Incredible Bureacracy

Hey sheldongitis,
I'd be interested in reading/hearing more of that study. Where is the video from? Is there a link you can share with us?

The video was recorded at the University of Minnesota during a press conference to announce the findings of a study published in February 2007 issue of Minnesota Medicine. A couple related links:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=uhcanstudy
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/uhcan-mn/

Nice work!

Thank you for this. I saw the President of the California AMA on a UCSD-tv panel discussion awhile back. Right after he claimed that the U.S. would never pass Single Payer, he explained that just one insurance CEO in California was paid more last year than it would cost to provide medical care for all of the children in the state for the next four years combined. I call that a "disconnect" if ever there was one.

Amazing! Single payer system is the only pragmatic way to solve this problem.

I actually support the idea that all Americans should have health coverage, but I don't know that a single payer system would do what you think it will. The notion that a single payer system would eliminate the "Incredible Bureacracy" you mention now I think is wishful thinking at its best. Have you seen Medicare's regulations? I mean even the "Medicare & You" handbook which just summarizes it into so-called plain language for seniors is more than half an inch thick, and frankly, it really doesn't answer much of any consequence.
Have you seen how Medicare calculates its reimbursement rates? When geographic zones shift, it's nightmarish! When a private insurer has a contract with a physician, the rate is the rate is the rate. There are obviously flaws in that system too, but I think some balance can be found between the two systems, and give Americans choice, as long as all citizens are guaranteed coverage at minimum levels, sort of like Medicare HMOs which are required by CMS to have plans which cover at least "x" but can cover more if they want.

Medicare has a forty-year past history of running on a 2-3% overhead ratio, compared to 31% for the private health insurance industry. I believe the Bush administration has purposefully designed overly-complicated and overly-expensive "Trojan Elephants" called Medicare Part D and new private-market-based Advantage (but I call them Disadvantage) Plans to destroy the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the Medicare system from the inside-out. That saves the administration from having to admit publicly that they're trying to destroy Medicare (which is not a politically wise thing to admit). Dis-Advantage Plans are now costing 12-50% more than traditional Medicare, and the horror stories from policy holders are beginning to pour in about what was paid for and promised (Cadillacs)compared to what was delivered (Yugos, as in "You lose us money, YOU GO"). Having to make sure that the beast that is the problem (excessive middleman profit-taking) does not act like the beast that it is, costs taxpayers even more. Just the extra administrative costs in our tax dollars used to support what is basically more Corporate Welfare for Health Insurers, these new private-not-public DisAdvantage Plans alone (which about 18% of seniors have fallen for) would more than pay to cover all of our nation's uninsured children for the next five years combined....but would be against the Bush administration's philosophical and economic beliefs.

this needs to be on TV, this needs to be shown.

i agree. I've been very disappointed in our public watchdogs (media), even more so since Clinton and Bush deregulated corporate media controls. There's been very little reporting of the truth on this (and many other) situation(s), definitely not enough facts getting out there. If you know any way to break through and create coverage of what really matters for the majority of the people, please do.

I think the doctors are going to step up to the plate more, and more. Letters to the editors in small independent newspapers, the Internet, or Al Gore for President.

I can't get over the disconnect on this issue with the American people and political leaders at large. I heard someone lamenting that "18 American troops died in Iraq since last Friday" a couple of weeks ago. That is a problem. At least 350 Americans who didn't volunteer died during the same period of time because they were uninsured. Nobody read their names on the news. Our uninsured are the unmentionables and invisibles, like the Untouchables in India's society. Even the major Democratic candidates are not willing to deal with the issue in an up front and honest way. In fact the Democratic Party is waging a smear campaign against the only candidate who does (because he's the only one who won't sell out, but also apparently doesn't stand much of a chance in becoming President). Without Al (and Oprah) on our side working even harder, smarter and faster that they are now, our country is in deep deep doo doo.

Spoon, People are totally uninformed. I take it you live in California. You probably still get a decent newspaper. What I wouldn't give to read the Sacramento Bee, or The San Francisco Chronicle every morning. I get The Dallas Morning news. We are working on our house and it's nice to have it when painting. People watch the crap that is on TV but there is no news worth seeing. They own the damned media and control what people are allowed to know. Of course they have no idea that Medicare works very well. The media doesn't want them to know. Worse yet it's more than just health care, it's everything. I am afraid of what is happening. People aren't paying attention.

Back to Spoon:

I can't speak to Medicare's 2-3% overhead ratio except that we always seem to hear in the news that Medicare needs to "cut back" on payments to providers because money is tight, so you may have a point there, I cannot confirm nor deny.

I'd love to know the source of the 31% overhead ratio of the private insurance industry you quoted. Knowing that Medicare HMOs and their rates are regulated by CMS (Medicare) and that Commercial HMOs (and PPOs and Traditionally Insured plans) are regulated by State governments, including the rates they may charge, well, I'd still love to see the source data.

You may be shocked, however, that I do agree with you that Medicare Part D is a NIGHTMARE on many fronts. It is confusing, expensive, and our most senior expert Congressional leaders and their staffs can barely understand it, much less aged patients who barely manage to take their medication, much mess figure out the intricacies of this horrid design.

I must also concede, however, that some coverage is better than nothing, but the way it was enacted may the coverage HURT people unnecessarily, most especially Medicare beneficiaries, and most certainly not least, the American taxpayer. How did this happen? Congress explicitly legislated as part of the implementation of Medicare Part D that the Part D plans were PROHIBITED BY LAW from negotiating better prices on prescription drugs on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.

This is nonsense. Medicare does this for doctors who "accept assignment." Every HMO, PPO private Pharmacy Benefits Administrator, even the Veterans Administration, ALL negotiate discounts for prescription drugs. A failure to do so is fiscally irresponsible and downright FOOLHARDY!

I am not sure that the Medicare HMO plans are the great albatross you describe. For some people, they work effectively. For others, they do not. The problem is that people do not understand how to make an informed decision about what is right for them, and they end up being overinsured, or perhaps OVERPAYING and underinsured, all because of bad or just ill-informed choices.