• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Your Idea on Health Care Reform Could Win $10,000

    The Pioneer Institute’s annual Better Government Competition is a great opportunity for citizens to get involved in shaping public policy. The Pioneer Institute, for those who don’t know, is Massachusetts’ free market think tank, and with all that has happened in the state in health care the past few years, Pioneer couldn’t have picked a better topic than health care for this year’s competition. The competition is open to anyone with ideas on how to improve health care. Specifically, Pioneer is looking for entries detailing reform ideas that control health care costs, deliver services more efficiently, increase health care quality, improve clinical outcomes, lower administrative costs, decrease waste and unnecessary treatment and increase access to services. One grand prize winner will receive $10,000. The deadline for entry is April 13, 2009.

    cross posted at InsiderOnline

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    10 Responses to Your Idea on Health Care Reform Could Win $10,000

    1. Gloria Dugger, Senoi says:

      I firmly believe in limiting the number of children that are born to welfare recipients. Already here in Georgia, our HOPE scholarships are endangered because of the amount spent on pre-kindergarten programs, etc. Why should someone who is already on the dole be allowed to keep having children? We cannot continue to add to our government-funded healthcare by adding more and more children of welfare recipients. My suggesting? If one has already had two children paid for by the government, then they should be required to either undergo sterilization or understand that they will receive absolutely no additional monies or free healthcare from the government. This could result in a substantial savings in just a short time.

    2. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      I'm sharing a few paragraphs from an article I received. The story is provided as e-news for healthcare professionals. The story's quoted statements obviously drive home the liberal's wish list via misinformation.

      From Reuters Health Information

      Obama's Promised U.S. Health Care Overhaul Delayed

      By Donna Smith

      “Michigan Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow, for example, pointed out that U.S. automobile manufacturing plants have been moving from Detroit across the river to Canada because Canada's national healthcare system means companies do not have to provide expensive health insurance to workers.”

      “Congressional Democrats put on a brave face. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Wednesday there was ‘no question’ Daschle would have been a ‘great leader’ in the effort. 'But the effort is one that will happen.'"

      Let's HOPE not!

    3. Leisa Sisemore says:

      Our best way to deal with healthcare is to let the people of the greatest country decide how they want to spend their money. One way is to give us the opportunity to use altrnative health practitioners, such as chiropracters, masssage therapists etc. to keep people healthy. Also have our private ins to pay at lest 80% of these costs. Also I would like to see more ins. paying for supplements, vitamins, bio-idenical horomone replacement and other services that a patient wants to try for better health.

    4. Barb -mn says:

      It's over due time for people to understand. America is for those that want to live free. In order to live free people are expected to do for themselves. Responsible for their own existence. Part of their existence is their health if it is their will to survive. Health costs money and is expensed to those that need more then they can do for themselves. Private Insurance companies aid in the expense and is good for the economy. Government's only duty is to ensure the insurance companies are not taking advantage of those they insure. AND TO RESPECT OUR PRIVACY AND STAY OUT OF OUR HEALTH! But we've been paying into socialized health for many years without knowing it, part of the government's corruption. That's why the doctor shoves a pill down your throat instead of telling you it will heal on it's own. And why everybody's record of health and all that personal information is set up in a universal database. STOP THE GOVERNMENT!

    5. Barb -mn says:

      With "21st century technology" comes 21st century corruption.

      Handle medical records according to who needs them. The patient, doctor, nurse and insurance company… NOT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND NOT THE WORLD. WE DO NOT WANT OUR RECORDS ON LINE. Keep insurance business accessible in the economy, open market where the citizens can understand it is personal, parental and individual responsibility. This will keep privacy and give freedom of choice as it has always been intended for.

    6. Dave McDuffie says:


    7. Dave McDuffie says:

      Hey America, get ready to pay for some "octuptlets"! Get ready to fork over millions of $$$$$. Get a clue, government has no money, government is YOU! Fork it over! And get ready to pay for millions of illegals' births as well you blind fools! OBAMA HAS SPOKEN!

    8. Mike Martens, FL says:

      Having spent that last 26 years working in the health insurance industry, I can attest that the problem with our current system is large and complex. More government interventon is certainly not the answer. We need to have more affordable options to the health care consumer. Some of these options may be limited in scope and not pay for all perils. There is a difference in "medical demand" between young and old, singles and families. There are good health plans available in the market today that are limited in scope, but are affordable. The only mandate that should be given to the provider/payor industry is to provide measuable progress on correcting the problems that exist today.

    9. Engineer, Mississipp says:

      Health care today is one of the major issues that impact Americans of all walks of life. While quality of care is not the major issue in the Unites States, coverage of Americans certainly is, having declined from approximately 70% in the 1950s to less than 30% today. Rising costs are one of, if not the primary reason, for the decrease in coverage.

      Most of the time it takes forever to get the care you need and then the doctor is not allowed to manage the patient without being questioned at every move about costs or procedures from non professionals.

      We should keep in mind that if the doctor misses something it is the doctor who gets sued not the insurance companies.

      If you read Tom Dashcle's book you come to the conclusion that the elderly are the problem with the health care system. As a medical professional I find that both ethically and morally incorrect. It certainly sounds like someone who has been 'purchased' by the big health care lobbyists. Taking his example, then a 21-year old could have an abortion because of their age and it would be for the good of the country, yet my 78-year old father who had a heart attack would not receive any coverage because he should die for the good of the country?!! I would bet Tom Dashcle would exclude himself from these rules.

      I would submit that most of the rising costs are for tests that the doctor has to perform to cover himself from a malpractice lawsuit.

      Taking my opening statement and in the 1950s if you went to the doctor with a headache, more than likely he would give you some aspirin and send you home. Today, he would order an MRI at a cost of $1,000 to protect himself on the outside chance (1%) that the patient may have a brain tumor. Emergency rooms are used for minor medical problems which currently are a huge cost burden.

      Personally I like what Memorial Hospital in Gulfport, Mississippi is doing and should be used as a model.

      They are using existing buildings or abandoned buildings and modifying them to create health networks scattered across the city run by physicians keeping health care at the local level. These networks reduce the use of emergency rooms for minor medical problems which currently accounts for 20 to 30% of local tax revenues.

      The primary emphasis in these networks is prevention. The network is tied to other specialists and the hospital to provide those services if the primary physician thinks it is warranted.

      To make this system even more successful what needs to be done is remove the burdensome oversight(i.e., overhead) from health care providers such as Blue Cross/Blue Shield and create open competition for services only to manage the office (e.g., making appointments, entering data into computer, billing, etc.)

      The Federal governments role would be to ensure competition (i.e., contacts) for resources for modification and/or remodeling of buildings and to maintain and process information and data within the networks.

      The Federal government should have a role in making sure their is access to generic drugs and in negotiating costs on non generic drugs.

      Physician guidelines should be developed through a medical orgnaization such as the NIH and if followed, malpractice lawsuits should be kept at a minimum.

      Auditing for compliance can be accomplished through the GAO.

      This way health care stays at the local level. The Federal government should not have a direct role – that would be a disaster.

    10. N. Manetavat Cincinn says:

      Health and education should be Govt. responsibility. We don't want to have poor education citizens. Also it would not be nice to have citizens sick all over the place. We spend the money try to save live from war but at the same time Americans died from disease than war. If you put Medicine as business it will cost more because business means propfit. What is the manage care? There is a middle man, colect the premiums, take out the profits then pay the providers. The manage care does not see patients. The salary and bonus of the CEOs amount to1/4 billion dollars.Many years ago they said if we had compitition will cost less. Well it cost more.

      Every American should enroll in Medicare. You pay premium thru income tax like social security but have a upper limit. If you don't want to join you can buy from manage care company. The Govt. will not tax you but you have to prove that you have insurance. If you don't it will penalty. If you join there will be no pre-exiting condition. Payment to the hospitals and providers will be uniform according to the regions. Imagine how much we can save from CEO salary and compensation.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.