Is Consumer Driven Health Care Right for You?
What the CDHC system does is shift the primary amount of responsibility of health care management to consumers. Originating in the late 1990s, consumer directed health plans were designed to have consumers take on a proactive role in medical treatments and respective expenses. Through systems like health savings accounts (HSAs) and health reimbursement accounts (HRAs) consumers became able to make their health care more affordable and accessible. One study indicated that consumers using in this system were more likely to inquire about costs, use a cheaper treatment option and follow treatment regimes more carefully. Due to the large upfront costs required, by default, this system places the burden on consumers to plan their expenses as much as possible.
Consumer driven health care is not necessarily for everyone. A concern under scrupulous study is the idea that less wealthy and educated consumers will not be able to manage a system like this. First off, they won’t have the money to utilize a plan like high deductible health insurance. On top of that, they will not take the time to make informed, appropriate choices for their situation. Costs will largely be the determining factor for deciding which treatment is used.
One thing that will make CDHC systems a success is if consumers have health products, services and pricing at their finger tips. The internet will also have a large role to play in the communication of information. With the rise of internet commerce, many online users are using the web as a tool for fact finding and education. Additionally, it is expected that a new that the internet will develop into a new marketplace for health care shopping and related services.
People are not really informed about the costs of health care maintenance. The internet will be a way to change that. When someone decides to purchase a car, they know exactly what they’ll be getting. They’ll know all the features and any “add-on†options available. When someone purchases a doctor’s visit (especially with medical issues requiring longer care regimes) they don’t know what they’ll be getting themselves into. One test could lead to another test which leads to a visit to another doctor and so on. Treatment regimes are not standardized and they cannot be fully effective if they were.
Will the consumer driven health care option be a solution to providing quality health care? As a consumer, we should be spending more time in reviewing which option suits our needs best. Everyone will have different treatment needs and expectations. Some may need the benefit of having as much health coverage as possible, but overall, we should all be looking at ways to reduce costs for the entire system.
Here this nice Video about health care
www.bartonhomecare.com – The absolute best in home health care and senior in Colorado is Barton Home Care, serving the Denver metro area (including Littleton, Englewood, Castle Rock, Highlands Ranch, Lone Tree, Centennial, Aurora, Parker and more). This small family business provides top notch in home senior care services and is dedicated to its clients remaining independent. All caregivers are personally hand-picked by owner Tom Barton and must meet his bottom-line criterion, “Would I have …
Find your answer for your own question related to health care
Tags: Al, business, care, health, Jazeera, reform, Reynolds, Rob, US
hum, good job. dunno what to do to change all that shit tho. keep up the good work.
Eat health, non-GMO food. Take some morning exercises and sport. Dont smoke sigarettes and drink cola/beer/whiskey. Read some classic writers. Throw your tv and Xbox thew the window. Read news on independent websites, dont let massmedia brainwash you. And start being wealth, respectable and peacefull nation. You deserve it!
its not a diet that America needs, Our food has been strained of vitalprotiens, minerals and other viatims.
Our food is processed garbage, we have like 10% natural, un processed food in this country. The food is full of pestisides, sugar, Gm protiens, our food is difficiant like no other. we are starving of nutrients becasue the food we eat is from a few corporate farms that all practice the same desructive practices, that fuel the health care industry, it is really a conspiracy like no other
Like I said, that is why you grow it yourself you fucking tard. Presciption drugs are man made. You must get your pot from a crack head, or maby you are to stupid to see that yourself. I f presciption drugs are so good why all the side effects? Do your reasurch you fucking dip shit, and read a book. Until then just keep your mouth shut.
Give him a break! Pretending is what he does best. (btw..DeMint, Price and Chambliss are all from the South..[and people say we're the dumb ones] Where are Kennedy and Schumer and the gang from?
YES! How about looking up Medicare and what it does and doesn't cover?
We had looked at consumer driven plans for our open enrollment as well but found that it was too costly especially on the deductible. One reason is because of all the health issues that both my mom and I have. I think if it weren't for that we would consider the consumer driven plans.
There is no profit in wellness, unless of course, one needs a pill to prevent illness, and insurance companies can provide coverage to insure one gets the correct pill and program to prevent the sure to come illness. As we become smarter about the profit of illness, the health industry will find a way to make money on wellness. Wait and see. It’s all about the money making process!
To answer your question, yes. But…
FACT – the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet.
FACT – the US has higher death rates for kids aged under five than western European countries with universal health coverage.
That means that a dead American four year old would have had a better chance of life if they were born in Canada, France, Cuba, Germany, Japan etc, all of which have universal health coverage.
Now tell me that the US healthcare system is great.
america is the fattest country go on diet!!
That is the longest question ever…lol
The debate is about :
1. whos responsibility is it to provide for an individual?
(personal accountability)
2. Who is poor? (who is deserving/who is undeserving)
3. Who is a child? (>18,>24…what is it?)
Why does Congress continue to want to tweek things that are not broken?
The free masons secret club? I suggest you get your facts straight and maybe actually read something about the masons secret club.LOL
I see a alternative doc that is a Knights Hopitaller, or a Knights Templar , which is a high level mason.
Secret Club, LOL. Good one.
I am not arguing that greed is killing us but that was funny.
what is with americans and all htere meds. its insane
Just smoke some pot, everything will be good.
Ethanol fuel is ethanol (ethyl alcohol), the same type of alcohol found in alcoholic beverages. It can be used as a fuel, mainly as a biofuel alternative to gasoline, and is widely used in cars in Brazil. Because it is cheap, easy to manufacture and process, and can be made from very common materials, such as corn, it is steadily becoming a highly respected and researched alternative to gasoline throughout much of the world.
Anhydrous ethanol, that is, ethanol with at most 1% water, the same alcohol as found in alcoholic beverages, can be blended with gasoline in varying quantities up to pure ethanol (E100), and most spark-ignited gasoline style engines will operate well with mixtures of 10% ethanol (E10).[1] Most cars on the road today in the U.S. can run on blends of up to 10% ethanol,[2] and the use of 10% ethanol gasoline is mandated in some cities where harmful levels of auto emissions are possible.[3]
Ethanol can be mass-produced by fermentation of sugar or by hydration of ethylene from petroleum and other sources. Current interest in ethanol mainly lies in bio-ethanol, produced from the starch or sugar in a wide variety of crops, but there has been considerable debate about how useful bio-ethanol will be in replacing fossil fuels in vehicles. Concerns relate to the large amount of arable land required for crops,[4] as well as the energy and pollution balance of the whole cycle of ethanol production.[5][6] Recent developments with cellulosic ethanol production and commercialization may allay some of these concerns.[7]
According to the International Energy Agency, cellulosic ethanol could allow ethanol fuels to play a much bigger role in the future than previously thought.[8] Cellulosic ethanol can be made from plant matter composed primarily of inedible cellulose fibers that form the stems and branches of most plants. Dedicated energy crops, such as switchgrass, are also promising cellulose sources that can be produced in many regions of the United States.[9]
In the U.S., there is potential to expand the market for ethanol fuels beyond the farm states where they have been most popular to date. Flex-fuel vehicles are assisting in this transition because they allow drivers to choose different fuels based on price and availability. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which calls for 7.5 billion US gallons of biofuels to be used annually by 2012, should also help to expand the U.S. marketThe top five ethanol producers in 2005 were Brazil (4.35 billion US gallons per year), the United States (4.3 billion US gallons per year), China (530 MMgy), the European Union (250 MMgy) and India (80 MMgy). Brazil and the United States accounted for 90 percent of all ethanol production. Also, it should be noted that the United States, now producing at a rate of about 4.6 billion US gallons per year, is widely considered the world’s largest ethanol producer. Strong incentives, coupled with other industry development initiatives, are giving rise to fledgling ethanol industries in countries such as Thailand, the Philippines, Columbia, the Dominican Republic and Malawi. Nevertheless, ethanol hasn't yet made much of a dent in world oil consumption.[32]
[edit] Brazil
Main article: Ethanol fuel in Brazil
Gasoline on the left, alcohol on the right at a filling station in BrazilBrazil has one of the largest bio-fuel programs in the world, involving production of ethanol fuel from sugar cane, and ethanol now provides 18 percent of the country's automotive fuel. As a result of this, together with the exploitation of domestic deep water oil sources, Brazil, which years ago had to import a large share of the petroleum needed for domestic consumption, recently reached complete self-sufficiency in oil.[33][34][35]
Brazil produced around 16.4 billion liters of ethanol in 2004 and used 2.7 million hectares of land area for this production (4.5% of the Brazilian land area used for crop production in 2005[36]). Of this, around 12.4 billion liters were produced as fuel for ethanol-powered vehicles in the domestic market. In Brazil, ethanol-powered and flexible-fuel vehicles are manufactured for operation with hydrated ethanol, an azeotrope of ethanol (around 93% v/v) and water (7%).
Production and use of ethanol has been stimulated through: (1) low-interest loans for the construction of ethanol distilleries; (2) guaranteed purchase of ethanol by the state-owned oil company at a reasonable price; (3) retail pricing of neat ethanol so it is competitive if not slightly favorable to the gasoline-ethanol blend; and (4) tax incentives provided during the 1980s to stimulate the purchase of neat ethanol vehicles.[37]
Guaranteed purchase and price regulation were ended some years ago, with relatively positive results. In addition to these other policies, ethanol producers in the state of Sao Paulo established a research and technology transfer center that has been effective in improving sugar cane and ethanol yields.[38]
[edit] United States
A Ford Taurus "fueled by clean burning ethanol" owned by New York City.Main article: Ethanol fuel in the United States
Most cars on the road today in the U.S. can run on blends of up to 10% ethanol, and motor vehicle manufacturers already produce vehicles designed to run on much higher ethanol blends. Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and GM are among the automobile companies that sell “flexible-fuel†cars, trucks, and minivans that can use gasoline and ethanol blends ranging from pure gasoline up to 85% ethanol (E85). By mid-2006, there were approximately six million E85-compatible vehicles on U.S. roads.[39]
There is potential to expand the market for ethanol fuels beyond the farm states where they have been most popular to date. Flex-fuel vehicles are assisting in this transition because they allow drivers to choose different fuels based on price and availability. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which calls for 7.5 billion US gallons of biofuels to be used annually by 2012, should also help to expand the U.S. market.[40]
It should also be noted that the growing ethanol and biodiesel industries are providing jobs in plant construction, operations, and maintenance, mostly in rural communities. According to the Renewable Fuels Association, the ethanol industry created almost 154,000 U.S. jobs in 2005 alone, boosting household income by $5.7 billion. It also contributed about $3.5 billion in tax revenues at the local, state, and federal levels.[41]
[edit] Sweden
Main article: Ethanol fuel in Sweden
All Swedish gas stations are required by an act of parliament to offer at least one alternative fuel, and every fifth car in Stockholm now drives at least partially on alternative fuels, mostly ethanol.[42]
Stockholm will introduce a fleet of Swedish-made electric hybrid buses in its public transport system on a trial basis in 2008. These buses will use ethanol-powered internal-combustion engines and electric motors. The vehicles’ diesel engines will use ethanol.[43]
[edit] Australia
Main article: Ethanol fuel in Australia
Legislation imposes a 10% cap on the concentration of fuel ethanol blends. Blends of 90% unleaded petrol and 10% fuel ethanol are commonly referred to as E10. E10 is available through service stations operating under the BP, Caltex, Shell and United brands as well as those of a number of smaller independents. Not surprisingly, E10 is most widely available closer to the sources of production in Queensland and New South Wales. E10 is most commonly blended with 91 RON "regular unleaded" fuel. There is a requirement that retailers label blends containing fuel ethanol on the dispenser.
[edit] China
China is promoting ethanol-based fuel on a pilot basis in five cities in its central and northeastern region, a move designed to create a new market for its surplus grain and reduce consumption of petroleum. The cities include Zhengzhou, Luoyang and Nanyang in central China's Henan province, and Harbin and Zhaodong in Heilongjiang province, northeast China. Under the program, Henan will promote ethanol-based fuel across the province by the end of this year. Officials say the move is of great importance in helping to stabilize grain prices, raise farmers' income and reducing petrol- induced air pollution.[44]
[edit] Environment
[edit] Energy balance
Main article: Ethanol fuel energy balance
All biomass needs to go through some of these steps: it needs to be grown, collected, dried, fermented and burned. All of these steps require resources and an infrastructure.
Opponents of corn ethanol production in the U.S. often quote the 2005 paper [45] of David Pimentel, a retired Entomologist, and Tadeusz Patzek, a Geological Engineer from Berkeley. Both have been exceptionally critical of ethanol and other biofuels. Their studies contend that ethanol, and biofuels in general, are "energy negative", meaning they take more energy to produce than is contained in the final product.
A 2006 report by the U.S. Department Agriculture compared the methodologies used by a number of researchers on this subject and found that the majority of research showed that the energy balance for ethanol is positive. In fact, a large number of recent studies, including a 2006 article[46] in the prestigious journal Science offer the consensus opinion that fuels like ethanol are energy positive. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that fossil fuels also require significant energy inputs which have seldom been accounted for in the past.
It is also important to note that ethanol is not the only product created during production, and the energy content of the by-products must also be considered. Corn is typically 66% starch and the remaining 33% is not fermented. This unfermented component is called distillers grain, which is high in fats and proteins, and makes good animal feed. [47]
In Brazil where sugar cane is used, the yield is higher, and conversion to ethanol is somewhat more energy efficient than corn.[14] Recent developments with cellulosic ethanol production may improve yields even further.[48]
[edit] Air pollution
Compared with conventional unleaded gasoline, ethanol is a particulate-free burning fuel source that combusts cleanly with oxygen to form carbon dioxide and water. The Clean Air Act requires the addition of oxygenates to reduce carbon monoxide emissions in the United States. The additive MTBE is currently being phased out due to ground water contamination, hence ethanol becomes an attractive alternative additive.
Use of ethanol, produced from current (2006) methods, emits a similar net amount of carbon dioxide but less carbon monoxide than gasoline.[49] If all bioethanol-production energy came from non-fossil sources the use of bioethanol as a fuel would add no greenhouse gas.[50]
[edit] Manufacture
In 2002 , monitoring of ethanol plants revealed that they released VOCs (volatile organic compounds) at a higher rate than had previously been disclosed.[51] The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) subsequently reached settlement with Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill, two of the largest producers of ethanol, to reduce emission of these VOCs. VOCs are produced when fermented corn mash is dried for sale as a supplement for livestock feed. Devices known as thermal oxidizers or catalytic oxidizers can be attached to the plants to burn off the hazardous gases. Smog causing pollutants are also increased by using ethanol fuel in comparison to gasoline.
[edit] Greenhouse gas abatement
Corn ethanol has received much support on environmental grounds primarily because of its role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, the evidence for this claim is mixed.
A recent ten-year forecast of ethanol production by the USDA places 2017 corn ethanol production at 12 billion US gallons and growing at only 2% per year. This estimate, together with a parameter publishing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), indicates that this near-maximum level of ethanol production will abate GHG emissions by 0.13% (~1/10 of 1%) of current US GHG emissions. However, this does not hold for all greenhouse gases. Another study has suggested that replacement of 100% petroleum fuel with E85 (a fuel mixture comprised of 85% ethanol and 15% petroleum) would significantly increase ozone levels, thereby increasing photochemical smog and aggravating medical problems such as asthma.[19][20]
This value reflects increases in corn area and the use of 30% of the corn crop for ethanol. It also apparently takes into account anticipated improvements in corn yields and ethanol production. The PNAS value is a 12% reduction in greenhouse gas emission relative to the "net emissions of production and combustion of an energetically equivalent amount of gasoline."
The January 2006 Science article from UC Berkeley's ERG, estimated this parameter to be 13% after reviewing a large number of studies. However, in a correction to that article releases shortly after publication, they reduce the estimated value to 7.4%. None of the other values needed to complete the calculation are controversial.
GREET model maintained by Argonne National Labs in Chicago has produced a series of publications on GHG abatement through ethanol. The latest of the studies is [21]
[edit] Land use
Large-scale 'energy farming', necessary to produce agricultural alcohol, requires substantial amounts of cultivated land. Some have claimed that land is acquired through deforestation, while others have observed that areas currently supporting forests are usually not suitable for growing any sort of crops.[52][53] Related concerns have been raised regarding a decline in soil fertility due to reduction of organic matter[54], a decrease in water availability and quality, an increase in the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and potential dislocation of local communities.[55]
As demand for ethanol fuel increases, food crops are replaced by fuel crops, driving food supply down and food prices up. Growing demand for ethanol in the United States has increased corn prices by 50% in Mexico.[56] Average barley prices in the United States rose 17% from January to June 2007 to the highest in 11 years. Prices for all grain crops trend upward, reflecting a progressive increase in farm land devoted to corn for the production of produce ethanol fuel.[57] Prices for U.S. corn-based products, including animal feed, also rise. This translates to higher prices for animal products like chicken, beef, and cheese. June 2007 cheese prices rose to $2 per pound on average, increasing 65% over the same period in 2006. As milk prices in the United States, approached $4.00 per US gallon, [58] many American restaurant franchises announced price increases for their products to compensate for rising food costs.[59] [60] [61]
Alternatively, cellulosic ethanol can be produced from any plant material, potentially doubling yields, in an effort to minimize conflict between food needs versus fuel needs.[62] Instead of utilizing only the starch bi-products from grinding wheat and other crops, cellulosic ethanol production maximizes the use of all plant materials, including gluten. This approach would have a smaller carbon footprint because the amount of energy-intensive fertilisers and fungicides remain the same for higher output of usable material.[63] While the enzyme technology[64] for producing cellulosic ethanol is currently in developmental stages, it is not expected to be available for large-scale production in the near future.[65] Moreover, the production of ethanol for fuel raises a number of land scarcity issues, regardless of what production method is employed. Many analysts suggest that biofuel strategies must be accompanied by fuel conservation restrictions. [66]
[edit] Renewable resource
Ethanol is considered "renewable" because it is primarily the result of conversion of the sun's energy into usable energy. Creation of ethanol starts with photosynthesis causing the feedstocks such as switchgrass, sugar cane, or corn to grow. These feedstocks are processed into ethanol (see production).
The environmental and economic benefits of non-cellulosic ethanol – including corn ethanol – have been heavily critiqued by many, including Brad Ewing of Environmental Economics & Sustainable Development[67] and Lester R. Brown of Earth Policy Institute.[68] The main criticism dwells on the increasing costs of corn for food as the demand for ethanol production increases. It remains to be seen [vague] if ethanol production can overcome these problems.
Current, first generation processes for the production of ethanol from corn use only a small part of the corn plant: the corn kernels are taken from the corn plant and only the starch, which represents about 50% of the dry kernel mass, is transformed into ethanol. Two types of second generation processes are under development. The first type uses enzymes to convert the plant cellulose into ethanol while the second type uses pyrolysis to convert the whole plant to either a liquid bio-oil or a syngas. Second generation processes can also be used with plants such as grasses, wood or agricultural waste material such as straw.
[edit] Replacement of petroleum
Only about 5% of the fossil energy required to produce ethanol from corn in the United States is obtained from non-US petroleum.[69] Current (2006) United States production methods obtain the rest of the fossil energy from domestic coal and natural gas. Even if the energy balance were negative, US production involves mostly domestic fuels such as natural gas and coal so the need for non-US petroleum would be reduced. Developed regions like the United States and Europe, and increasingly the developing nations of Asia, mainly India and China, consume much more petroleum and natural gas than they extract from their territory, becoming dependent upon foreign suppliers as a resultThe science of Economics is generally defined as the study of scarcity management. Absent scarcity and alternative uses of available resources, there is no economic problem. As such, the subject of economics involves the study of choices as they are affected by incentives and resources.[70] Since land and agriculture have historically served the world as utilities for food production, many believe the alternative use of agricultural resources for ethanol fuel production imposes an artificial scarcity of food on a global scale.[71] [72] [73] [74]
Meanwhile, the United States Department of Energy, finds that for every unit of energy put towards ethanol production, 1.3 units are returned.[75] Another study found that corn-grain ethanol produced 1.25 units of energy per unit put in.[76] As yields improve or different feedstocks are introduced, ethanol production may become more economically feasible in the US. Currently, research on improving ethanol yields from each unit of corn is underway using biotechnology. By utilizing hybrids designed specifically with higher extractable starch levels, the energy balance is dramatically improved. Also, as long as oil prices remain high, the economical use of other feedstocks, such as cellulose, become viable. By-products such as straw or wood chips can be converted to ethanol. Fast growing species like switchgrass can be grown on land not suitable for other cash crops and yield high levels of ethanol per unit areaCritics argue that ethanol is a fancy way of using solar power. The processing and production, as well as burning of ethanol would not significantly improve carbon emissions over the current use of gasoline. Instead, critics propose the widespread adoption of battery electric vehicles (zero emissions vehicles) combined with increased use of nuclear power and solar power.
[edit] Problems
Fuels with more than 10% ethanol are not compatible with some fuel system components.[81][82]
Examples of extreme corrosion of ferrous components,[82] and internal separation of portions of rubber fuel tanks have been observed in some vehicles using ethanol fuels.[citation needed]
Formation of salt deposits, jelly-like deposits on fuel strainer screens
Can negatively affect electric fuel pumps by increasing internal wear[82] and undesirable spark generation. [83]
Is not compatible with capacitance fuel level gauging indicators and may cause erroneous fuel quantity indications in vehicles that employ that system.[84]
Not always compatible with marine craft, especially those that use fiberglass tanks.[85][86]
Decreases fuel-economy by 15-30%; this can be avoided using certain modifications that would, however, render the engine inoperable on regular petrol without the addition of an adjustable ECU, or use of multiple ECUs to run the engine on multiple fuel types. [87][20]
Support for biofuels could keep petroleum prices high in the USA (NY Times – [27])
Tough materials are required to overcome ethanol's corrosive nature, and the high compression ratio needed to make an ethanol engine as efficient as it would be on petrol; these would be similar to those used in diesel engines (which typically run at a CR of 20:1[88], versus about 8-12:1 for petrol engines [89].) Diesel engines cost significantly more than similar-sized ordinary petrol engines as a result of the more advanced materials used in their construction.
Whether the energy balance of ethanol – that is, whether the fuel contains more energy than was used to produce it – is positive or negative is debatable [90][91], as is whether or not the land used to grow the crop was obtained by, say, chopping down a rainforest, in which case the ethanol produced is just as unenvironmentally-friendly as fossil fuel due to the carbon released by the dead plants. [92]
the free masions secret club are making americans sick they run the country. refined sugar was never meant to be consumed by humans yet the fda promotes this crap in everysingle processed food available
USA 0 EU 1 CHINA 1 RUSSIA 1 0= No national Health Care. 1= National Health Care. I live in the UK and I along with everyone else pay into a country wide health care system. If I am out on my motorbike and have a crash, I am taken to the hospital and my broken bones are fixed and I receive superb care and all at no cost to me at the time. The National Health System is treasured by the British. The Doctors and Nurses are loved and respected by the people . The system in the USA is shocking & sad.
Yea thats why you grow it your self.
You are doing a great service to the public by trying to inform them of the real issues at hand! Keep up the good work! For a future segment i would recommend going over the TTC (Trans Texas Corridor).
American food is pure shit a real poison
You have to look at what each of the plans will cost you in premiums, deductibles and co-insurance. If the employer is kicking in for more of those in one plan, that would leave you with more in your pocket. Make sure that whatever plan you choose, covers the services you use the most and you can afford the deductibles and coinsurance amounts. You also need to be sure that the doctors you use are in-network providers for the plan you choose.
All we need do is look at history. Carter did this and ran our country into the ground. Clinton started his administration with a Democratic majority in Congress. He raised taxes his first two years in office only to see tax revenue drop dramatically so he reversed his tax plan in year three reducing the top end taxes (to the top 5%) creating an economic boom, investment was at an all time high and as a result MORE tax revenues were realized.
If Obama does as stated he will be sticking a thumb in the eye of common economic realities and history. Of course in interviews he stated he is not concerned with raising tax revenues as much as he is concerned with "fairness".
Great information, I don't know where Liberals get their information, but as you so nicely pointed out, there lacking facts.
Here are some thoughts, though you should check your text or notes to be sure.
4. As a transcriptionist, your most important skill is
A. the ability to type quickly
B. proficiency
C. the ability to accurately use reference materials
D. the ability to understand and analyze the dictation
You said D, but a transcriptionist has no real need to understand what the physician or surgeon is discussing to provide a proper transcription, and they certainly have no need to analyze the information. A more likely answer would be B. proficiency. A is wrong as typing quickly is only a plus if the information is correct.
7. A database of information used for research, patient follow-up, and improving public health programs may be a/an
A. correspondence management system
B. cancer registry
C. electronic medical record
D. tumor board
A is wrong as correspondence would not apply, any of the other three might, though the EMR would be least likely to aid public health. Check the other 2 answers in your text or notes.
8. If health care costs continue to rise, insurance companies fear that
A. they’ll have to offer a greater variety of insurance policies
B. coverage for dependents under age 18 will decrease
C. government involvement will increase on both state and federal levels
D. consumers will be driven to competitors who can offer lower prices
Health insurance greatest fears in the US is that if health care costs and the number of uninsured cannot be addressed the answer would be C.
9. How are professional credentials usually maintained?
A. By completing a continuing education cycle
B. By passing an annual examination
C. By joining the professional association
D. By receiving a degree
You said D. But once the degree is obtained it does not help in maintaining credentialling. All credentials require continuing education, but some also require periodic re-examination (though usually not annually) so A would be most correct.
10 the answer is A
11 the answer is B
13. Increasing the accessibility of patient information, reducing offsite storage costs, and freeing up department storage space are all benefits of implementing
A. computerized medical records
B. digital transcription systems
C. an integrated delivery system
D. correspondence management systems
You said B, but digital transcription systems would not change off-site or departmental storage needs, it would only change the method in which dictation was performed and stored for the transcriptionist. In the past this has been by dictaphone, or tape. A – Electronic or computerized medical records is the correct answer.
16. In managed care, all services must be
A. billed at a fee-for-service rate
B. monitored and approved
C. approved by the primary care physician
D. provided by the same physician
In managed care the patients are seen by a primary care provider, and all referrals are monitored and approved at that level before being submitted. You said B, but the answer may be C.
17. A new technology that will change the role of the transcriptionist is
A. speech recognition
B. desktop transcription systems
C. personal digital assistants
D. smart cards
You said B, which is one possible answer, but many providers are using voice or speech recognition software instead of transcriptionist for routine transcription and letters, this will have a significant impact. Check for the most correct answer.
Tough subject.
I am adamantly opposed to any form of socialized medicine. I constantly refer to the disaster systems in countries like Canada, where after a certain age (i.e. 65) they pretty much just let you die (i.e. you are too much of a liability). This especially applies when you need a common but drastic or expensive procedure (e.g. Bypass Surgery). You're pretty much weighed for worth and disposed of.
With private healthcare you have more choice, and discretion about whether or not you will be healthy and live longer. If it is a cost to you to stay alive because of unhealthy lifestyle choices, you are more likely to avoid those choices. Or, if you don't really care to have a long life you can indulge yourself.
If you have any form of government medicine, the incentive to take care of yourself drastically decreases. I mean, you're taken care of no matter what, and no matter how much you pay into the system. Why be healthy? Right?
Then there is the circumstance of the people who do live healthy lives but still have serious medical conditions. What about those good people? I have experienced this situation many times in my life, and realized that those people who have lived such a life usually have also built a strong network of people who support them. The charity of their network provides much of their healthcare costs. I have seen many successful recovers due to charity and caring.
Unfortunately, we ask the government to do too much for us. Our society loses the basic foundations that holds it together because we stop being responsible for each other, and ask the government to do it for us. This has always proven to be a disaster (e.g. AMTRAK, Freddie Mac, Sallie Mae, USPS, etc.). Notice that private competitors always are more responsible to the customer. Why? Because that what they depend on for existence.
Government should not be in the business of running business.
Universal healthcare only opens the gate for government involvement in healthcare. I mean Hillary Clinton (one of the strongest proponents of socialized medicine) supports it. She knows what it mean: Universal Healthcare = Socialized Healthcare = More Government Power/Control = Perpetuation of her career.
Be careful when looking at Universal Healthcare as something separate from socialized medicine. The two are not very different, and one of them leads directly to another.
unless you grow it yourself , most of the weed out there has manmade stuff put in it too. Is cocaine a drug? Opium ….? They are from the ground ,aren’t they ??
Amen
It's been many years since I took Econ. These are my guesses.
1. A
2. C
3. A
4. Not sure
5. B
6. Don't know
7. A
8. C
9. B
10. B
Next set
1. B
2. E
3. Not sure, but would mark E
4. Not sure, but would guess A
5. C
6. Not sure, but would guess B
7. D
8. E
9. Guess C
10. D
next section
1. Not sure, would guess E
2. D
Yes. Ironically, since the beginning of the Federal Reserve, the insane economics of these days is that debt creates money. The more debt created, the more money issued and in circulation. So, not only would politicians who want their administration to look good want us to spend more, they would want us to go into debt, borrow, to do it.
Here's Paul Grignon's informative and easy to understand cartoon video on the process.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279
http://www.moneyasdebt.net/
The pathetic, gross and unbridled materialism that this policy encourages is sick and sickens everyone and the society. And, now it is sickening the world economy.
Amo l ‘ America tantissimo!!
Yes, Typical American. Running to the drugs.
Pot is not a durg it growes from the fucking ground. Drugs have man made stuff in it. Know what your talking about before you open your mouth bitch.
STAY FREE!: I've heard that people in more affluent nations are more often treated for mental illnesses like depression than people in nations of low or moderate wealth. So does this mean that there is more mental illness in affluent places or is it just a consequence of poor people not having access to mental health care?
KIRMAYER: I think it's mostly the latter, though in many cases we don't know because there aren't enough epidemiological studies. If you want to make a generalization, then it's probably safe to say that poor countries have more mental-health problems, but by saying "poor" nowadays, you often mean societies where there is a huge level of conflict and violence. So it's not simply poverty–you can have a small, well-integrated rural society where people don't have a lot of material goods but they have excellent mental health.
STAY FREE!: Do people in different cultures commit suicide for different reasons?
KIRMAYER: Yes. Of course, the overriding reason, which is common across cultures, is overwhelming hopelessness and the desire to escape suffering. But there are also socially sanctioned reasons that can valorize suicide; in traditional Japan, suicide was a way of maintaining honor. To some extent, this is still a factor. People who have financial reversals will commit suicide not just to escape the problem but to make a gesture that acknowledges responsibility and hence restores honor in some way. Some of that's been exaggerated. There's been a stock image of the Inuit [the indigenous peoples of the arctic formerly called the Eskimo] as having a tradition of altruistic suicide in which older people sacrifice themselves for younger people. Granted, there were situations in which a whole family was starving and an elder would volunteer to be left behind. But that's a kind of self-sacrifice that people from many cultures could understand if they were facing similarly desperate circumstance so I'm not sure that should be viewed as suicide.
STAY FREE!: Has any interesting work been done on social stereotypes? Like the idea that Eastern European Jews are more neurotic?
The current system is ridicules….as insurance companies cut back what they are willing to pay for, they raise their rates. People die waiting to see if they qualify for a procedure they thought they paid for. How can this work if the point is profit…it's ridicules. You want to take care of the people or you want to make money, choose one. It use to be in this country you could pay for things on your own. Now they want to force everybody to pay the blood sucking insurers…that's not freedom, that the rich fat cats getting richer. I don't like the idea of insurance…I like the idea of taking care of my self, but with our great current system, I would have to shell out two years salary for an operation. This is wrong….
I see it clearly now!!! This is why we are not living as long as our grandparents, and our quality of life in our later years is diminished.
Oh wait…
HAHAHAHAHA,
Well, iam sure there is, has been ,and will be conspiracies. I have to say iam not a health person, i have always stayed away from Doctors because they are ridiculous.Every time ive ever visited a doctor i was ripped off & still went home sick. I believe the body heals itself, just as the earth will heal itself. I drink MT.Dew every day & have for many years.And iam not hyper as one of your guest says! I think alot of people need mental help now days.”What a world we live in!”
0:02 = OMFG!
The reason healthcare is such a big issue is because everything we are givien is poisonous. Unless you grow your own food, you are at risk for becoming ill, succombing to a for-profit drug company only to deal with the side effects of whatever dope it is they decide to put you on. Ask your doctor about (insert pill here). It will cure your twitchy legs while you try to sleep. Side effects include brain damage and death. Suffereing from brain damage and death lately? Ask your doctor about….
Thank you for the video. You guys are doing a great thing here, especially the maturity and objectivity of your presentation. Im sure you have already covered this but we need to do something about MSG/Aspartame and water fluoridation that is poisoning our country.
It is a hybrid health care system, partly socialized and partly consumer driven. The part that is socialized is growing every day, along with health care costs in general.
This could save you some money. Hope it helps!
http://www.premierhealthcaresavings.com/196593/
Good luck to you!
Your point is valid and interesting. I presume you're writing in America where the free market is advocated staunchly and anyone who suggests government intervention is met with amazement and comments such as communist or socialist. If here in the UK a politician suggested wholesale privatisation of the NHS they would immediately lose the election such is the popularity of the service.
I do believe there are certain goods and services which in the free-market can be abused in favour of firms. These are what in economics are known as natural monopolies. With a natural monopoly it is more inefficient to have more than one firm in the market. An example is the gas pipelines that provide gas to houses, factories and offices. If there was more than one network of gas pipeline, it would be highly inefficient and the competing firms would struggle to make profit. In these markets government intervention is desirable. So in the UK whilst water companies, the railway network (Network Rail), the gas pipeline network (Transco), the electricity lines (The National Grid) etc. are all privately owned natural monopolies, they are all still heavily regulated by the government or independent bodies in order to prevent them turning there consumer surplus into profit.
Indeed if left to the free market some goods would not be provided at all. These are in economics called 'Public Goods' and an example would be street lighting. If left to the free market, street lighting would not be provided because of non-rivalry and non-excludability (see link below for more details).
But overall the free market does allocate goods more efficiently than governments in almost every case. There can be market failures where consumers under value a good or service and fail to realise its positive externalities on society.
I guess different countries societies and governments have different opinions about it all. The value one country places on healthcare will differ from another. I feel sorry for you Americans with your rip off healthcare while us Brits in our supposedly 'socialist utopia' get it free.
Good question and hope that helps.
So what is your question?
Looking at what they did with medicade, SSI, SCHIP, HELL NO
There is so much I desperately want to warn people about the nightmare of Socialized medicine. I know all about it. I'm living the nightmare here in Europe.
The most important things to consider are this:
1) Think your doctor is apathetic and callous now? Ha!! Just wait until medicine is Socialized. He'll probably practice his golf putting while you're still in the examination room. Doctors under Socialized medicine can't care less.
2) Only 15% of Americans don't have adequate or any health insurance. The majority of them can afford it. They choose not to. Look at how many "poor" people have cable tv, drink coffee at Starbucks, have designer clothing, women with expensive hairdos and guys dressed in Fubu and gold chains. It's all a matter of priorities.
3) In all countries with Socialized medicine, you do not get a real appointment. You sit like a chump in a crowded, dirty waiting room with dozens of other hapless souls. So now, besides just paying for Loquitia and her six out-of-wedlock kids, you are forced to sit with the ill-mannered, raucous little brats.
Sound like fun?
Here is an analogy:
When I was young, we belonged to a nice country club with a pool and tennis courts. Membership was limited to 300 families, so it would not get too crowded. Summers were idyllic. We would often go there at 7am for swim lessons, and stay till 10pm, having eaten lunch there, and been joined by our dad who would bring food for us to grill, just as many other families did. It was a real club in the sense that everyone knew each other. Going to the club was the absolute core of our summers.
Then, it got sold to the Park District. They filled in the deep end of the pool so they wouldn't have to worry so much about anyone drowning. The pool was ridiculously crowded, noisy, and unpleasant. Mothers would just drop their kids off and leave. So many unsupervised children made it a nightmare. The place was dirty, and you could never swim laps because it was overrun by so many people.
Now you understand what will happen if private medical care is replaced by Socialized medicine.
Popular reporter John Stossel pointed out that Americans go to the doctor much more often than any other people on the planet, and take way, way more prescription drugs. We are also the fattest country on earth, and Socialized medicine would just be an excuse for people to demand fast, easy cures for their "obesity disease".
So, what do you want? A nice country club, or the nightmare of a dirty, over-crowded public pool?
I would be one of those uninsured but I get health care through my church. I know a lot of other people who do the same. And there are a lot of college students who are technically uninsured but can recieve health care through the health dept. and through their school.
Wow, I'm not going to do your homework for you, I would have answered one question, but not looked over all of them!
Anyway, just wanted to say congrats on going to a good program and taking the step to be eligible to take your RHIT! Good decision!
Healt care , economic law , failure to americain. Blame skull and bone assosication they control presisdent of usa for more then 100 year and they still got the rigth to be secret hahahhahah did u guys got any police or someting?
It is not for Iraq, he doesn't give a damn about Iraq
bush is just another errand boy for Elites !?
OK then let the future of this nation get sick and die, bcoz you want to conserve all your dirty money??
Ha Not only Iraq money was stolen, your tax was also hijacked by criminals? believer
C and D