Dr. Christine Eady MannVerified account

To my patients that had no insurance, and am eternally grateful to President Obama and Nancy Pelosi for the heroes work they did getting it through. Anyway, to answer your direct question: Good data show that “just streamlining” paperwork, ie. reducing the overhead...

Would save enough money to insure almost everyone who doesn’t have insurance now. The cost savings there is huge. But, it is a misunderstanding to suggest that the “government” would handle all that. The “government” doesn’t handle Medicare paperwork now. My staff does...

As a Medicare provider, I don’t work for the government. Neither does my staff. I am an independent contractor (all doctors and hospitals who contract with Medicare are) *exactly* like I am an independent contractor with Aetna, United, Blue Cross, etc...

We do have a truly government run medical system in the US: the VA system. There, everyone-doctors, techs, nurses, are employed by the government. The British system is like this. I am not in favor of that type of system.

So, no, I’m not in favor of a VA type system where the government would be the owner/employer of all healthcare entities. I’m in favor of transitioning everyone to Medicare, remaining a contractor with an independent practice, vastly reducing overhead, saving money and lives...

I would do it in a step-wise approach which I can tell you about if you’re interested. Let me know if you want to hear more or if you have more questions. Thanks!

I don't mind reading about you plan. In regards to above What is the apparatus that all of the paperwork would be going to? I want to say streamlined because from what I can tell you want everything to be paid out by one entity and this would include the paper work process.

Also does your plan not include jobless? Because you mentioned paperwork being handled by your staff but if the end game is have one entity pay then I don't see how this is avoided?