Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

HRC: Electronic medical records save 80 BILLION a year = 80 % of the cost of universal health care

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
agdlp Donating Member (363 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 07:23 PM
Original message
HRC: Electronic medical records save 80 BILLION a year = 80 % of the cost of universal health care
Edited on Thu Jan-31-08 07:34 PM by agdlp
I saw in one of the Bill Clinton speaches the arguments of how HRC will pay for the universal health care

http://mfile.akamai.com/12930/wmv/vod.ibsys.com/2008/0131/15182140.200k.asx

Watch from 09:12 in the video


1. Take away the tax credits given to the richest 1 % and oil/med companies

2. Electronic medical record with privacy mecanism will save 80 BILLION A YEAR...thats 80 % of the
cost of universal health care




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. Then add in HIPAA and no centralized standard on healthcare and it becomes 80% more inefficient...
:hide:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberty Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. I don't want every doctor to get full electronic records.
I was really pissed off the other day. We got new insurance and I had to go back to a medical group I left years ago because one of their doctors committed malpractice on me during surgery. I'd dropped my lawsuit against the quack because I ran out of money to pay the lawyers.

So the whole tale shows up in my records when I went in to see a new doctor there! And of course the quack's notes are biased to paint me as a troublemaker, etc. Why should any new doctor of mine be able to access something like that without my express permission?

Think about this, folks. What if you go to see a marriage counselor, or get drug treatment, or get treated for an STD? Do you really want every future doctor you see to know all those details? What if you're in a small town, and your new doc is best friends with your spouse or your boss?

I don't believe a doctor should be entitled to see any of your past medical records without your express permission--and then only those records that you authorize to be disclosed! moreover, after a certain number of years, those records ought to be sealed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
3. If we spend that savings, how will the insurance industry make money?
We gotta keep their investors happy, you know. Happy insurance company investors mean rich insurance company executives; that, in turn, means Democrats getting elected to federal office. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
4. Kerry introduced that 5 years ago.
They ALL support electronic medical records. Good grief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
5. To be fair, Obama also includes record modernization
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojambo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
6. You can cut costs all you want, as long as there's some schlub CEO at the top making a profit
health care ain't gonna work.

For profit health care BLOWS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teleharmonium Donating Member (64 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
7. savings ? ha
I work in the field. Long term, sure, there's savings (and associated job losses). But the investment needed to get there is very significant and has a relationship to the current healthcare costs. Don't go thinking there's some kind of free ride here just by switching over - on the contrary you can count on a ten year amortized bump up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC