|
johninchina
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Gender: Male
Interests: Talking and writing about politics and Christianity, chilling with friends, being a youth counselor (I love my kids)
Expertise: Project Management for the Health Insurance industry
Occupation: Operations
Industry: Other
Message: message me
Member Since:
11/12/2003
|
|
| http://www.familylife.com/site/apps/nlnet/content.aspx?c=dnJHKLNnFoG&b=5339943&ct=7245137&utm_campaign=CON-090807-TFR&utm_source=CON&utm_medium=email
To the kids under my care and to their parents, I would highly suggest that you read the article above.
To the parents: the best way to provide your kids with a healthy marriage is to direct your boys to grow up knowing what it means to be a man: protector, provider, priest, and prophet (see article for details).
To the girls: if you want to marry a good man, read the article to understand the tell-tale signs. They don't have to be ultimate providers, protectors, etc. But, they should at least begin to display those qualities.
To the boys: begin developing for yourselves those traits. If you don't know how, read the article and ask your dad. If you want more information, come talk to Pastor Theo, me, or another male counselor.
| | |
| So all y'all fools can bring your own 360 to the next Halo Party
http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/27/technology/microsoft_xbox.reut/index.htm?postversion=2009082706
| | |
| In the midst of the emotion and rhetoric of the health care debate, I get the sense that there may be many good ideas that have been presented by members of both parties. However, those ideas are not being considered or are quickly voted down because of the presenter's political affiliation.
It seems that liberal Democrats' vision of health care "reform" would not survive a filibuster in the Senate. The six senators (3 Democrats, 3 Republicans) in charge of developing a bill that both parties would accept are doing their job. As a result, I would propose a radical proposal: allow these six senators to review ALL proposals to health care reform and attach no names or political affiliations to each proposal. The job for this "Gang of Six" would be to review each proposal and decide if they should be in the final draft of the health care "reform" bill.
If we are looking for true collaboration where the common goal of reforming our health care industry trumps any partisan ideology, this would be the best means to achieve that goal. Let us put everything on the table:
Should we have a government funded health insurance plan?
Should we have "death panels"?
Should we place a cap on the amount of money insurance companies spend on "administrative duties and marketing"?
Should we add amendments that would prohibit the health care bill from funding abortions?
Should we subsidize insurance premiums for lower income families?
Should we encourage health co-ops?
EVERYTHING
This way, the bill that comes out of the Gang of Six has been vetted by members of both political parties. This draft bill will be finalized and presented to the House of Representatives and the full Senate for a vote. This method would make sense politically, as this collaborative bill will be very difficult to vote against. It would allow Obama to save face and pass health care reform in his first term. Most importantly, every single proposal that would possibly make health care more affordable and efficient for our country had been reviewed (e.g. the Taiwan approach).
This proposal makes common sense; that is why it will never be used. The Democrats are too proud to allow for collaboration and the Republicans want to give Obama a political black eye. In the end, it would be up to the public to keep both parties honest and force them to collaborate.
| | |
| In reading multiple articles and listening to the political rhetoric, one issue stood out to me something that can be easily solved with the cooperation of the government and insurance companies: using common reimbursement and other medical forms.
Currently, each health insurance company has their own set of medical forms. Doctors would have to hire staff to fill out all of these different forms and to resolve any issues that may come up in the claims process. This process can be streamlined by having all forms 1) follow a common template that is developed by the insurance companies and the government, 2) maintained by an unaffiliated medical association, such as the AMA, and 3) completed and submitted online.
The name of the game is collaboration. There may be specific nuances in individual insurance forms that may need to be addressed. However, insurance companies already have to adhere to common rules when it comes to Medicare reimbursements. Why not have them come together and develop common forms, with input from the government, that they can all use? This would improve the turn-around time it would take to complete, submit, and resolve any claims issues. Moreover, admins will be more efficient in resolving issues, as the same issue on the form may pop up with multiple insurance companies.
Secondly, after the forms are developed, they should reside with an unaffiliated medical association. The government should only be a broker in reforming health care. We should not have the government spend resources maintaining these forms if it can be handled by the private or non-profit sector. This would improve buy-in from the insurance companies, as the forms will not be controlled by the government but by a neutral third party.
Finally, with all that the Obama administration has touted about using technology to improve health care and lower costs, this is an opportunity for him to put his money where his mouth is (actually, it's our money). Biden, his VP, recently announced that $1.2 billion will be spent on assisting "hospitals and medical professionals in selecting and using electronic records". Why not channel that or other stimulus money towards this effort? Businesses hate unfunded mandates from the government; by offering to pay for this initiative, the government will do much in convincing the insurance industry to accept the use of common forms. The added efficiency benefits will greatly outweigh the cost of this program (it's much more cost effective than having the federal government spend a ton of stimulus money in buying hybrids!)
I understand that this proposal would step into the internal operations of individual insurance companies; however, in order to have a collaborative effort to improve our health care system, companies should make this sacrifice, as the government will make the sacrifice of funding to start it.
| | |
| http://www.biggovhealth.org/resource
| | |
|
