Navigation | ||
My WhyNot? | ||
Icon Key | ||||||||||||
The community's level of support for this idea is...
| ||||||||||||
USA Healthcare | |||||||||||||||||
To set up something approaching national health in the USA, I'd like to consider a system where all members of "My System" would be required to make a visit each quarter to one RN where they would have a blood test & so on & be coached on nutrition, life style, family history factors, and so on. The data collected would contribute to a national database (with privacy concerns addressed) which would be used to advance preventative science & techniques. Coverage would be better for those whose key tests show improvement. "Better" coverage might mean shorter waiting times, lower deductibles, or more choice in selecting specialists. Participation in this quarterly program would be available to people in other plans as well. We could change the other plans, as participation here will be proven to save money. This service would emphasize preventative techniques, and would also create better medical data "upon arrival" to the physician or specialist so their time is better spent. Hopefully all the data (including ongoing results) would quickly lead to profiling so that expert advice could be dispensed by non-experts using customized communication methods tailored to the knowledge and personality of the patient. For instance, an alcoholic *should* stop drinking, but if we review the common behaviors of this *type* of person, perhaps the best we can do is to switch to beer & take B vitamin supplements to protect key organs. Its nice to be right... but when dealing with lots of people we need to do the best *available* treatment. The expert advice would be remote, but the bedside manner be would be local. The current "western approach" relys on physicians to be the first contact & main advocate of prevention, but is not only expensive, but expert knowledge that is often misunderstood is a terrible waste. So I use improved communication and computer aided knowledge to compensate for reducing the direct use of physician time. And, of course, I start with a non-profit driven approach focused on regular prevention. The performance of each local RN would be judged based on their collection of profiles & how they improve their test results. Different situations are better served by different approaches, and each RN will be analyzed to see where & how they can achieve better results. This feedback from tests is another core principle of my idea. There are a great many other things to be worked out, but this is my semi-vague concept. If you could, please office constructive criticism and if you can add to the concept that would be most welcome. Thanks!
wizard1961, Nov 22 2008
What do you think of this idea or comment?
| |||||||||||||||||
I agree
No opinion
I disagreeUsers who liked this idea also liked: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Add your comment
HR 676 - Congress Proposal to open Medicare to Everyone
Contact your Congressman (below) to voice your desire forMedicare to be available to EVERYONE; you pay for it, whyshouldn't you have it to use if you need it?
I've NOT seen anything in the newspapers, on TV, or heardanything on the radio. I found out about this through aphysician that is lobbying for health care reform. Insurancecompanies will be lobbying against this, we the People mustlobby our Representatives to make sure they understand ourposition on health care reform. Open Medicare for EVERYONE'sbenefit.
There are almost 10,000 Health Insurance Companies in theUnited States, and that adds Billions of dollars in cost due toduplicated administrative personnel. You pay these salaries inelevated health care costs.
Physicians for healthcare reform:
http://www.pnhp.org/publications/the_national_health_insurance_bill_hr_676.php
The people not covered by Medicare are 18 to 65, the lowesthealth risk group that also pays for all of Medicare. In thelast 30 years I've only seen a doctor once. Yet I pay formedicare continuously. Recently, Medicare was changed to coveronly 80 percent of any medical bill, so a retired person on afixed income MUST still pay an insurance company to covermedical care and prescriptions. I can buy my heart medicationfor 1/10th the cost in Mexico; where does the profit go in theUS?
Given that BlueCross/BlueShield provides supplemental healthto cover everything that Medicare doesn't cover for about $100 amonth, why wouldn't we want Medicare as our National Healthcare?
Currently, it costs a family of three around $600 out of pocketand garnished income every month for partial health care.
Contact all your Representatives to support H.R. 676
To find & email your specific Congressmen and Senators:
Your State's Congressmen
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Your States' Senators
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
To email Congressman all across the United States:
http://www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm
To talk directly with the staff of your representatives:
(202) 225-3121 for the House
(202) 224-3121 for the Senate
Email this content to everyone you know, or send them thislink:
http://medicare-for-everyone.pbwiki.com
Call everyone on your cell phone contact list, and have themcall everyone on their cell phone.
We MUST be heard, but we MUST speak to be heard !!!
Your advocacy for HR676 is welcome, but did you have any thoughts on my ideas?
See my comment under Medicare for Everyone re: Canadian system.
The two common ways to decide who gets something of value are a) money and b) waiting
The USSR method was to wait in a long line to get something that anyone could afford.
When gas prices were set low by Jimmie Carter, there were gas lines.
Distributing health care is a tough situation, but lowering the price will help some -- at the expense of others. The lines at the semi-free Emergency Rooms can be deadly.
The best treatment is to use technology to make good things cost less.
We're all sold this line that regular check-ups equals 'prevention' and that it saves money. I don't believe that. I don't have anything wrong with me and I havn't been to a doctor (except for my pilot exams) in ten years.
Paying an RN--a highly qualified professional--to take blood pressure and coach people on nutrition seems like a waste to me. We all know that we're supposed to eat 2000 calories a day, with most of it fruits and vegetables, etc. People that are fat know that they eat too much. People that eat 16 ounce steaks know that it's not good for them. These are choices people make. How is a 'coach' supposed to stop these things?
Were it a car dealer pushing you to have your car 'checked' every three months, with the reward being shorter waiting times, lower deductables, etc, you'd see right through that he's just making more money because three-months checks aren't necessary. Yes, the car dealer would have 'better mechanical data', but when your car is broken, it's broken. You still have to fix it.
Keeping data on people is mostly a waste of money too. If's Joe's blood sugar is 200 today, it doesn't matter what it was last year--he still need to do something.
And of course physicians on healthcare reform recommend you see medical professional more often. Stereo salesmen think you should see stereo professionals more often, too.
Now as for junkstopshere counting the insurance companies, my take on that is I agree that insurance is too big of industry, but the number of people working there indicates that theres alot of brain power there. Where companies consolidate (take the Big Three), there are fewer brains and the sales philosphies become one. They end up marketing a one-size-fits-all product. A Calvalier is the same as a Sunfire. There's no GM-made subcompact at all. Fewer thinkers equals fewer strategies for success
hrench, you say 'we all know" but I think your perspecitve would change if you head to the poor part of a large city & sit in the E/R for 36 hours.
The testing results would be compiled & analyzed. Spotting trends & keys can only be done right with a lot of precise data over long periods.
The "coaching" would be done in conjunction with test results, and over time the ineffective coaches would leave the system.
Physicians telling patients how to help themselves is clearly a hit-or-miss proposition. Communication is an entirely different set of skills.
Plus, surgeons advocate surgery. Think about it. Each specialist is not just greedy, its just they are highly trained in one area, so that is where they go.
Finally, your not needing care for a decade argues against your having much insight here. I do agree there are many ways to do this poorly, but I was advocating doing it right. So many comments here essentially point out it would be stupid to be stupid. Well, that is true... but it would be smart to be smart.
There is no real money in prevention.