick or not
LOL. You didn't think this through if you believe that.
No Doc is going to want someone on their roles that is already sick.
This post was edited on 3/28/17 at 1:29 pm
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News