From: robgood@bestweb.net   
      
   On Saturday, January 23, 2021 at 8:17:49 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   What did you think my post was informed by?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)