From: notsaying@127.0.0.1   
      
   On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 00:45:04 GMT, Bob  wrote:   
      
   > On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-5, Questor wrote:   
   >   
   >> After nurses, doctors and other groups of medical professionals, by   
   >> far the two largest departments in the system -- dozens of employees   
   >> -- were the ones dedicated to the recording, coding, transmission,   
   >> accounting, and billing for every action taken on behalf of a   
   >> patient. It's a very complicated and byzantine system, and it exists   
   >> in large part only to determine who pays how much for what. Apart   
   >> from keeping a record of treatments administered, it does not   
   >> contribute to patient care.   
   >   
   >> Why does the U.S. spend one-sixth of its GDP -- two to three times   
   >> that of other industrialized nations -- and still has worse health   
   >> outcomes and doesn't even have universal coverage for all its   
   >> citizens? In an over-simplified nutshell, it is because in America we   
   >> spend our money on health *insurance*, not health *care*.   
   >   
   >> Insurance companies generally do not provide patient care. They do   
   >> not see patients, conduct tests, or perform operations. They are   
   >> middle-men, inserted into the health system between the payers   
   >> (employers, government, individuals) and the care providers (medical   
   >> professionals). Absent strong government regulation in the U.S., they   
   >> have continued to siphon off more and more of the dollars meant for   
   >> health care and used it to support their own bureaucratic structure.   
   >>   
   >> I'm not wedded to single-payer as a solution, since there are   
   >> examples of industrialized countries where their multiple-payer   
   >> system is effective. (It still requires strong government   
   >> regulation.) But single-payer does seem like the obvious system to   
   >> simplify health insurance. The problem, and the resistance, comes   
   >> from the thousands of clerical workers, medical analysts, etc. who   
   >> work at insurance companies and the hospitals. Most of them would no   
   >> longer be needed.   
   >   
   > What makes you think they wouldn't?  No matter who does the paying,   
   > there'd be a need to control costs by paying for certain cases and not   
   > others.  That's going to require the same people to look at each   
   > service and each potential service and decide whether it is/was needed   
   > badly enough, as against whatever policy is adopted.  Nobody's ever   
   > going to pay unquestioningly for everything, and people are going to   
   > push up against the limits of whatever policy is adopted.  It can   
   > never be reduced to a simple no-judgment formula, because medicine   
   > always involves judgment.  Nor can you let the person getting paid   
   > have the last say as to that judgment.   
   >   
   > Bob in Andover   
   >   
   You could look at other countries, those with an actual health service,   
   and learn from them.   
      
      
      
   --   
   Bah, and indeed, Humbug.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)