the fact is medicine has been almost entirely socialized. what happens is this: people have either private insurance through work or the govt pays for it. there is no incentive for competition. doctors and medical care centers charge whatever they want because for the most part people arent paying for it(you are through your taxes though). people go to the doctor and hospital way too much.
the simple solution? MEDICAL SAVINGS ACCOUNTS!!
people have money deposited into the account from their employer or govt. then, they use their own money from their account to go to any dr they want, and theyspend their own money from their own account. 2 things. it would introduce competition in the marketplace and people could keep the money they dont spend, thus greatly lessening demand on the medical profession.
less demand and the price goes down.
competition is the answer, not govt control
WHY ARE MEDICAL costs skyrocketing? no competition
Moderator: S2k Moderators
-
mf_dolphin
- Category 5
- Posts: 17758
- Age: 68
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:05 pm
- Location: St Petersburg, FL
- Contact:
-
rainstorm
-
rainstorm
yep
The Minnesota MSA Empowerment Act of 2003
This measure, offered by Congressman Gutknecht, expands on the current Archer MSA by:
giving health care consumers employed by the public institutions of Minnesota the power to choose where more of their health care dollars are spent; and
permitting both the employee and his or her pension plan to contribute to his or her Medical Savings Account.
Read text of bill
What is a Medical Savings Account?
MSAs combine high deductible insurance with a savings plan similar to IRAs.
The investment account accumulates year after year and belongs to the employee.
Out-of-pocket medical expenses are withdrawn from the account tax-free. After the age of 65, tax-free withdrawals can be made for any expenditure.
MSA contributions grow tax-free in an account held at a financial institution.
Endorsements:
Minnesota Police Pension Council
St. Paul Police Retirement Association
Minnesota Teamsters
St. Paul Police
St. Paul Teachers
Minneapolis Firefighters
Minnesota State Retirement System
This measure, offered by Congressman Gutknecht, expands on the current Archer MSA by:
giving health care consumers employed by the public institutions of Minnesota the power to choose where more of their health care dollars are spent; and
permitting both the employee and his or her pension plan to contribute to his or her Medical Savings Account.
Read text of bill
What is a Medical Savings Account?
MSAs combine high deductible insurance with a savings plan similar to IRAs.
The investment account accumulates year after year and belongs to the employee.
Out-of-pocket medical expenses are withdrawn from the account tax-free. After the age of 65, tax-free withdrawals can be made for any expenditure.
MSA contributions grow tax-free in an account held at a financial institution.
Endorsements:
Minnesota Police Pension Council
St. Paul Police Retirement Association
Minnesota Teamsters
St. Paul Police
St. Paul Teachers
Minneapolis Firefighters
Minnesota State Retirement System
0 likes
-
rainstorm
very good idea, 777.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Summary
As the movement for medical savings accounts (MSAs) picks up speed in Congress, critics of consumer-based health care reform are mounting a counterattack. An examination of the evidence shows that their criticisms of MSAs are just plain wrong. For example:
* Critics claim health care has become so complex that consumers are no longer capable of making cost-conscious decisions about their treatment. However, numerous scientific studies show that health care consumers can and do make cost- conscious decisions when given a financial incentive to do so.
* Critics say consumers will forgo necessary or preventive care to save money in their medical savings accounts, but studies show that MSAs do not deter preventive care. Rather, savings result from reduced use of optional services and cost-based selection among competing providers.
* According to critics, MSAs would attract the healthy, leaving the sick with conventional insurance. If so, that "adverse selection" would drive up the cost of traditional insurance. However, companies currently using MSA-style health plans have not had significant problems with adverse selection.
* Critics claim MSAs are regressive, providing benefits primarily to the wealthy. Our current system of providing a tax break only for employer-provided insurance is far more regressive.
MSAs represent a significant step in solving the problems facing our health care system. Supporters of MSAs should not be distracted by flawed and misplaced criticisms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Summary
As the movement for medical savings accounts (MSAs) picks up speed in Congress, critics of consumer-based health care reform are mounting a counterattack. An examination of the evidence shows that their criticisms of MSAs are just plain wrong. For example:
* Critics claim health care has become so complex that consumers are no longer capable of making cost-conscious decisions about their treatment. However, numerous scientific studies show that health care consumers can and do make cost- conscious decisions when given a financial incentive to do so.
* Critics say consumers will forgo necessary or preventive care to save money in their medical savings accounts, but studies show that MSAs do not deter preventive care. Rather, savings result from reduced use of optional services and cost-based selection among competing providers.
* According to critics, MSAs would attract the healthy, leaving the sick with conventional insurance. If so, that "adverse selection" would drive up the cost of traditional insurance. However, companies currently using MSA-style health plans have not had significant problems with adverse selection.
* Critics claim MSAs are regressive, providing benefits primarily to the wealthy. Our current system of providing a tax break only for employer-provided insurance is far more regressive.
MSAs represent a significant step in solving the problems facing our health care system. Supporters of MSAs should not be distracted by flawed and misplaced criticisms.
0 likes
-
rainstorm
-
GalvestonDuck
- Category 5
- Posts: 15941
- Age: 57
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
- Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)
If people who are capable of working would get off their butts and get a job instead of living off welfare and medicare, then maybe the cost of healthcare would decrease. But when you have some lazy jerk who can walk and talk and who comes into the ER at 4 in the morning to be seen for a headache and then gripes about the fact that he's been there for 3 hours, screaming, "Boy, I'm sure glad I'm not dying! When am I going to be seen???" And we have to run past him with bloody scrubs because we're treating a TRAUMA patient who is dying and then after the real emergency patient is taken to surgery, we're able to treat this leech and finally discharge him and we tell him to follow-up with his regular doctor, only to be told by him, "You're my regular doctor." 
And that's not a grammatically fluid post but I'm not going to change it.
Had to vent.
And that's not a grammatically fluid post but I'm not going to change it.
Had to vent.
0 likes
-
rainstorm
an excellent idea
Medical Savings Accounts
Could medical savings accounts provide the escape from runaway healthcare costs?
Many countries with private health insurance schemes -- the US, Singapore, even South Africa -- have developed the medical savings account idea as an escape from runaway healthcare costs. The idea is to allow insurance, public or private, to concentrate on providing against the big, unpredictable and costly healthcare needs, but to ensure that everyone has access to savings that can be used to provide for the smaller, routine, more everyday healthcare costs.
Thus instead of US employers covering their workers for every conceivable healthcare need -- a very expensive proposition -- they instead provide only catastrophic health insurance, and give their workers back some or all of the savings as a 'medical savings account' which they can use on healthcare costs as they please. Workers like it because they decide how to spend their account, instead of having the manager of a health management organization (HMO) tell them what they can and cannot like. Employers like it because it is cheaper. And insurers like it because they are not bogged down in the administration of very small medical claims.
In Singapore, a compulsory provident scheme covers people for their big-ticket medical costs. But they are also obliged to save into a medical savings account. They have to keep this topped up to a level that would cover the average person's annual medical bills.
The idea of medical savings accounts is that insurance remains focused on the big risks, while the small items are dealt with out of savings. This is efficient, because it means insurers are not chasing paper on very small insurance claims like dressings, minor pharmaceuticals, or the cost of GP visits - those can be met in cash by the individual from funds in his or her medical savings account.
Another source of efficiency is that the medical savings account idea is also a disincentive against overdemand. People may not willingly volunteer for large-scale interventions like transplants or dialysis, but when minor medical services are free, people demand more than they really need - calling out the doctor to deal with minor ailments, for example - adding to the insurers' costs and creating queues and delays for those who are in urgent need. Where patients see the cost of their care, however, they are less likely to demand more than they believe essential. This is particularly true if unspent balances in a medical savings account can be taken in cash at year-end, or rolled up towards other items, such as a retirement pension, college fees, or house purchase.
In principle, medical savings accounts should work just as well in a state-insurance system.Today's NHS, for example, is overburdened by the demand for (and administration of) minor services, including GP visits, minor pharmaceuticals, and relatively cheap medical treatments. Too often, though, there are long queues to see a GP (or consultation times are stripped down to a few minutes), and long waits to receive even minor medical attention.
Could medical savings accounts help curb this overdemand? Instead of all services being free, should the NHS concentrate on providing only the big-ticket items for free, and charge for minor items such as GP visits? The money saved -- perhaps half the NHS budget -- could be remitted back to UK citizens as medical savings accounts, which would ensure that everyone had funds to pay directly for the small-scale care they needed -- as well as the free service to fall back on in the case of a major medical problem. Knowing how much health services cost would prompt us to shop around for the best value, making the supply of healthcare services more competitive and efficient, and with the right incentive structure it would induce people not to overdemand minor services while equally making sure that everyone did go to get the treatment they really needed.
Could medical savings accounts provide the escape from runaway healthcare costs?
Many countries with private health insurance schemes -- the US, Singapore, even South Africa -- have developed the medical savings account idea as an escape from runaway healthcare costs. The idea is to allow insurance, public or private, to concentrate on providing against the big, unpredictable and costly healthcare needs, but to ensure that everyone has access to savings that can be used to provide for the smaller, routine, more everyday healthcare costs.
Thus instead of US employers covering their workers for every conceivable healthcare need -- a very expensive proposition -- they instead provide only catastrophic health insurance, and give their workers back some or all of the savings as a 'medical savings account' which they can use on healthcare costs as they please. Workers like it because they decide how to spend their account, instead of having the manager of a health management organization (HMO) tell them what they can and cannot like. Employers like it because it is cheaper. And insurers like it because they are not bogged down in the administration of very small medical claims.
In Singapore, a compulsory provident scheme covers people for their big-ticket medical costs. But they are also obliged to save into a medical savings account. They have to keep this topped up to a level that would cover the average person's annual medical bills.
The idea of medical savings accounts is that insurance remains focused on the big risks, while the small items are dealt with out of savings. This is efficient, because it means insurers are not chasing paper on very small insurance claims like dressings, minor pharmaceuticals, or the cost of GP visits - those can be met in cash by the individual from funds in his or her medical savings account.
Another source of efficiency is that the medical savings account idea is also a disincentive against overdemand. People may not willingly volunteer for large-scale interventions like transplants or dialysis, but when minor medical services are free, people demand more than they really need - calling out the doctor to deal with minor ailments, for example - adding to the insurers' costs and creating queues and delays for those who are in urgent need. Where patients see the cost of their care, however, they are less likely to demand more than they believe essential. This is particularly true if unspent balances in a medical savings account can be taken in cash at year-end, or rolled up towards other items, such as a retirement pension, college fees, or house purchase.
In principle, medical savings accounts should work just as well in a state-insurance system.Today's NHS, for example, is overburdened by the demand for (and administration of) minor services, including GP visits, minor pharmaceuticals, and relatively cheap medical treatments. Too often, though, there are long queues to see a GP (or consultation times are stripped down to a few minutes), and long waits to receive even minor medical attention.
Could medical savings accounts help curb this overdemand? Instead of all services being free, should the NHS concentrate on providing only the big-ticket items for free, and charge for minor items such as GP visits? The money saved -- perhaps half the NHS budget -- could be remitted back to UK citizens as medical savings accounts, which would ensure that everyone had funds to pay directly for the small-scale care they needed -- as well as the free service to fall back on in the case of a major medical problem. Knowing how much health services cost would prompt us to shop around for the best value, making the supply of healthcare services more competitive and efficient, and with the right incentive structure it would induce people not to overdemand minor services while equally making sure that everyone did go to get the treatment they really needed.
0 likes
-
rainstorm
-
rainstorm
Medical Savings Accounts Study
Has Competition Failed in the Health Care Marketplace?
Nearly all reformers agree that health care competition in the United States has been successful in fostering breakthrough medical technology. But the many critics of the U.S. health care system charge that same competition has failed to control costs or increase access to affordable coverage. Claiming marketplace failure, most reform efforts have concentrated on price and supply controls through government intervention and regulation.
But has competition in health services really failed? In reality, true competition has not been permitted for decades due to distorted incentives, government intervention and dysfunctional tax policies. It is not surprising that the economic equilibrium has been upset. By distorting normal market exchanges, government subsidies and tax preferences have fueled rather than stemmed most health care financing problems.5
It is an accepted axiom of economics that voluntary exchanges of goods and services for a sum of money leave both of the negotiating parties better off. Consumers make purchasing decisions and pay for the product or service. But such economic transactions rarely occur in health care. The system separates purchasing from payment and receipt of services. This is the result of the growth of prepaid comprehensive medical care and government subsidized services—a system that removes discussion about payment between the patient and the provider. The patient and doctor are therefore usually ignorant of the economic consequences of consumption.6
MSAs do not externally control price or access to providers—they influence demand. MSAs reduce the growth in medical spending by empowering the patient in both clinical and economic decision making. Tightly operated managed care health plans and provider organizations depend mostly on controlling supply of service.
Provider profiles—establishing economic credentials of medical decision makers and rigid utilization review—are common methods employed to hold down costs.7Capitation based reimbursement and strong provider risk-sharing mechanisms are also commonplace. None of these actively includes the patient in deciding what and how much health care he needs, desires or is willing to pay. Neither Medicare, nor any other federally subsidized programs fare any better in providing patient-focused incentives to control spending. Precious few in the health care industry understand and place the patient at the center of health care transactions.8
"Precious few in the health
Has Competition Failed in the Health Care Marketplace?
Nearly all reformers agree that health care competition in the United States has been successful in fostering breakthrough medical technology. But the many critics of the U.S. health care system charge that same competition has failed to control costs or increase access to affordable coverage. Claiming marketplace failure, most reform efforts have concentrated on price and supply controls through government intervention and regulation.
But has competition in health services really failed? In reality, true competition has not been permitted for decades due to distorted incentives, government intervention and dysfunctional tax policies. It is not surprising that the economic equilibrium has been upset. By distorting normal market exchanges, government subsidies and tax preferences have fueled rather than stemmed most health care financing problems.5
It is an accepted axiom of economics that voluntary exchanges of goods and services for a sum of money leave both of the negotiating parties better off. Consumers make purchasing decisions and pay for the product or service. But such economic transactions rarely occur in health care. The system separates purchasing from payment and receipt of services. This is the result of the growth of prepaid comprehensive medical care and government subsidized services—a system that removes discussion about payment between the patient and the provider. The patient and doctor are therefore usually ignorant of the economic consequences of consumption.6
MSAs do not externally control price or access to providers—they influence demand. MSAs reduce the growth in medical spending by empowering the patient in both clinical and economic decision making. Tightly operated managed care health plans and provider organizations depend mostly on controlling supply of service.
Provider profiles—establishing economic credentials of medical decision makers and rigid utilization review—are common methods employed to hold down costs.7Capitation based reimbursement and strong provider risk-sharing mechanisms are also commonplace. None of these actively includes the patient in deciding what and how much health care he needs, desires or is willing to pay. Neither Medicare, nor any other federally subsidized programs fare any better in providing patient-focused incentives to control spending. Precious few in the health care industry understand and place the patient at the center of health care transactions.8
"Precious few in the health
0 likes
ummm.
sounds like a great idea rainstorm. A medicial savings account is the perfect solution. What does the government do??? Probably nothing. A medical savings account is the answer!
We are the voices, the people are the voices. More competition sounds better than your government controlling it, an ailing government wouldn't ya think?
The people are the voices, not the government.
Jim
We are the voices, the people are the voices. More competition sounds better than your government controlling it, an ailing government wouldn't ya think?
The people are the voices, not the government.
Jim
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests