FixHealthCarePolicy

When the furor dies; we will find that the so called reform is in actuality a battle of words. Who says, I say which accomplishes nothing,. We have too many axes to grind and few are sharp enough to cut to the matter at hand. As a start, look at the actual cost of hospital care; there is where it should start. Hospital operating costs begin with the personnel to patient ratio. This ranges from 4.5 to 9.0 depending on he location of the hospital and the services offered. our group began there and developed thePolymedic Wellness Centers where the personnel to patient ratio is 1.1 to 1 while increasing the time caregivers spend with their patients. This is a segment of the "Satellite" system inroduced by our group. See our website www.polymedic.info for a start. We can furnish reports on this issue at your request. Thanks, Wm. R,. Streed, President, Healh Systems of America, Inc.

And the government programs we have right now are focused more on hospital care, while private insurance focuses more on doctor care and drugs. Private payers are more efficient than government, they have to be. Government programs ration, and tax

the main problem in getting a realistic health care reform is that a real solution can not get past the "Gatekeepers" of our senators and reprfesentatives unless there is a lobbyist to open the gate. Our group is the only ones that have a proven track record in reducing the high cost of medical care; however there is little or no chance of getting the program before the national public unless there is a means of getting the information to the public officials who can assist in this effort.

THERE ARE PROVEN SYSTEMS TO REDUCE THE HIGH COST OF MEDICAL CARE; HOWEVER THOSE WHO HAVE DEALT WITH SOLUT IONS ARE LEFT OUT OF THE DEBATE FOR LACK OF T HOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR A LOBBYIST. OUR GROUP IS THE ONLY ONE WHICH HAS A PROVEN RECORD IN REDUCING HEALTH CARE COSTS AND HAS A SATELLITE PROGREM DEVELLOPED THE REALLY BRING HEALTH CARE INTO A TRUE SYSTEM. WISDOM IS NOT THE DOMAIN OF WASHINGTON AND PEOPLE SHOULD WAKEUP TO THIS FACT BEFORE IT ISTOO LATE. WE WILL BE GLAD TO ENLIGHGTEN THE COUNTRY ON THIS PROGRAM. THANK YOU

I left Canada because my wife was crippled by a 2 1/2 year wait for surgery, my son received undiagnosed brain damage because of no CT scanner available, and my Mom had to get a double mastectomy because a lumpectomy and chemo/radiation was not available for those over 60.
If you want government medicine, I suggest you move to Canada and see how you like it when you need it most. I immigrated here because I love freedom

I agree people do not get it. They will have children who the govermnent will deem not viable tax payer therefore they will not get needed medical care. I think anyone who wants a gov ran program move out of the United States, because we stand for things that other countries do not have. But with that said I think other countries are finding out US had it right, and we are becoming like them it is sad.......Oh by the way the American Medical Ass are holding marches because they know it is wrong.......Why should we pay a tax and UAW will not....

I am sorry to hear of your family's medical troubles. We have had many here as well. I also love freedom, and that is why I do not support single payor as Canada has. I do support competition and since we have very little of it in our system here, that is why I think a modified public option makes sense. Take it if you want, don't if you don't. And no, it is not a slippery slope to a single payor system....it is a slippery slope to a competitive system.

The government is the biggest threat to
competition since it doesn't matter how inefficient it is- it writes the
rules, raises taxes and uses coercion to win in every instance

tell me why "the poor" cost more to treat than the rest of us? Medicaid also covers SCHIP....why do you think the poor and children are more expensive than privately insured?

The government medicine programs focus on hospital care, rather than physician and drug therapy, and their admin costs are higher plus there is much fraud and abuse. Those are the chief reasons that they are higher.
Remember that prior to 1965, over 74% of Americans were privately insured at which point the government decided it wanted to compete against private insurers and it created medicare to carve out the most expensive insured (the elderly), because that way they coudl collect the highest amount of money

The poor cost more because they typically delay care and because they live in conditions that lend themselves to different types of disease states. In general, though, children are not overly expensive to cover, you are correct there.

Medicare's adm expenses are actually quite low, about a third of private plans (5% vs 15%)...note I am not giving Medicare credit for the advertised 1% adm rate as that is their direct expenses and not the other expenses that lay in other parts of the budget. Nevertheless, their expenses are considerably less.

As for fraud, it is well publicized in Medicare, but believe me, it exists in private plans just as well. Check it out.

As for the objectives and driving rationale behind Medicare, I think you are mistaken...it was not a grab to compete to collect higher amounts of money. It had more to do with a horribly leaky safety net due to the fact that we are an employer based system, people over 65 didn't work, and their medical bills were bankrupting them.

Using percentages is very misleading. The actual numbers are 5% vs 12%, but close to yours. If you look at the real costs however, medicare spends $522 per enrolled person on admin vs. $468 for private insurance. Using percentages is pure trickery, and very misleading.

To everyone who wants to choose and not have big government go here and sign the Petition.....www.freeourhealthcarenow.com and by the way I studied health care in other countries, and here.....I do the billing and coding so I have seen it....

I am adamantly opposed to any health care plan put forth-irregardless of what party puts it forth. I am asking all representatives to OPPOSE IT.

the government controlls almost half of all healthcare sponding, but only covers less than 1/3 of residents, then why do we want to reward the inefficiency?
Who is John Galt?

The reason that the government controls have the spending but only covers a third of the population is because they cover the most expensive third of the population---the disabled, the elderly and the poor. Private plans cover the young and the working who are much less expensive.

I am adamantly opposed to any health care plan put forth-irregardless of what party puts it forth. Either way you choose to look at it, it still equates to government interference, power grabs, and the government overstepping its boundaries. The only way to fix 'health care costs' is through tort reform and securing our borders.

If you look at the states that have had any form of tort reform you will see it had a negligible effect on the absolute level of health care costs and the level of their increase.

My family does not national health care. We worked all our lives being able to have a good health plan. Members of Congress you have done enough damage with bad decisions already ---please do not vote for national health care.

And as soon as you lose that job you have worked all your life at, your healthcare is gone and if you have any condition at all, you can not be insured. Try to look at this situation more globally as opposed to one who has his and does not care about anyone else.

you call yourself a "healthcare consultant, but you've never heard of COBRA or HIPAA?