http://democurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/08/were-spending-more-on-health-care.html

CEOs — like John Torinus of Serigraph in West Bend — are excited about the prospects of sending employees for cheap health care in other countries, but the peripheral costs could offset those savings.

Torinus has 700 employees, is a board member of WMC, and business journalist at the Milwaukee Journal. He has very legitimate concerns about health care costs, but my hope is that supporters of medical tourism first expose themselves to the practice before they send employees into the pit.

Since suing a doctor or hospital for medical malpractice may be impossible in other countries, that helps reduce their costs. But the added costs of corrective measures in the U.S. must be considered. Or not, if the patient dies. And the costs of diseases picked up by a weakened patient on the return flight could complicate the legal case, if not the patient’s safety.

But hospitals must consider their contribution in this issue. Do they really want this fallout? I think not, and believe they should correct the above items and embrace a single-payer healthcare system that will ensure their place at the top.

David Newby, President of Wisconsin State AFL-CIO, wrote an excellent piece on Medical tourism and it is well worth the read. See it HERE. http://www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org/Newby-Torinus.htm

But the “speech” issue is well addressed in the public funding systems of both Arizona and Maine. Because the public grants are optional, and a candidate can opt to continue taking special interest money if they want, the clean money systems already pass constitutional muster. A lengthy amendment process is not necessary. We can have a clean money system tomorrow if the politicians wanted it.

The other way would be to clearly present to the public the absurdity of the idea, and push for a clarifying Amendment. Corporate influence would stop any such movement though.

Politicians should also write into any single payer legislation that health care is a “right” of all citizens. People identify rights. “Entitlement” is a conservative word to frame the issue as if it were an undeserved waste of taxpayer money to those who don’t want to work for their care. Another words, welfare.

The paperwork you note is the massive billing administration forced on hospitals by the insurance bureaucracy. A Medicare-for-all system would eliminate that, and with only one provider the reimbursements would have to be reasonable, especially if the politicians are also under it.

Medical tourism will lose support as difficulties with follow-up care and medical errors come to light. Why would doctors who work for a US hospital want to involve themselves in error corrections for foreign hospitals?

How long before those on government care can’t find a doctor?

Medical tourism is a part of the solution as well as less regulation.

You are right. IT IS a non-functional democratic system. It is corrupt politicians that are being paid off to turn their heads and not fix the problem because their campaign contributors like the status quo. Thus the “implementation” is to first get the money out of the political system (through public funding of campaigns) and then sit back and watch! Our health care system will be fixed overnight, useless government spending will be reduced or redirected to public services, regulations will be imposed on the financial and mortgage industry, and, and, need I say more?

And let me add that when a hospital CEO is paying your salary, and giving your performance reviews, it is pretty hard to be adamant about hospital deficiencies or pull your patients and admit them down the street if you aren’t happy. The temptation is to be compliant, or find another job.

If hospitals were non-profit then working for them on a salary would not be a conflict of interest.

Even if they remain for-profit, a strong code of professional ethics could make sure that the business side didn’t influence treatment decisions.

Like much of what is wrong these days, it is that the oversight agencies and the regulations that were established in response to failures in the past have been subverted. So we see tainted meat, lead coated toys and harmful drugs being sold.

All of this gets back to the fundamental problem, a non-functional democratic system. Electoral processes are biased against average people getting elected by the need for big money. As a results the interests of the majority are ignored: “he who pays the piper gets to pick the tune”.

If you want to contribute something original to the discussion then focus on how we get from here to there. We understand the goals, it’s the implementation that is the problem.