Lets build a working NHS

Mods, I am not sure where to post this, if it needs moved, then please move it.

Proposal for a real National Healthcare System:

The purpose of this thread is for ATS members to unite and see if we can come up with a realistic achievable National healthcare system. Since we are the working class, the poor and the wealthy. We are Human and we can accomplish this if we work together as a team. After all we all need healthcare. Please add ideas as we can debate and add what else is necessary for a true system. I have posted the rough outline below.
After reviewing the current proposals for a NHS, it has come to me that all of these are doomed to failure by the overpricing of our current healthcare system. Realistically how can we expect the government to pick up the tab on healthcare, with healthcare skyrocketing? What is needed is for the government to bypass the lobbyists, bypass the insurance agencies and to bypass the lawyers.
The only real means possible I see for this is to pass certain bills into the system to standardize certain procedures and policies in order to push forward government ran medical establishments. Drawing on the experience of Canada, Great Britton and France among others. In all of these countries all of their medical establishments are government or state owned. Only with state owned and state ran facilities will a true national healthcare system be able to prosper.
In order for this to work the following bills would have to be passed
1: We need to put a sever cap on malpractice suits, by regulating that we help insure confidence in the doctors. Let’s be serious this is honestly more than rocket science. A lot of doctors have to make decisions based on facts, symptoms and that gut feeling we all get.
2: We need established pay rates for medical personnel staffed at these establishments. There are a lot of doctors that do care, and are into the profession to honestly help.
3: The government needs a board not ran by politicians, but ran by real doctors to oversee the process.
4: This is where we need to be realistic. We cannot buy out every hospital in the USA. So we take baby steps.
A: We start by opening up clinics funded by both the state and federal government.
B: Any hospital that accepts funding by State or federal agencies must now accept any patient and provide the same standard healthcare that would be applied to any other patient.
5: The government should mandate that medicine and supplies provided to these clinics are to be bought at wholesale prices. Quite simply we eliminate all the middlemen.


[edit on 1-3-2008 by oubliette]

[edit on 1-3-2008 by oubliette]

6: Lifesaving medical care would be given to anyone at anytime needed by these facility’s with no prejudice, no problems. However:
A: Drug tests must be taken and passed before full medical care can be given. I know that this sounds harsh, but how are we to truly help someone who isn’t willing to honestly help themselves. That being said, anyone on illegal or harmful substances wanting help to get off them would be given the help necessary to accomplish that goal.
B: Treatment would be rendered to anyone coming into the facilities regardless of race, nationality, immigration status. Absolutely no prejudice. This one hurts me to add, to be honest due to my stance in illegal immigrants, but in all honesty we have to be fair and impartial. After all EVERYBODY deserves good healthcare.

7: Funding for this NHS would come from taxes based on smoking, alcohol portions of lottery sales, even a federal lottery could be put into place to help funding if needed. I say this as I am a smoker, and used to paying absurd taxes on everything I like, so a few cents here and there will make a difference. To be honest in a year you wouldn’t even realize what an effect it had on your wallet. We should even tax fast-food industries to help with funding.
8: We need to stress preventive maintenance, and healthy living. If we educate the masses we will eventually help each other with a healthier population, thus reducing cost

In a matter of years the hospital and insurance companies will start to feel the pinch and have to change and adapt in order to survive. That’s when they can be incorporated into the system, or done away with entirely.

Now, I know this was a lot of reading, and I do not want any arguments please. However this is being posted to see if we can truly come up with a real thriving NHS. So all input posted here will be open to debate by the masses. Some may even be voted on to be added. Others are just common sense and added automatically. So please feel free to add ideas and suggestions.

reply to post by oubliette

---

It will be a cold day in hell before the USA vested interests will allow this to happen.

USA is run by BIG BUSINESS.


Big Pharma paid $1.2 billion on buying all the congressman.

And it is all your own fault for electing crooks into office hyped by the media.

A country which LEGALLY allows 240040 to be killed by adverse side effects of the corrupt FDA approved prescriptions.

The FDA will now require super tight regulations for all vitamin and mineral manufacturers such that the slightest failure will mean shutdown and the price will be unaffordable.

This was instigated by Big Pharma to generate more sick people.

So bye bye to all the poor.

Enjoy the ride.

reply to post by esecallum

---

Its nice to see your opinion, but i would really like this to be a constructive post. I know everyone has there own opinion, and many are right as to whats wrong, I would just like people to add what they feel should be added to see what it would take to correct it. We know how corrupt capital hill is and that isnt the full issue here. So please add things you feel would correct the situation.

Thank you

If you think posting on a internet bbs is going to change,correct,anything keep on dreaming.

Maybe you and your fellow Americans should get of your big collective backside away from jerry springer on the tv and pester your corrupt congress instead in PERSON you may get to correct it...

[edit on 3-3-2008 by esecallum]

To be honest i see your comment as trying to start a flame war. I will not debate with you, for that is not what this thread is about. please feel free to add things that would be considered helpful to the thread and stick to the topic of it.

I do find it funny how you seem to want to be part of the "cause" not part of the "solution". If more people would try to be part of the solution you would be suprised what can happen. Do i expect a real NHS to be placed into effect ? NO. but i still have the hope that at sometime it will be. So that leaves me no choice but to ignore you till you can post something helpful.

thank you

[edit on 3-3-2008 by oubliette]

Why reinvent the wheel?

Whose health care plans have you studied that you liked? Which politician do you feel comes closest to the mark? That's where you should start -- with people in power who have a power base that agree with them (and may consist of groups 10-40 times bigger than ATS).

There are many organized non-political groups as well. Whose proposal comes closest to what you like?

Starting from scratch on something that has been a national priority for several decades is less efficient than beginning a dialogue about the best and worst plans out there and whose plan could be made more perfect.

I was thinking about this the other day (11 hours ofdriving gives one plenty of time to think) and actually came up with something. Mods, please forgive me, as this may cover a few posts. I'll try to keep it as brief as possible.

First and foremost, we have to address costs. This cannot be done by the industry itself, as no industry has ever voluntarily lowered its prices. I do know a few of the high costs involved, and will address those. If any doctors are reading this thread and have more concerns, please post them. Insurance must not be mandatory, as this will have the opposite effect and raise prices. Rather, we must place the responsibility for medical care squarely into the hands of the patients and physicians.

I propose a national board of physicians to oversee all health care issues. This body would be composed of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, politicians, attorneys, and laymen. It's purpose would be threefold: advisory, determining methods to lower the costs to customers while maintaining health care standards, judicial, overseeing all initial malpractice claims. and administrative, referring doctors with poor records for removal from the medical profession.

This would accomplish several improvements immediately. No malpractice claim could proceed to the civil court system without first being resolved through this board. Patients who lose their case are, of course, permitted to appeal to the regular courts, but doctors, as professionals, would be bound by the decisions and unable to appeal. No patient would be denied the right to sue for damages; they would be given a more speedy and swifter day in court before this board. No attorneys would be allowed; decisions would be based on the arguments of the parties involved and the facts as shown by the circumstances. Think of it as semi-binding arbitration.

Since all malpractice claims would go through this board, it would be an easy matter to weed out those doctors who are drawing a large number of substantiated claims and they could be removed from the profession via suspension of their license. This in itself would remove high attorney costs from the malpractice insurance industry, and remove bad doctors form our health care system. It would also decrease settlements to the amounts that a person is actually injured.

Malpractice insurance could then be capped at a level which would allow insurance companies to survive, but would remove the strain from doctors. Additional services could be capped, such as making it illegal to charge more than double the lowest available price for non-prescription items. No more $20 aspirins or $10 ice chips. This in itself would reduce the amount of the average hospital bill by a substantial amount. No prescription drug should be able to be sold for more in the US than the lowest price it is sold in other countries (with obvious exceptions made for charitable humanitarian work). Big Pharmacy is getting the benefits of operating in the US; they should give something back besides inflated prices. If a drug is sold in Canada for $10, it must not be sold in the US for more than $10. (I of course refer to wholesale prices here.)

I am also an advocate of making it easier and more profitable to heal someone than to treat someone. I could go along with an idea I have heard t make continuing treatment costly for the doctors. For instance, allow doctors to charge more for cures than for treatments. Perhaps an escrow system, where a doctor receives only a portion of the bill during treatment, but receives a lump sum payment of the remainder when the patient is cured. I do not have specifics on that concept, so someone get thinking on this. I can't be expected to do it all.

No person should ever go without life-threatening treatment. Any doctor or hospital should be required to give non-elective treatment to anyone who requests it, within the boundaries of ability to handle the workload. Should a doctor become overwhelmed, they must be allowed to refer patients to another doctor for simple logistic reasons, but all persons in need of treatment must be given that treatment. Here is where the government comes in; anyone who receives such treatment and states they cannot pay should be referred to the IRS for possible collections. The government acts as a collection agency. The doctors recieve a percentage of their bills up front, and every legal attempt to collect the remainder goes first to repay that payment to the government, then to finish repaying the doctor. I know of no better collection agency than the IRS, and laws to allow those who are in dire straits to keep a car, their home, etc. could be easily implemented.

Wow, I got the jist in one post. Now, come on guys. We can do this! Make my ideas better!

TheRedneck

Hi Byrd, Hi Red

Nice to see the replies, I will be posting responces in a day or so. been pretty busy with reaity at the moment.

Byrd, I am gathering my information so I can post it as to why I think the wheel needs reimvented. you post valid questions, and would like a bit of time to be accurate in posting my responce please.

Red, I agree with alot of what you are saying. I would like to ask a few quesions though.
I am not sure about your escrow system for doctors, It would seem alot easier to have them on a straight payroll to me, can you elaborate a bit please, and where who would pay them? the patient, or some goverment fund?
Also about using the IRS as a collection aganecy actually sounds good, but then what are the guidelines ( would there be a cut off point where the poor would get free medical service? And if so where would the funding for them come from?)
as for your coment about medicine, well I think your dead on for that. its almost like the american people are being discreminated against with the high cost of meds.

reply to post by oubliette

---

Well, I don't claim to have all the answers, just some suggestions, but here is what I see as the best answers:

What I am attempting with this idea is to circumvent as much as practical the whole concept of government-run health care, while still providing the health care we all want and expect. After all, when was the last time a government-run anything came in on time, on budget, or with good service?

One of the reasons oft cited for the high cost of health care is the fact that hospitals/doctors have to charge the patients who can pay for the services rendered to those who can't pay. Now there are many people who simply do not have the means to pay for care, but there are also others who simply don't want to pay for it. And it's simply not fair either. In the end, all of us must be responsible for ourselves as much as possible.

With that said, I would suggest the the government-subsidized portion of the plan serve to make sure that anyone who ran up a large bill they were unable to pay was forced to pay to whatever extent they could. The IRS can easily route tax refunds to medical bills in arrears, and this would not keep anyone from maintaining their present standard of living. If someone is too poor to have tax refunds, obviously they would not be able to pay. On the other hand, someone who simply was in a temporary bind would lose that benefit in order to cover their obligations. I don't think in any case that attaching a primary residence or needed transportation should be part of this; only that moneys that can be forfeited be forfeited to cover the bills. Thusly, unless someone is truly indigent, the patient would ultimately pay the bills in most cases. Remember that we pay for medical care regardless of whether it's via insurance, inflated pricing, or taxation. There's no one else to pay it but the consumer.

Before you say this sounds harsh, consider that my family, for instance, attempts to not use hospitals or doctors unless absolutely. I know other people who regularly visit the emergency room every time they feel 'sick'. Their medical bills are literally thousands of times ours, yet since they have Medicaid, it's paid for by my tax dollars. I pay both bills, mine, which I try to keep responsibly low, and theirs, which is unreasonably excessive. And I get to pay inflated prices for anyone like them who doesn't have Medicaid even.

My way, people who abuse the medical system for personal convenience would have to pay for that privilege. Those who consistently abuse the system could have stronger collection attempts levied against them. Doctors and hospitals could be prevented from passing on that cost to me, since even the indigent could receive partially-paid treatment (and I was thinking 50% government subsidy), and my insurance costs could be reduced. Doctors would still be able to practice medicine (maybe they'll get it right one day and quit practicing ) without having to be bound by a ton of bureaucratic policies, and control could be implemented on any out-of-control pricing which may arise without strangling the profitability of a much-needed profession. And even better, the cost would be minimal compared to any mainstream ideas I have heard, and no one would be forced to buy insurance. After all, a forced expense is essentially a tax, and at over 50% total taxation, aren't we paying enough?

Of course, insurance would still be available to those who would want it. But the gamble of insurance would not be mandatory, and therefore insurance costs would still be controlled by market pressure. That process has worked fine for 200 years.

Sorry if that rambled a bit, but it's still a rough idea.

TheRedneck