I asked you what high-level financial positions you held in these institutions. Additionally, I asked if you were basically a paramedic at these facilities. I also notice that you have failed to answer these questions.

*sigh*

1) Before you did this, you assumed that I had no experience in anything other than being a medic. You also insulted me, belittled me, and took a stance of arrogant posturing.

2) I never titled myself as having a "high level position." What I said was that I have experience working with healthcare finance, which you, according to your own statements, do not.

3) And I asked you what your experience was in healthcare, which you have failed to address.

Quid pro quo, guy... when was the last time you held someone's life... actual life... in your hands? Not just "financial life" or "monetary life."

When, Curt? When was the last time you worked in clinical medicine and saw the repercussions of the decisions made by well meaning CFOs who never have to work in the conditions they create?

When?

If I'm not mistaken (and I'm not) we first got off on this tangent when you claimed that it would take "TRILLIONS" of dollars to create the infrastructure necessary to reform our healthcare system--without providing a shred of substantiation for that number. You then demonstrated that you couldn't tell the difference between a calculation leading to a $300 quadrillion figure and one resulting in a $3 trillion number. Your current arguments are no more sound. The mere fact that you have applied more bandaids than I have (which seems to constitute your healthcare experience) is not, in any way, germane to this discussion of healthcare finance.

More insults, Curt? Try to stay on target...

The cost of healthcare administration alone... yes, just the admin part... reached some $290 billion/year (NEJM.) That whole system will need restructured if we switch.

The cost of healthcare liability has risen upwards of 24% per year for the past two decades, and now reaches some $500 billion. That will have to be restructured, costing more money. (CBO)

Student loans that will be defaulted when doctors and nurses can no longer make enough money to pay them back total some $1.2 trillion. (GAO.)

That's just shy of 2 trillion, and I haven't even begun to talk about new infrastructure, medications, supplies, wages, benefits...

You are unwittingly making my arguments for me. All of these figures point unquestionably to the conclusion that our healthcare system sucks and needs to be revamped in a major way. Keep it up, and I'll be able to stop posting here altogether.

More insults, Curt? Try to stay on target...

The cost of healthcare administration alone... yes, just the admin part... reached some $290 billion/year (NEJM.) That whole system will need restructured if we switch.

The cost of healthcare liability has risen upwards of 24% per year for the past two decades, and now reaches some $500 billion. That will have to be restructured, costing more money. (CBO)

Student loans that will be defaulted when doctors and nurses can no longer make enough money to pay them back total some $1.2 trillion. (GAO.)

That's just shy of 2 trillion, and I haven't even begun to talk about new infrastructure, medications, supplies, wages, benefits...

Now, then, Curt.... you were just about to tell us when the last time you actually provided hands-on clinical care to a medical patient.

?

Uh huh. Been taking lessons on debate from Bob, have ya?

Translation: "I asked for facts, he gave them to me, and now I have to dodge the question and divert the discussion, in the hopes that nobody notices I've been outed as knowing nothing about healthcare."

And if I keep this up, you promise to quit posting here altogether? In that case, I've just begun.

Still waiting for you to answer the question, too.

What question? If I have ever applied a bandaid? The answer is yes. So, you and I have equal hands-on healthcare experience, more or less--so what? What in the world does that have to do with this discussion?

I find it incredible that ANYBODY needs this spelled out for them, but ok . . .

We know the situation:

Our health care costs, in many cases, are twice as much as other countries that are delivering better care to their populations. So it’s easy to see that we have a tremendous margin of error within which to work.

We know the major, root causes of the situation:

1) Lack of coverage (and preventative care) for the entire population.
2) We deliver treatment to everyone, but in the most costly manner possible – often in emergency rooms, and after diseases have progressed to the point where more complex and costly treatments are required.
3) The supply/demand balance between medical facilities and staff (supply) and patients (demand) is a bit out of kilter.
4) Failure to use our market power to negotiate favorable pricing.

There are more problems, but if we just address the above issues we can have better care at lower cost – easily.

Yes, this problem is easy, and I’ll just give you a few of the easy answers, off the top of my head.

We can dramatically change the economics of health care if we just:

1) Make preventative care available to children and the rest of the 40 million uninsured.
2) Lower the cost of supply.
3) Balance the supply/demand ratio.

We can accomplish the above by doing the following:

1) Construct preventative care clinics, free to any child, pregnant mother, or anyone on unemployment (I’m sure we could think of several more qualifying conditions that would be beneficial to include as well). Those who participate in preventative care over a period of time receive increasing insurance coverage for other types of care.
This will cost money.
2) Offer to pay the tuition costs of health care professionals in exchange for service in these clinics – 4 years of college for 4 years of service.
This will cost money.
3) Set standards for government-paid, basic insurance policies for those who work but do not receive health benefits. These policies will emphasize preventative care as a requirement for continued coverage, they will have a co-pay system for reasonable and customary treatments with the amount of the co-pay determined by the degree of participation of the patient in preventative care, and they will provide catastrophic coverage.
This will cost money.
4) Negotiate favorable pricing for all government funded services, whether prescription drugs or basic insurance policies.
Should we use the stellar performances of Medicaid and Medicare as guidelines? Have either of these programs ever ended a year where actual costs were in line with projected costs?

The above alone would ensure that all citizens have care, raise the quality of care, and reduce the cost.

Reno admits the system is broke and cost are out of hand but want no change, Curt say the system is broke, cost are out of hand and need to be fixed/changed.

Who would you vote for??

Did Reno say that? Seems like he's saying the solutions offered so far are impractical. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to get the distinction.

Yes he did say that. He did not offer one solution in his postings. He offered a number of reasons why the system is in deep s--- and not working but again, offered no solutions.

Try harder next time...

Based on the what was said between Curt and Reno...who would you vote for?

Curt,

.......do you have any actual recommendations for improving this situation, other than "do what those guys are doing."?

The only thing that big governement does well is take money and waste it.


It's gonna take a LOT of infrastructure building. That costs money. LOTS of money.

Money we don't have.

Some of Reno's solutions.

Thorne...I see why you agree with Reno. :lol:

Reno admits the system is broke and cost are out of hand but want no change, Curt say the system is broke, cost are out of hand and need to be fixed/changed.

Who would you vote for??

Are you OK with this trend?

Curt

Having beaten the healthcare horse to a bloody pulp, how about another topic?

....But since we're making the decision simple, let's put it like this:

Curt and Reno both agree that the system is broke. Curt wants to implement a system where a federal government bureaucrat makes your healthcare decisions for you (see: Schiavo) and Reno wants to leave your healthcare decisions between you and your doctor.

Which one would you vote for?

Curt,

I agree that we should look at other countries' systems to approach this problem. However, just saying do what they did seems entirely too simplistic. It might not be that hard if we didn't have to entrust our pork-driven Congress to make such changes. Especially since they have to contend with the AMA lobbyists, pharmacutical lobbyists, insurance companies and all the other groups adversely affected by a major overhaul. Your solution might work in a dictatorship, but not in our lobbying intensive form of democracy.

If our economy is really in such great shape right now, why is it increasingly true that the average American worker can no longer afford an average house in the area where they live and work? What do you think this says about our economy? Are you OK with this trend?