Sunday, January 31, 2016
This is worth considering. I know I have seen a preponderance of anti-health care reform articles listed on news sites like MSN.com and YAHOO.com. Sometimes the numbers of such articles listed makes me feel like I'm watching all the drug ads during the 5:30 national news.
Saturday, January 30, 2016
I don't agree with his suggestions for solutions but I do really appreciate his points, often forgotten or not mentioned, about the unfairness of employer based insurance. My cost should be based on my income (from all sources) and my coverage should NOT be based on what job I have.
Providers would love to have a simpler, fairer, more uniform payment rates. Government is by far the biggest single payment source but they can't even get on the same page.
Friday, January 29, 2016
Thursday, January 28, 2016
a majority of Americans favor a national health program, many in the
policy and political communities express a preference for incrementally
building on the existing multi-payer system, as modified by the
Affordable Care Act (ACA). Although 64 percent of our heath system is
already funded through our taxes, our government gives control of much
of our total spending to the private sector, such as the private
insurance companies. Thus the private sector is the source of much of
the incremental changes that are taking place. Now that Fidelity
Investments is entering the scene, what incremental change are they
offering that will benefit patients?
are introducing Fidelity Health Marketplace - similar to the government
insurance exchanges under ACA except that they are privately owned and
operated. Since they are targeted at small businesses, they are an
additional intermediary that increases administrative complexity and
expenses. That adds to the cost of the insurance, so that does not
benefit the patient.
purchased with a defined contribution from the employer. Because the
contribution is fixed, more of the premium costs are shifted to the
employee, especially over time. Either the employee must contribute more
to the premium, or choose a plan with fewer benefits, which then
increases financial exposure in the event of medical need. That does not
benefit the patient.
offers health savings accounts - savings accounts that are linked with
high deductible health plans and can be used to pay the deductibles and
other cost sharing. Since high deductible plans have lower premiums
which are less likely to exceed the defined contribution, Fidelity will
no doubt heavily market the plans which are linked to their own health
savings accounts. Since employers would use the Fidelity Marketplace to
reduce their own health benefit spending, by offering a defined
contribution, it is likely that employees will have difficulties keeping
their health savings accounts funded. Higher deductibles linked to an
empty savings accounts certainly does not benefit the patient.
If an employee or family member has an expensive chronic disorder then
a more comprehensive plan should be selected to mitigate the higher
costs. But with the smaller defined contribution, the portion of the
premium that the employee must pay is significantly greater, and often
unaffordable. That does not benefit the patient.
sector solutions in health care financing, including insurers and other
fiscal intermediaries, are designed primarily to benefit the industry,
usually at a cost to the patient, though often opaque and thus
deceptive. Public sector solutions, such as Medicare and Medicaid, are
designed to benefit the patient. But even there the private sector has
moved in with their private Medicare Advantage plans and their private
Medicaid managed care programs, to the detriment of patients and
incremental invasion of our already dysfunctional health care financing
system can we take? The next time you hear a politician say that we need
to build on the system we have through incremental steps, do not remain
silent. Say something. Yell, if necessary. Scream, if that’s what it
takes. But do not let them con us out of the national health program
that a clear majority of us want.
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Saturday, January 23, 2016
Debating 'Medicare for All' System Is Good for Nation's Health, say Doctors | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
Thursday, January 21, 2016
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Anatomy of Health Care Messaging Part 3: How an Orwellian Word Invented by Insurance Bureaucrats Can Turn the Health Care Debate - Citizen Action of Wisconsin
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
Sunday, January 17, 2016
Friday, January 15, 2016
Thursday, January 14, 2016
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Monday, January 11, 2016
more study that shows that far too many individuals who need health care
still face excessive financial burdens in spite of being insured.
Instead of merely trying to tweak our dysfunctional system, we should go
ahead and replace it with one that works - a single payer national
We need laws that outlaw, or greatly limit, what can be spent on lobbying.
Obama administration's proposed insurance reforms incite industry backlash - Modern Healthcare Modern Healthcare business news, research, data and events
One simple statement shows people where the insurance companies stand -- they
do not like a requirement that "....all plan networks would have to
include hospitals and doctors within certain travel times or distances
Sunday, January 10, 2016
Saturday, January 9, 2016
Created with NationBuilder, software for leaders.
Wednesday, January 6, 2016
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
I quit getting this kind of "extra" cancer coverage years ago when I started to think of it as a rip-off. I remember being bothered by the fact that my employer allowed only the one plan to bug me about buying their policy and having it on my payroll deduction like my normal health insurance.
Sunday, January 3, 2016
Interesting take on how MCOs are ripping us off.
12/31/15 Mpls. Trib.