FEATURES >> YouTube | Top acute-care hospitals | Women in Health IT | Top BlackBerry Apps | Commentary
TOPICS >> Stimulus | Health Reform | CMS News | Finance | EMRs | Mobile Healthcare | Hospital Leadership Blog
Editor's Corner
Comments
The only sensible way to reduce health care costs is paradoxically to limit the obscene profits of the insurers and give back something to primary care physicians. Maintain the incentive to enter a rewarding field by removing the fear of never making a decent return on time and money invested in becoming a doctor. Reducing insurers' profits puts billions back in the system. And their concern for profits leads to denial of covergae to the most needy. But as bad as the insurers are, National Health, as proposed by Kennedy, would be worse. Someone once said that Natinoal Health Insurance would have the compassion of the IRS and the fiscal responsibility of the Pentagon. Despite all this, the vast majority of heath care dollars still available after insurers' profits are used in the first and last year of life. Are we going to promote euthanasia, or prevent saving of infants less than a certain weight? Of course not. Is universal coverage a proper goal? Yes. But keep Kennedy and the People's Republic of Massachusetts away from the planning.
the cost of healthcare coverage has increased as the number of insurance providers has decreased by by-outs and take-overs. The spectre of monopoly looms; eg, kaiser has grown tremendously, however the premiums are no longer affordable unless covered by employment, and so with PPOs. How else can this be avoided unless there is only one payor?
I have posted a commentary on this issue citing both the California proposal and Massachusetts legislation on my blog, Healthcare Basics which is at the Trusted MD Network www.trusted.md.com
Please check it out under personal musings.






