There are a lot of discussion on the types of insurance proposals which will be required in the new health care system, which are currently being negotiated in Congress. President Obama has only come out in the framework of public health, which is opposed by private insurers, who say that they cannot compete with the plan, public health, which didn't have to generate a profit. Supporters claim public plan correctly say that it will have more choices and create more competition. Opponents argue that private health plans would go out of business, leaving only the system of health care completely Government.
Of course, all parties are exaggerating and taking up extreme positions. They are all at the time of the compromise and hopefully reach some form of agreement. Sad part is that at the moment they do not seem to be thinking of the person in the Centre of all this-the patient. Widely considered that the costs of health care, too many in this country, at the same time Americans at least 47 million are uninsured. So, from the perspective of patients, if you have health insurance, you pay way too much and getting a low value, and if you do not have it, and then simply continue to have problems. What dreadful choice. The noting of America.
The objectives of the capital health system are to lower costs and extend care to the uninsured. Obama wants a bill on his desk in October at the latest. Where can I start the Congress to compromise and why is it that Republicans in particular believe that the plans for public health are likely to be so dreadful. What is proof of this belief beyond their own philosophical ideas. Regularly make up alleged ogre "socialized medicine" whenever discusses plans for the public, but there is no evidence that countries with Federal systems with greater control over their health care, particularly in Europe, have worse health outcomes, the UNITED STATES. In fact, the contrary is TRUE, the results are much better overall health and costs much less money per capita of the population.
As a physician who has lived and worked in the USA, Australia and the United Kingdom, and who has an interest in the Organization of health services, I think that America can move forward in a way that is relatively simple, as long as we always keep the patient at the center of each system of health care plan. It is important that we do not design a system of health care primarily to protect the level of profit for some or all of the various components, whether they are vendors, insurers, health or pharmaceutical companies. We have the ability to pick the best parts of other health systems around the world, including those in the possible reform of American health care, and we should learn from other countries.
What can we do?
Firstly we should philosophy private partnerships. Australia is a good example where this works great. This means that public and private, not just private. The activities of the core American and social philosophy are based on the entities so that each new capitalist approach to health care must combine the need for profits in certain sectors of the health system, with the need to develop a number of basic public health services, which may be less likely to ever make a profit. The financing of care to include selection and should be implemented in many cases, through payments for annual or episodic whole person care, and not on a piece of individual rates as at present. These payment systems capitated works well for Kaiser Permanente, and in the UK. The primary benefit of this approach is rather to force more resources to the prevention of diseases and wellness promotion, and not for the treatment of diseases, which have begun already.
The public health care system, seemingly strongly supported by President Obama includes universal basic health insurance, as well as insurance of catastrophic care. We know that this type of system is also in America and is generally accepted and popular, because we have a very successful example of Medicare for seniors. Effectively widening the basis for Medicare for other populations could prevent many of the bankruptcy caused by the cost of health care and could include many of the current uninsured. Public insurance then you will probably pay for many services, emergency health and isolation, as well as the public health service, outstanding and postnatal care, and early, as well as some special care population, who cannot afford private health insurance, such as unemployment benefits, and some depletion or geographically isolated groups. Of course they would still be Medicare for seniors. These are areas where it will be less competition with private insurers, who are usually kept from them, but, of course, any private health insurers will be able to enter these markets and to compete if they wish to.
The private component might be funded with assistance from the wider tax incentives financial or similar tools to encourage most of the people (or businesses) to purchase private insurance. The aim should be that at least 80-90% of the population should have private insurance or comprehensive insurance or insurance payment to support the core Government provided insurance. It is important to achieve this level of insurance to ensure that everyone is financially responsible for at least a reasonable proportion of our health care costs. Here the Republicans are right as it is important that we do not care as something, which is supplied free of charge. The private sector should offer the full range of services from birth to death, but the industry should be more precisely regulated, so that they, for example, should be prevented from excluding patients due to the existing conditions. They should also have the possibility of additional charges for some services, "low", such as plastic.
These ideas are taken from and recognize the best parts of America, Australia and British healthcare systems. No country has a system of excellent health, and no country will ever. America can afford to choose the best from other countries as debates how to improve its health care system. Lets hope that Congress may be creative, look outwardly, and do not get the time down in political dogma.
Peter Yellowlees MD has recently published "health in the age of information-how can you and your doctor may use the Internet to work with". available in the http://www.InformationAgeHealth.com and most shops. E-Book download from RTM API, Blackberry, PDA and other mobile devices called "4 simple steps to better health-the appearance of the Interior" is available at Smashwords http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/1271in
