From: usenet@only.tnx   
      
   On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:27:24 -0800 (PST), Bob  wrote:   
   >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.   
   >>>   
   >>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?   
      
   I dunno... discarded matchbook covers you found in the street?  The backs of   
   cereal boxes?  Divinations from bird entrails?  Do tell...   
      
   --   
   You know nothing, Jon Snow.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)