July 30, 2009
-- by Dave Johnson
Just got this in an email from the National Republican Congressional Committee:
Four months...that is how long it took President Obama to pick his dog. Two weeks...that is how long Democrats want to take to pick YOUR doctor.
Think about that for a moment. Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat puppets in the House are trying to rush through their trillion dollar boondoggle in two weeks - all in an attempt to avoid public scrutiny. Because the more you know about this bill, the more you will oppose government-run healthcare.
Every dollar donated will support candidates opposed to government-run healthcare. Please fill out the form below to complete your contribution. Thank you!
There's your bipartisanship. They just lie.
Posted by Dave Johnson at July 30, 2009 10:38 AM
According to the CBS/New York Times poll, survey respondents get nervous about the low quality after the reform.
In case you are a doctor, and your pay is dependent upon your patient's outcome, you will strive to prescribe the best medicine for your patient, let alone avoiding unnecessary cares, and hope your patient will feel better as quickly as possible.
The innovative idea of 'a pay for outcome' will most likely prompt team approach and decision, as at Myo clinic, and the result is a greater likelihood of correctly diagnosing and effectively treating a patient earlier in the process.
Studies have documented that nearly one half of physician care in the United States is not based on best practices and that at least 98,000 Americans die of a 'medical error' each year.
Under the 'pay for outcome' pack, supposedly best practices as 'recommendations' would simply help them make a better decision, and the government won't still have to meddle in the final, actual decision-making process as a non-expert.
Thank You !
The 'innovative' idea of a 'pay for value / outcome' pack came after the CBO had previously pointed out this health care reform wouldn't work without 'fundamental' change in the out of date system. It is said that as much as 30 percent of all health-care spending in the U.S. -some $700 billion a year- may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not improve the health of the recipients, and this 700 billion dollars a year can cover a lot of uninsured people.
The expected Benefits of this 'innovative idea' are as follows ;
1. Meet the objective of revenue-neutral.
Supporters of the agreement say it could save the Medicare System more than $100 billion a year and 'improve'
care, that means more than $1trillian over next decade, and virtually needs no other resources including tax on the
wealthiest. Supposedly even the 'conservative' number of such savings might be able to meet the objective of
2. Quality and affordability.
If you are a physician, and your pay is dependant upon your patient's outcome, you will most likely strive to
prescribe the best medicine earlier in the process, let alone skipping the wasteful, unnecessary treatments.
3. No intervention in decision-making.
The innovative idea of 'a pay for outcome' will more likely prompt team approach and decision, as at Myo clinic.
Under the 'pay for outcome' pack, for good reason, best practices as 'recommendations' would simply help them
make a better decision, and the government won't still have to meddle in the final, actual decision-making
process as a non-expert.
4. Speed up the introduction of IT SYSTEM.
The pay for 'Outcome' pack is most likely to expedite the introduction of Health Care IT SYSTEM.
The synergy effect of the combined Health Care IT & a pay for 'outcome' system may allow the clinicians to
'correctly' diagnose and effectively treat a patient earlier in the process so that it can measurably scale back the
crushing lawsuits and deter the excuse for unnecessary cares to make fortunes.
5. Accelerate the progress in medical science, in return, it saves more cash.
6. Settle the regional disparity.
7. Reduce the emergency room visits & save immense costs.
Public health insurance plans such as Medicare and Medicaid paid for more than 40 percent of U.S. emergency
room visits in 2006, according to government figures released recently. Many experts say reducing these hospital
visits would be an important way to lower the enormous, and growing, expense of U.S. health care.
I share the opinion that unlike the insurer-friendly senate plan by 'some' members, only a strong public option will be capable of getting the premium inflation under control and saving the U.S in turbulence.
To my knowledge, a dual system tends to deliver better results than a pure single payer system. Supposedly, to be or not to be might be up to the innovations like a pay for value program, otherwise, the forthcoming start-ups may fill the void with competitive deals. The competition based on 'fair' market value would be a beauty of true capitalism, not monopoly, an objective for anti-trust.
Thank You !
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)