[Ratcliff] Why Health Care Reform Now

Heh... Non-Partisan. Do we get someone from the Conservative Side to post a rebuttal as well?

Otherwise, I'm writing it off.

No Patient Left Behind :

Part 1.

According to the scoring of CBO on the prevention & wellness program, all fitness centers around the world should close down immediately and all media have to end reporting health tips about prevention.

Immune System & Levee System :

All of the excellent health systems seem to have one thing in common, a expansive, systematic preventative program requiring immense investments. I think a prevention system works as a 'levee' built against flood by the government, similarly, it also needs non-profit investments from the government 'on a large scale'.

This might offer us the clue of why all of the free states have public insurance policy in place.

It won't be easy to draw some specific numbers on the economic effect of the 'levee' , but the flood measure lacking a stable 'levee' would be a house on sand, as the too high level of 'preventable' chronic diseases in America shows.

At present, about 75 percent of each health dollar goes to treating chronic conditions.
When tests reveal patients are at risk of a chronic disease, physicians have no benefit to help them make necessary changes to stay healthy. Rather, the system today is designed around treating patients once they become sick.

If current health care system could shift a small percentage of total spending into programs that help prevent people from getting sick in the first place, in combination with the KEY 'pay for OUTCOME' reimbursement reform based on IT SYSTEM, it would dramatically reduce the overall cost of care.

Thankfully, the health care reform bill currently before Congress makes several key investments in preventive care, and those pieces of the PUBLIC OPTION must be maintained.

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.", said Benjamin Franklin , and 'Early Detection' goes beyond monetary value as we see the recent case.

As far as I'm concerned, the congress affected by the special interests has impeded the budget request for prevention program in Medicare & Medicaid. Let's imagine the costs and invaluable lives following the levee breach.

Time is ripe for CHANGE !

To see the forest, get a big picture, massive job creation, promising stem cell research, several times more economic effects of 'from bed to work' , relief on the mental stress and keep-eating-habit caused by deep-seated financial anxiety, which are the epicenter of a number of different diseases, and beyond lie ahead, to be sure.

Part 2.

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.

(Please visit http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=820455&catid=391 for detailed infos).

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
revenue-neutral.

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 risk-carrying
procedures.

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.

Part 4.

-Scare tactics from verbal to physical-

1. 'Takeover and Rationing Cliche' lost ground, as this spoiled menu did the opposite for too long.

Like freedom of press, Public Well-being as a right, a nation took root in every free nation as a natural part of life.
The debate about it is most likely to puzzle people all around the free states. And with so many people uninsured
or underinsured, the humanitarian foreign aid ahead will confuse them, too.

2. Arbitrary Market Theory, Not Fair Market Theory, should not apply to a fundamental human right.

This last spring, due to the demand decrease, the peak fuel price came down below $40 per barrel, though, the
'Similar' insurance premiums keep on rising, accordingly the inaction could bankrupt family, business, and
government 'BEYOND this recession' , as all across the spectrum agree.

Basically, as demand diminish, the price tends to reflect it, nonetheless, the insurers that formed a cartel through
consolidation have replenished the loss by exercising inhumane malpractices involving denying, capping, rapid
premium increase and the like. And this runaway premium ended up in the collapse of middle
class ranging from finance to mental health, alongside the peak fuel price and fast-growing mortgage rate, as all of
us know.
They could be cited as an objective for anti-trust or anti-corruption.

3. The Deficit-sensitive groups have a distinctive common ground, they all have a Deficit-driven background out of
question. Therefore, I'd say they have nothing to say about deficit unless they come up with a legitimate plan.

4. These Deficit-sensitive and yet Deficit-driven allies struggle to ignore the positive effects involving massive job creation,
promising stem cell research, several times more economic effects of 'from bed to work' , relief on the mental
stress and keep-eating-habit caused by the deep-seated financial anxiety, which are the epicenter of a number of
different diseases, and beyond, as in the case of sustainable energy investments & the following savings.

5. To see the forest, get a big picture, it might be a way to go.
German firms on Monday 13 July launched a renewable energy project designed to provide European households
with electricity from the Sahara.
Utilities giants RWE and E.ON, electro-engineering group Siemens and Deutsche Bank are among the dozen
companies involved in the 400- billion-euro (552-billion US-Dollar) Desertec Industrial Initiative Dii.
Using high voltage direct current transmission lines, the energy could then be transferred to Europe where it could
supply 15 per cent of the continent's electricity needs.


Thank You !

You're conservative, Iron. Rebut at will.

This is obviously an opinion piece, people. There's a conversation to be had regarding health care in this country. Surely we can agree that the system we have now doesn't work for a large percentage of the population (heavily skewed toward the poor and minorites), and that we spend more of our GDP on health care yet have poorer health outcomes (life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.) than most other industrialized nations.

Is keeping health care under private, for-profit control the best we can do?

Being progressive doesn't make you partisan, BTW. There are moderate to conservative Democrats (e.g. the Blue Dog coalition), just like there are moderate Republicans. I wouldn't go as far as to say there are liberal Republicans, though, (that may be too antithetical).

I'm a conservative who believes that the insurance companies have a HUGE part of the blame here...I think everything that folk say are bad about them is true. My HSA went up 25% in ONE YEAR...the only thing the clown I talked to told me was "the group" I "came in" with must have had a bunch of claims (my family had no claims). That is so stupid, I didn't even bother responding. Can anyone say auto insurance?? Why is my family's rates tied to anyone else.

That having been said, having more government involvement in a solution won't work. I heard someone say 8-10 years ago that there wouldn't be a health care crisis were it not for obesity, AID's, and diabetes. Diet driven lifestyle diabetes and obesity are problems we can solve and save billions upon billions by simply asking the people who want some sort of government backstop to work to stay healthy. I think then the number of people who really have issues that need help could become manageable.

It's a tough, tough, issue and I don't think the true solution is even being discussed out there today.

I agree health insurance is high but I don't see that as the main problem, it's the cost of the healthcare and drugs.

Next time you have to go to the hospital for anything ask for an itemized bill and you will see just how bad we are getting screwed. I have been keeping up with this the last 6 years during my cancer treatments.

2 Tylenol tablets $25 and you can buy 250 tablets at the drug store for $15, a box of rubber gloves the nurse uses 2 pairs out of, they charge you $20 for it and keep it, they use same box for other patients charge them the same thing and the box didn't cost but $10 to start with. They are making $1200 dollar off a box of gloves!

Medicines, that the biggest rip off there ever was, one of my meds is just a tablet it's drug that was developed in the 50's for something totally unrelated to cancer they started giving it to people in the last 10yrs for cancer and it works for it. All the research is done on it, no cost in developing it, no production set cost, that was done 50yrs ago. So tell me why 28 tablets cost over $18,000 dollars?

There is a problem of people not having insurance but something has to be done about the cost of health care itself and nothing is. All the insurance in the world isn't going to help anyone when it caps out from one visit to the hospital and that's what is going to happen.

Conservatives are dominating the health-care conversation right now in Mississippi, Iron. Let's use this piece to at least have a real conversation about it. Debate at will.

Good point Bubba, that's an area where all can agree. Technology exists to solve those problems today in billing and reporting AND charges!

My conservative brother, who is just a little to the right of Rush Limbaugh, is even in favor Obama's health care reform. It is the *only* thing that Obama is trying to do that he agrees with! And the funny thing is, as a financial planner, he *sells* health insurance! But he can't get it because he was turned down once for having high cholesterol and high blood pressure- both of which are treatable.

I honestly don't know why anyone would object to this- maybe if people took time to read the bill instead of storming town hall meetings, we might be able to get something passed...

The people are being scared away from reform by the talking heads on TV and radio and the lies about it are being bought and paid for by the health insurance lobby that doesn't want reform. The right-wing talk show hosts are adding in things like "socialized medicine" and other incindiary terms to oppose any and everything Obama. At the same time, where is the Republican health care plan? Oh, there is none; they're being paid (and the blue dog Democrats too) to serve the interests of the health care lobby.

I think we should look at what other countries are doing and have done, and develop a plan accordingly. I watched this Frontline story today on the recommendation of one of my volunteers for my job (we are going to talk to Sen. Wicker tomorrow about this very thing), and it really gives you a good sense of what other countries are doing and how some of their ideas might work for us. Here is the link:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

Granted, I agree with Hayes that some of the countries visited in the Frontline special (Japan, Taiwan, etc.) eat healthier and live healthier than we do, but overall their healthcare systems still work better than ours.

I also believe that doctors, hospitals, etc. should be paid fairly, but I still think that could be achieved without patients paying $1200 for a box of latex gloves.

I think that we should look at not backing the plan any more- read it and weep:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_33/b4143034820260.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5

That is what the big rush with this was- they wanted to try and pass it before the insurance companies got their hands on it. Well, it's too late now...

I can't really comment on the health care bill because I really don't know what is in it. People talk about socialized medicine but medicine is already socialized. The government already controls what doctors and hospitals are paid. Its interesting in that Rico linked to an article about United, and they are the largest insurance agency mainly because they tend to charge employers lower rates for coverage. They do this by setting lower fees for doctors and hospitals. One of the interesting features of the Obama plan is the government insurance option, what I'd like to know is what they propose as a fee structure to know how this will impact the health industry. If its like Medicaid, which pays less than Medicare, then many providers won't participate in it, which will drive newly insured patients into the emergency rooms for care, making the ER situation even worse than it is now. Lots of questions about this bill for me, and I don't see many specifics being talked about. The current system is very broken however, so the positives of having some sort of system overhaul could possibly outweight the negatives, but we need specifics about the bill not all the generalities I keep seeing.

SARAH PALIN suppose to be a christian but she is lying about Obama's healthcare plan, saying her son Trig will be denied medical attention and obama will have a death panel. If some late show host start talking about Trig she will cry VICTIM, but why bring him up in a lie. Theres a special place in hell for Palin because God dont like Christians who cause other people to fall using his name. What a fake like the rest of the conservative christians. How you gonna hate a black president in your heart but say you going to heaven.

I can't talk intelligently about the health care plan because I've had my head under a baby's a$$ for the past eight weeks but I do know that I got my hospital bill in and it cost TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS to have a baby these days.

Just sayin'. TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS? She doesn't pee gold or have a diamond encrusted head, people. Thank God the hospital didn't have to provide the vagina.

If President Obama's Health Care Plan is so wrong, why isn't an intelligent debate allowed, rather than all of the heckling, outbursts, drowing out, yelling and just plain sickening stupid and ignorant behavior? I watched the MS rally. It was sad watching people fight against a system that is designed to help some of the very people speaking out against it. A lot of the people there were Medicaid and Medicare recipients; yet, they do not "trust the government."

And Lori, it's my understanding that one of the bills under consideration wouldn't even cover pregnancy-related charges because labor and delivery is considered "elective", e.g. I didn't have to have three kids if I didn't want to, so I should pay all those costs out of pocket.

Republicans and the corporate lobby are very good at getting people to go against their own personal interests to feed corporate greed. Couple that with the same right-wing talking points on talk radio and Fox News daily, you have a segment of the population who will believe anything you tell them.

Democrats are very good at getting people to go against their own personal interests. Couple that with the same left-wing talking points in newspapers and MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC and Even National Public Radio and the Associated Press, you have a segment of the population who will believe anything you tell them.


Fixed it for ya, GE.

Iron, that's not useful.

How about you actually say something intelligent about the subject of health care and contribute to the conversation instead of stopping it.

If I can stop this massive mistake, I'll gladly keep up my efforts. I believe that exchanging the system we have now with a system Britain, Canada and other socialized medicine countries loathe already will be devastating to our country. If you're so worried about the poor and uninsured, why not reform/shore up medicare/medicaid? Why mandate the abolition of private systems and mandatory enrollment in public systems?

More important: how are you going to pay for all this when tax receipts are down yet again compared to last year?

A public plan is fine with me, I could care less but what the public needs to watch is what sort of cost containment controls are placed. If limits on balance billing are placed as is currently done with Medicare, then its probable many physicians will opt out altogether, making care harder to recieve assuming many small companies will let their employees use the public plan. For instance, many specialsts will not take Medicaid, so for a patient to see a specialist, it means a referral to UMC, which can take up to 3 to 6 months. Of course these patients can always pony up the cash to see a physician of their choice, but its cash up front and you certainly hope people going to the public plan won't be faced with that choice given that they are paying premiums.

The devil is in the details...

Why do you people keep using Britain and Canada for an example? Who the heck wants a system like theirs- although prescriptions do cost about a tenth as much in Canada.

We should try to have the best health care on earth; better than France even- after all we are already paying for it.

Iron, the cost of the private insurance / pharmaceutical system you advocate has risen twice as fast as inflation, while at the same time cutting services and denying coverage to policy holders.

The National Coalition for Health Care states, "Although nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens."

And this: "Since 1999, employment-based health insurance premiums have increased 120 percent, compared to cumulative inflation of 44 percent and cumulative wage growth of 29 percent during the same period."

Americans have lower life expectancies and higher infant mortality rates than most industrialized nations. Yet we spend more of our GDP (17 percent in '08, $2.4 TRILLION in 2007, or $7900 per person) on health care than other industrialized countries.

And here's another little gem: A recent study by Harvard University researchers found that the average out-of-pocket medical debt for those who filed for bankruptcy was $12,000. The study noted that 68 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. In addition, the study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses. Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem.

Also, just because conservatives have found people dissatisfied with social medicine in the countries you cite, that doesn't mean everyone "loathes" their system. It's simply too handily black & white. Every system has its bad and good points.

The American system of privatized health care doesn't work at all for huge numbers of Americans, skewed heavily toward children, the poor and minorities. Saying that reforming health care is a "massive mistake" and will be "devastating for our country," is sensationalistic at best. At worst, it's simply repeating conservative talking points on the issue.

Now I could be wrong and I am sure someone will correct me if I am but isn't the public option to compete with private insurers off the table? The plan currently being proposed only requires private insurance to enroll anyone who wants it, I believe. So it will be similar to mandatory car insurance only with employers and the government picking up the bill?

Of course the government doesn't have any money other than what it gets from you and me so ultimately we end up paying for it. Iron's question is a valid one. How will this be paid for? Tax receipts are down and the national debt is pretty close to GDP. Are we to borrow more money? Raise taxes? Does anyone really believe that we will see any cost savings that the President used to talk about so much?

I believe that it is very possible- why wouldn't it be?

WMartin, the public option is not off the table according to this New York Times piece that provides a half-dozen competing opinions.

Regarding who pays, it seems fairly clear to me that we're already paying—we're just paying the wrong entities.

We're paying insurance companies to make lots of profit—an increase of more than 1000 percent from 2002 to 2006 according to some sources. We're paying pharmaceutical company advertising bills (the only country that allows them to advertise, BTW) which are twice as high as their research bills, according to Science Daily.

We're paying for chronic care and end of life care (about 75 percent of health care expenditures according to the CDC) instead of prophylactic care and wellness initiatives like smoking cessation and weight-loss programs.

This Kaiser Family Foundation Web site has a pretty thorough overview of what we're paying for and why. Also, see the New America Foundation report "The Cost of Doing Nothing" for some eye-popping numbers that we're already paying and will continue to pay if we don't enact reform.

For some hard numbers on insurance coverage on prenatal, maternity, and L&D;care, here are some stats for costs and how much is covered by insurance.
http://www.marchofdimes.com/advocacy

a PDF
http://www.marchofdimes.com/files/MOD_maternity_fact_sheet_final_(2).pdf

Let's Respect others and discussion, not shouting and disruption.
'What's in it' ? or 'shouting and disruption', which one is the reason of slow-down ?

Part 1.

The runaway premium similar to the peak fuel price last year and left so many folks in despair insists on staying the course with the attitude 'unchanged', clearly this trend could bankrupt individual, business, and government. Now the government subsequently is tasked with these two main assignments, first, to address premium inflation, second, to expand coverage to all in urgent need.
In order to cover all and not to add to the deficit, the public option can not set the same rates of private market, rather, it needs to have the function to keep it in check in terms of inflation, too. Unfortunately, this 'unavoidable' direction is aggressively being accused by the runaway premium, citing government 'take-over' .
Under the circumstances the energy bill to determine human future and the other major issues are presently piled up, who wants to waste time making enemies ?, which also does not benefit the forthcoming election.
On the other hand, to make things worse, critics say the savings from the proposed public option is not enough to meet the revenue goal. Furthermore, on another hand, some say 'hands off' . Where do these No tax, No saving and the like intend to force this reform to go ? The conclusion by 'just-say-no' is no doubt. Ironically, the Deficit-sensitive groups have a distinctive common ground, they all have a Deficit-driven background out of question.

Part 2.

Of all choices, the best thing would be savings through efficiency. Considering the wasteful structure, the highest premium in the world (Costing over twice as much as every other county), and the most expensive part of medicare, with the prevention / wellness program in place, an American style innovation, an 'outcome'-based payment founded upon IT system may be enough to save more than 50 billions per year (500 / decade), both 'improving quality' and removing the unnecessary procedures (as pay is dependent on patient's outcome). Young folks and advocates need to explain the notion of a pay for outcome agreement to the elderly misled by the disinformation.
Part 3.

Unlike private market, this public option includes large-scale investments, these large investments still does not get the fair score, instead seem to become a source of acute conflict, even so, this common sense-based program needs to develop further as early detection goes beyond monetary value.

In short, with the heartbreaking tears in mind (Nearly 11 Million Cancer Patients Without Health Insurance), private market also needs change and should join together to complete this reform , as promised, if not, the runaway premium only has itself to blame. Job-based coverage (indirect payment), mandate code, and ample capital might be favorable to the private market. And It can be said that fair competition starts with fair market value.
Over time, supposedly, the public plan will concentrate more on basic, primary cares, and the private insurers will provide their clients with differentiated services.

Thank You !

Part 1.

Problems:

1. No systematic, expansive Prevention & Wellness Program.

According to the scoring of CBO on the prevention & wellness program, all fitness centers around the world should close down immediately and all media have to end reporting health tips about prevention. Rather, all of the excellent health systems seem to have one feature in common, an expansive, systematic preventative program requiring immense investments.

I think a prevention system works as a 'levee' built against flood by the government, similarly, it also needs non-profit investments from the government 'on a large scale'. This might offer us one clue of why all of the free states have public insurance policy in place.

Surprisingly enough, the system today is designed around treating patients once they become sick. As far as I'm concerned, the congress affected by the special interests has turned down the budget request for prevention program in Medicare & Medicaid, which are the most expensive parts of the health program. Let's imagine the astronomical costs and invaluable lives following the levee breach.

2. A pay for each service / volume compensation, & No E-Medical Record.

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, in return, it could lessen the tragic, prohibitive ER cares. Medical errors ( No e-Medical Record ) & lawsuits, more profits motive, and indirect payments from employers etc would account for it.

Supposedly, 'a pay for each service / volume' compensation seems to leave the medical institutes unequipped with the essential IT system. To understand its importance, If we imagine the cost difference between the previous and current system in financial institutes, the magnitude of cost-savings and the mess in health care system can be easily explained.

3. Premium Inflation.

This last spring, due to the demand decrease, the peak fuel price came down below $40 per barrel, though, the 'Similar' insurance premiums keep on rising, accordingly the inaction could bankrupt family, business, and government 'BEYOND this recession' , as all across the spectrum agree.

Insurance premiums have nothing to do with the law of demand & supply and the free / fair market concept. Basically, as demand diminishes, the price tends to reflect it, nonetheless, the insurers that formed a cartel through consolidation have replenished the loss by exercising inhumane malpractices involving denying, capping, cherry-picking, rationing, rapid premium increase and the like. And this runaway premium ended up in the collapse of middle class ranging ' from finance to mental health' , alongside the peak fuel price and fast-growing mortgage rate, as all of us know. Thereby they could be cited as an objective for anti-trust or anti-corruption. If the public plan sets the same rate of the insurers, it will be another headache.

Ironically, the Deficit-sensitive groups have a distinctive common ground, they all have a Deficit-driven background out of question. Therefore, I'd say they have nothing to say about deficit unless they are free from the sponsors. And the spoiled menu, 'Takeover and Rationing Cliche' is still marching for bankruptcy, as opposed to its motto.

4. 'Work or Break' health system with no brake or safety system.

Just like marriage, economy also undergoes up and down, however, economic downturn is not reflected in the employment-based system. The rising mental stress or illness & 'keep eating habit' , which are the epicenter of a number of different diseases,might be traced to this insecure system and exorbitant premiums.

Part 2.

The Public Plan:

1. Thankfully, the health care reform bill currently before Congress makes several key investments including more primary care doctors in preventive care, and those pieces
of the public plan must be maintained .

2. The pay for 'Outcome' pack is most likely to expedite the introduction of Health Care IT SYSTEM, and it will help doctors focus on their patients.

3. The 'innovative' idea of a 'pay for value / outcome' pack will allow for 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 risk-carrying
procedures.
Young folks and advocates need to explain the notion of a pay for outcome agreement to the elderly misled by the
disinformation.


4. 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 decrease the
crushing lawsuits and deter the excuse for unnecessary cares to make fortunes.


5. The creative 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.

6. This New 'Payment Reform' could accelerate the progress in medical science, in return, it will save more cash.
And this idea will be able to bring 'competition' to the private market, as a result, it can contribute to mitigating premium inflation.

7. 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 revenue-neutral.
(Please visit http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=820455&catid=391 for detailed infos).

8. Through clinic's network, users of its health-care services can keep up with their health information and information for family members, and receive health guidance and recommendations from clinic that is optimized for each person.
The system also allows patients to upload information from home-health devices such as blood glucose monitors and digital scales. Patients can authorize whether they want to share their health information with doctors or other caregivers, and those caregivers can provide health-care and general wellness recommendations based on the information patients provide.


9. In case the health care reform provides the general public with peace of mind, the rising mental stress, obesity caused by the insecure system and
exorbitant premiums may bend the curve surprisingly.


10. Clearly, the positive impacts involving massive job creation, promising stem cell research, several times more economic effects of 'from bed to work' lie ahead, these will lead to economic recovery.

Part 3.

Conclusion ;

1. The last thing to expect is rallying for premium inflation, JUST SAYING NO.

2. Over time, supposedly, the public plan will concentrate more on basic, primary cares, and the private insurers will provide their clients with differentiated services.

3. With the Prevention & Wellness Program as a stable levee in place, the promising pay for value/ outcome reimbursement reform based on IT system could clear the way for revenue-neutral. Some say the installation of IT network will take time, but once this new outcome-based payment system is implemented, the hospitals reluctant to adopt it will most likely rush to introduce it.

4. The final hurdle looks like a scoring issue surrounding the savings on Prevention & Wellness Program, but I'd like to say
health clubs and media reports on prevention tips must be maintained.

5. People would be entitled to various services whether you are employed, unemployed or self-employed, homeless or housed, young or old, chronically ill or mentally ill, moving from job to job or from town to town or from state to state.

Thank You !

Making obscene amounts of money off the sick and dying is totally sick, and not the American way I have ever envisioned!

The health care 'industry' is making huge ... unbelievable ... amounts of profit at a rate which has increased exponentially, while income has remained stagnant, or gone down! Wellness of the populace is not in their interests. The more chronically ill, the better for them ... the more profit they make.

What if the fire department, or police dept., responded to calls based on their profit margin??? Single payer/not for profit is really the only civilized plan.

Please help support health care for all humans ... and animals too! It is the right thing to do for a compassionate nation, and at a certain level critical for our own interests and national security.

We need to nip diseases in the bud, before they become pandemics, and the only way we can do that is to get all people comfortable in going to the doctor early on. We need to save money by treating the little problems before they become seriously big problems, and maybe even deadly problems for our whole planet.

Some folks whine it is all so expensive to reform health care. Well, think how incredibly expensive it could be if we don't!