I think one of the things that even savvy doctors will admit is that which the power of the mind holds over one's healing capabilities. Regardless of treatment regime, one's mental outlook has much to do with the actual outcome. That isn't to imply that medicine is all mind-over-matter, but simply that much of modern medicine doesn't take anything of the mind into account and much of "alternative" medicine places too much credence in the mind. I'd like to see a little more moderation.

good idea, tnx

Drugs are one of the biggest problems with health care costs. Something that could make an enormous difference would be to lower drug patent durations. It shouldn't be done on existing drugs, because that would be reneging, but any future drug that applied for a patent after a certain date (future drugs) would have a much shorter life span (say 10 years). That still gives the manufacturers plenty of time to make their money.

I know this idea may sound counter intuitive to an Objectivist, but the drug companies have gone insane. I am all for maximizing profits, and there shouldn't ever be regulation on what they can sell drugs for, but if we want to keep from having a single payer system some day, then we have to start opening up competition for generics.

Good question, but I'd suggest to get more traction you post this as a separate discussion.

Regarding the burdensome certifications for specialty hospitals, see an article in this month's issue of Reason Magazine.

Here's an expansion on Point Six: "Stop boxing out specialty hospitals with burdensome certification requirements." To which I would add: "Stop boxing out centers of alternative medical practice with burdensome certification requirements, and while you're at it, stop boxing out alternative medical practitioners with burdensome licensure requirements."

I scarcely hold it Objectivistic to have the government "examine" for medical qualifications. Let the patient judge for himself, or affiliate with a group that will do the judging for him.

I hold that conventional medicine gets a lot of things wrong, and that's the real reason for any worse healthcare outcomes the proponents of statist medicine keep citing the United States for.

So, why is everyone (GOP) ignoring this FOUR pages? http://www.cscmediagroupus.com/robert...

The ideas on insurance reform alone would save much along with the malpractice "industry" reform

No worries, I hope you are enjoying your day and the kids;^)
All fine except the government reimbursements. Establishing a local charity to make up the difference is a better voluntary answer that keeps the government out of your business.

sorry so,long to reply was at kids soccer games but this would be a private program from the drs pharm hosp and lab component as that is part of what it is to show that a private system can work more efficiently. The only govt part is what we do not pay in taxes for services rendered . There are many more details but hard to place all in comment area

While I agree that competition would be a good idea, the private sector should devise the "programs" and government has no constitutional power to interfere, meddle, or direct the process.

agree, trying to problem solve as A Rand said"Ideas cannot be disproved except by means of better ideas..."

also think that it would be better to take several different ideas and test them in several areas to see which way works best instead of some massive one size fits all govt program

You deduct your payment to employees for their time as it is tax deductible regardless of whether you collect fees for the services, so I am not forgetting it, and I did mention the exception of your time, so I didn't forget it either.
As a consultant, I had the same issues when I provided any service gratis or at a lower fee that did not cover my costs. I understand the tax aspects (and I am qualified via experience and education to prepare tax returns for others although I do not do so as a paid service as a matter of principle. I refuse to profit directly from an unconstitutional government law that loots from producers.).
Government should not be involved in either your business, nor mine.
I respect you for trying to create a different way than the current process, but allowing government to continue to interfere is not an acceptable solution because it continues the errors that have created the problem.
The GOP "solution" to Obamacare is also nothing more than a continuation of the same problem under a different name.
That was completely predictable, and many have posted the prediction of continued GOP interference in health insurance and health care. Trump should act to make every provision of Obamacare null and void, and to veto any replacement of it .

you are forgetting the time I pay my employees that do the work and my own time and services provided that are not collected. Every service has a value rbrvs unit. For the un/underinsured if you divided it up between drs it would cost less than the current ACA mess and care could still be provided by using it as a tax credit not a direct payment. Not perfect but it trying to problem solve a more economical way that benefits both sides

The Republican replacement for Obamacare appears to ignore most of the issues brought up by the article. Aren't there at least a few GOP members of the House and Senate that would be willing to team up and introduce a bill that would include these much more meaningful and effective proposals?

So you expense all the costs (except your personal time) and they are tax deductible. You want to deduct something more than all your costs?
Who do you suppose would be paying for the services then? TANSTAAFL.

It is written into the tax code that noncollectable services cannot be written off, considering that any material costs were already expensed. We end up with a lot of unpaid bills that we ultimately just have to write off...

Indeed, the purpose of many regulations is to exclude competition.

There are endless such regulations that they refuse to get rid of as they try to pile more on top of them.

Insurance on insurance premiums? A market for insurance would already allow for that either directly or through a more expensive option that limits increases in future premiums.

There should be no government interference in the form of mandating plans that must be available. Government planners confuse reform with more government planning, then sell it in the name of a "solution". The solution is for them to get out of it and stop planning other people's lives, then pushing more planning to 'fix' the problems they already caused and blaming it on a "crisis" in the market. Get rid of that and there is no need to suggest to them lists of ideas, the medical and insurance industry is perfectly capable of developing and offering valuable new ideas.

The one fundamental item is deeper than rejecting claims of a "crisis" needing their help: it's the false premise that health care is a "right" that government must turn into a coercive entitlement. Egalitarian nihilists see "crises" requiring more statism everywhere they look. They won't stop that until the collectivist premises are eliminated.

Please explain what specifically stops a doctor from doing so.

Although there are many good ideas in this list, the one that could do the most improvement rather quickly is removal of the "certificate of need" process. In my area, the two healthcare networks in my county have used it against each other to basically set up monopolies in the northern and southern ends of the county. These networks have also effectively made it nearly impossible for doctors to be members of both healthcare networks. Many doctors and small networks of doctors who had independent practices have been given ultimatums to either join or be excluded.

no we are not allowed

"allowed drs to deduct the care off out gross at the end of the year "
Couldn't providers do this under current tax law? Any business can chose to give away product or services, which decreases its profit, which decreases its tax obligation.