We can’t control what others do and we can’t stop misfortune from striking. But we can control our own actions. Those who are financially prudent will most likely enjoy success, even if events don’t always go their way.
This is (wrong and naive) radical conservative thinking about obtaining and paying for health care.
I’m trying to think of the right word to describe the following. The only thing I can come up with is stupid. It’s gibberish.
For example, “returning control of health care dollars to patients making decisions with their providers about their health care treatments and services.” On whose blank check will decision-making be conducted?
You can tell immediately when you read that health care is no exception to competition for services and prices that whomever wrote has no idea what they are talking about. Health care is very different.
Goal #2: Empowering Patient Choices and Provider Autonomy.
Health care is a very big exception‼️
Basic economics holds that costs tend to decrease and quality and options tend to increase when there is robust and free competition in the provision of goods and services. Health care is no exception. Health care reform should be patient-centered and market-based and should empower individuals to control their health care–related dollars and decisions.
Of course, providers who deliver health care also need the freedom to address the unique needs of their patients. States should be the primary regulators of the medical profession, and the federal government should not restrict providers’ ability to discharge their responsibilities or limit their ability to innovate through government pricing controls or irrational Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement schemes.
Finally, America’s broken insurance system, run largely through confusing provider networks and third-party payers (employers), induces overconsumption of health care, limits consumer shopping, and hides true costs from patients. The federal government should focus reform on reducing burdens of regulatory compliance, unleashing innovation in health care delivery, ceasing interference in the daily lives of patients and providers, allowing alternative insurance coverage options, and returning control of health care dollars to patients making decisions with their providers about their health care treatments and services.
What does it all mean? I have no idea. “ (federal government) interference in the daily lives of patients and providers” what are they talking about?”
Here is a question for you. Does the entity actually paying for health care – employer, insurance company, government agency (taxpayers) have a right to participate in how that money is spent?
The government and politicians should absolutely not be dictating what is covered by insurance. Medical standards of care should be dictated by evidence based guidelines. For instance, denying women safe abortions solely for political/religious reasons is misguided. From a practical point of view, it will increase costs in the long-run, cause maternal mortality/morbidity and land more women on government assistance. Why is there no law that makes paternity testing for the child the woman is forced to birth and prison time for failure to pay child support? Otherwise we will be paying for all these expenses with our taxes.
It is a conundrum, to be sure. Does the entity actually paying have a say in how the money is spent? If you phrase it that way, then it’s their money and they can call all the shots. If you consider that it is part of the employee compensation, then the employee should call the shots. In the case of Medicare or Medicaid I suppose you could say we are entitled to what anyone else is getting and no more. That would be my simple take on it. But shouldn’t the alleged professional ( our doc) in this instance be the one to listen to and if the payer has an alleged professional on their end (another doc) who disagrees, they can duke it out. I’m referring to what would be covered by insurance during the course of the year. Isn’t this all ultimately about what will be covered by insurance and when and where?
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
The government and politicians should absolutely not be dictating what is covered by insurance. Medical standards of care should be dictated by evidence based guidelines. For instance, denying women safe abortions solely for political/religious reasons is misguided. From a practical point of view, it will increase costs in the long-run, cause maternal mortality/morbidity and land more women on government assistance. Why is there no law that makes paternity testing for the child the woman is forced to birth and prison time for failure to pay child support? Otherwise we will be paying for all these expenses with our taxes.
LikeLike
It is a conundrum, to be sure. Does the entity actually paying have a say in how the money is spent? If you phrase it that way, then it’s their money and they can call all the shots. If you consider that it is part of the employee compensation, then the employee should call the shots. In the case of Medicare or Medicaid I suppose you could say we are entitled to what anyone else is getting and no more. That would be my simple take on it.
But shouldn’t the alleged professional ( our doc) in this instance be the one to listen to and if the payer has an alleged professional on their end (another doc) who disagrees, they can duke it out. I’m referring to what would be covered by insurance during the course of the year. Isn’t this all ultimately about what will be covered by insurance and when and where?
LikeLike