To: Luz Robles, Jim Dabakis, Gene Davis, Pat Jones, Karen Mayne, Wayne Harper, Deidre Henderson, Brian Shiozawa, Wayne Niederhauser, Aaron Osmond, Howard Stephenson, Daniel Thatcher, Mark Madsen, John Valentine, Margaret Dayton, curt, Peter Knudson, Stuart Reid, Allen Christensen, Scott Jenkins, Jerry Stevenson, Stuart Adams, Todd Weiler, Ralph Okerlund, Lyle Hillyard, Kevin Van Tassell, David Hinkins, Evan Vickers, Steve Urquhart,
Subject: The Daley Plan: aka - Health Care that we can live with -
Date: Thu May 29 10:59:58 MDT 2014
The Daley Plan: The health of our nation is reflected in its people. Hence, Health Care cannot afford to be an industry if to serve them. The following proposes to redesign the health care system in order to protect the nation and welfare of the people from the obsolescence of the current one. This is while assuring its benefit to strengthening the US economy with tax payer burden relief of existing Medicare and Medicaid programs.
1- To redesign the profit model of the health care / insurance and drug industry: They (the industry) spend a fortune on IT (information technology) systems where the sole purpose is for denying claims. Proposed is to have them instead process claims on behalf the Dept of Health. This is where they can make a percentage on each claim. Hence, the more claims processed, the more of a fortune they can amass. Consider that there are 300,000,000 Americans. That is regardless if employed or unemployed. Claims processors could bid for the business!
2- The claims for health services provided (from a hospital, practitioner, etc) are to be sent to the Dept of Health. Obviously there would be normalization of pricing, but by no means intending to compromise quality that is provided. This does not mean that medical practitioners need to be the working poor, but obviously cannot price gouge either, as it would be more of a level playing field where quality at competitive prices from practitioners would be looked at favorably by the government.
3- To finance the cost of operations (practitioners, Dept of Health, IT operations, etc), tax exempt bonds are assumed. It is not a requirement that anyone buy into these, but frankly Wall Street would drop their pants to get them. As a private investor, such as in having a 401K, etc, what is left after taxes is not much. Tax exempt means tax exempt and for that matter considered from your gross income and not from your net. In investing in such bonds, you have further lowered your taxable income while having built a very large one for retirement; or to be redeemed at which time you wish.
4- The mechanics of finance: Let us assume that 25% of the total bond financing actually covers item #3 above. Then 75% is exercised on Wall Street to replenish the %25 that is to be used. If and when, and assumed often based on fair and competitive capital market practices, that the 25% exceeds its water mark (hitting 26 – 30%) as an example, that +% is returned to the investors who participate.
5- To appeal to greed is easy therefore this can be pushed much faster through Congress. The stake holders in item # 1 can have far greater profits. This is while achieving this with far less convoluted tactics rather than an antiquated bait and switch claim denial model.
6- Tax exempt investments will move the economy with far more momentum than otherwise – Wall Street has greater potential to make fortunes without having to be crooks –
7- Tax payer burden is relieved of an estimated $8 billion per year in costs for Medicare / Medicaid which would be considered obsolete federal and state programs.
Now could you imagine our three branches of federal government rally to a real solution. What can your state do in the mean time ?
Thanks for reading this,
Orion Karl Daley