Would consumers save money if we cut the number of people in administrative health postitions?

  • Yes, administration is always top heavy.

    In health care, as in other types of endeavors, it is always economically beneficial to cut back on the administration in some way. Administrative costs just keep growing if they are allowed to because people get jobs and keep them no matter how useless they become, so consumers always pay the price.

  • Not the consumers

    Cutting people in administrative health positions does not save costs for the consumer, it merely saves costs for the health industry. The health industry in the United States is, despite being pushed by the current administration to become a public industry, a profit based industry that will focus primarily on making money than assisting the consumer.

  • No, I do not think so.

    I think the way we cut the amount of money consumers have to spend is to form a smarter, more efficient healthcare system; not cut peoples jobs. This does nothing besides hurt the economy and cause more problems. It is not the administrative positions that are causing this huge mess.

  • The real problem lies with procedure costs.

    Consumers would not save money if we cut the number of people in administrative health positions. This is because the work these administators do is already necessary. The real problem lies in the high cost of procedures, which seems to be strictly profit-driven. If we reduce the charges for procedures, consumers would then save money.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.