Thanks for taking the time to respond, Riserburn.
Quote from riserburn:
They are also forced to comply with regulatory standards that dictate what is and is not an acceptable level of quality of care. To top that all off, the federal and state agencies that provide funding for healthcare dictate what they will pay for, how much they will pay, and how it will be paid.
This is only important if the cost of mandated care exceeds the reimbursement provided by Medicaid/Medicare. Is this the case?
If so, then the Government is surreptitiously coercing the insured to subsidize the uninsured by short changing HMO's and providers.
Quote from riserburn:
IMO the costs of caring for the uninsured is THE single largest contributor to the high cost of healthcare.
If the uninsured impose the largest cost on the system, then minimizing their burden under the current legislative climate of 'health care for all' would seem to be the first step in reducing costs.
Levying a mandatory patient surcharge for non life threatening emergency room visits and imposing regular check ups for continued medicare coverage could be a start.
The idea is to make the uninsured accountable.
Quote from riserburn:
They [HMOs] dictate what, how, and how they will pay or not pay.
I am not sure I understand why this is important if providers are ultimately compensated for their gross costs.
Quote from riserburn:
In turn providers raise the prices for what they can be compensated for.
They KNOW they aren't going to get full compensation, so the price is set to a level that offsets that which isn't reimbursed.
Again, the net effect is a final price tage commensurate to its cost of provision. Nothing inherently nefarious about that.
Quote from riserburn:
Therefore, those that can afford healthcare insurance gets stiffed TWICE. They pay the high costs of their insurance AND they pay higher taxes for government healthcare programs that fund those without insurance.
But under any socialized system, the 'haves' will be forced to pay for the 'have nots'. The only difference is the avenue in which these costs are paid.
Currently, its a shell game; all unpaid costs are surreptitiously deferred between the administrating agents (Gov, Hmo's and providers) to the ultimate consumer - the insured.
Under a socialized system, healthcare costs are declared upfront, but again, footed entirely by what now constitutes the insured - the haves.
Quote from riserburn:
As for the quality of care, staffing shortages are the number one problem
Market forces should stabilize the nursing wage push given enough time.
Whats interesting is you didn't mention the self imposed quota med schools have on the number of MD's and specialized Doctors they graduate - and on the number of accredited medical schools themselves.
Medical schools routinely turn away qualified applicants because the AMA - and all these other self appointed certification bodies composed of existing Dr's - restrict the number of accredited schools and graduates to keep salaries artificially high for Drs.
Who eventually subsidizes these inflated salaries? The consumer.
If the US was serious about curbing spiraling healthcare costs, the Government can short circuit the controlled derth of graduating Doctors and open up Federally sanctioned med schools.
Let the market decide what Drs should be paid. Not the doctors themselves.
