 |
|
Public Affairs coverage from our award-winning staff |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Kirk Pushes For Alternative Health Care Plan
Produced by Susie An on Monday, August 03, 2009
|
|
File Photo: Mark Kirk (Tony Arnold/WBEZ) |
Illinois U.S. Representative Mark Kirk is pushing for an alternative health care plan.
Republican Congressman and U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kirk says he disapproves of House Democrats' health care legislation. He says the bill fails to tackle the high cost of health care. Kirk says the trillion dollar plan would likely impose new taxes on small businesses and force cuts in Medicare.
KIRK: The House bill is a very partisan bill at extraordinary expense, complication. And it's the bi-partisan feeling is on the opposition to this bill, not in favor of it.
Kirk calls his proposal a centrist bill that would cut health care costs while covering the uninsured. The congressman says his plan is a bi-partisan measure, but he says no Democrats have signed on to it yet.
Last month, the American Medical Association came out in support of the House Democrats' health care plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hsr0601, other // Wednesday, August 05, 2009 @ 11:14 AM
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came after the CBO had previously pointed out this health care reform wouldn't work without 'fundamental' change in the out of date system.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
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 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 !
|
|
hsr0601, other // Wednesday, August 05, 2009 @ 11:16 AM
-Some say we don't have faith in government, others say, we will be forced out.-
-No Tax, No Saving, That means No Way To Reform.-
What kind of music should this reform dance to ?
U.S. health care consumers are usually one step removed from the cost because they are covered by employer-provided insurance, which might operate as a formula for a slow pace of transfer, along with the code of mandate.
And I share the opinion that unlike the insurer-friendly, baseless senate plan by 'some' members, only a 'strong' public option by this new administration 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.
All free states as a nation / one body, and a fundamental human right, cover all their people. The debate about a human right, or public policy
in America is puzzling them now.
|
|
|
|
|