Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

D Gary Grady

(133 posts)
12. Excellent point, and it's a saving we could go for immediately
Sun Mar 13, 2016, 06:23 AM
Mar 2016

For example, U.S. banks and mortgage companies (pretty much all of them, I think) use a standard application form for home mortgage loans decreed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. There are also federal standards for homeowner insurance (because the insurance is required by mortgage lenders). Health insurance companies could and should be required to have similar standards imposed on claim processing. Even some Republicans might go along with this. Lots of doctors are conservatives and campaign donors who would like to see insurance companies get beat up on a little.)

I think something very similar is already in place in Japan, Germany, France, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and other countries with multiple health insurers. (It goes without saying, of course, in single-payer countries like the UK, Canada, or Taiwan.) In France, I've read, insurers are required to pay a doctor's bill within a matter of days. They can of course claim fraud or error or otherwise try to get the payment reimbursed, but there's none of this business of routinely requiring bills to be resubmitted over and over and over before they're paid at all.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

As always, Cenk tells the truth. R&K nt longship Mar 2016 #1
I needed to hear that this amount was over a 10 year period at the beginning of the video instead of DhhD Mar 2016 #14
That doesn't even explain how much Doctors, healthcare facilities and hospitals Dragonfli Mar 2016 #2
Yeah, I too was surprised a lot of this wasn't even mentioned. passiveporcupine Mar 2016 #6
Hard to do in keeping with facts. phazed0 Mar 2016 #8
Excellent point, and it's a saving we could go for immediately D Gary Grady Mar 2016 #12
The best choice is to eliminate the role of private insurance to the greatest extent possible. Enthusiast Mar 2016 #22
The Plan Would Be Fully Paid For By: sansatman Mar 2016 #3
I think they should add a "self-responsibility health" tax too. ErikJ Mar 2016 #4
I can appreciate that, but is it not a big overreach? phazed0 Mar 2016 #7
Sin taxes on cigs and alcohol go to ErikJ Mar 2016 #9
Yup.. phazed0 Mar 2016 #10
Early onset Diabetes and Pre-Diabetes is very expensive when it starts in childhood. A school DhhD Mar 2016 #15
We should quit subsidizing sugar before we start taxing people for drinking it. n/t jtuck004 Mar 2016 #11
Yes! We could drug test for nicotine, THC, excess sodium and sugar! Enthusiast Mar 2016 #23
His top tax bracket should start at $5 million not $10m. ErikJ Mar 2016 #5
Beginning with the 1963 tax year 1939 Mar 2016 #13
Reporting the costs over 10 years is always so annoying. rickford66 Mar 2016 #16
I imagine the first 1 to 3 years of implementation would be much higher than the average. A Simple Game Mar 2016 #17
The 10 year span isn't emphasized as much. rickford66 Mar 2016 #18
You're right and it is confusing, but I'm sure the Pentagon does also have a 10 year plan. A Simple Game Mar 2016 #19
My quick GOOGLE search showed a yearly defense budget. rickford66 Mar 2016 #21
Kicked and recommended a bazillion times! Because fuck this status quo shit! Enthusiast Mar 2016 #20
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»Single-Payer Universal He...»Reply #12