There have been myriad news stories and magazine articles about the problem. Yet still it's not important enough for legislators to talk about. Except here in Texas...when a measure was passed and Rick Perry did a 180 and vetoed it. Regardless of media reports, the average Joe doesn't want to believe that the "rich" doctors are anything but just that...rich. But the facts bear out that if things keep going like this, within a few years you won't be able to find a neurologist when you have a stroke. This is not somewhere far away...it's right here in Texas. If anybody needs proof, I have an article I'd be more than happy to provide. Not at all. I have seen people with coverage have their insurer refuse to pay for a medically necessary treatment. I'm talking about the textbook, first year of med school treatment. Why you may ask? Because the damned thing is expensive. I understand that these guys need to make a profit, but if you don't want to cover the costs don't write the contract.
I've actually had this problem. I had no insurance when it was discovered at age 31 I had type I diabetes. I didn't have insurance and treatment was expensive. Finally I got insurance, but it only covered 80%. The insulin pump that was then prescribed for me was well into the thousands of dollars. The supplies of the pump also cost a great deal, on top of the medicine, test strips etc. The insurance eventually ran out, and I paid for pump supplies for as long as possible. Eventually I had to abandon the pump because it was too expensive. I later had an insulin reaction and went to the emergency room, which also cost a lot of money. Doctors visits, emergency rooms, insulin, supplies etc. ran up a huge credit card debt. I was working multiple jobs to try and cover expenses plus the regular living expenses. Most of them were self-employed web design, acting jobs etc. and so they didn't come with insurance. Later I got insurance again. I'm back on the pump, and working on paying off my debt. I can tell you that no health insurance sucks, and I've had to sacrifice a lot of things now in order to pay off those credit card debts. New Zealand has a great national health care plan by the way. My family was in an auto accident while visiting New Zealand, when I was younger, and we received excellent medical treatment, for almost zero money. It was great.
That's a big part of the problem. The increases in those rates bear little relation to the amounts paid out on claims. Last year in Texas there was an across the board 100% increase (300% for hospitals). The other part of the problem is that the insurance that many of us have keep decreasing the amountof money they pay the doctors for their services. That's when they decide to pay the doctors at all. Not to mention the increasing paperwork required by the government that takes countless hours to prepare. In the end it's not really worth being a doctor anymore for a lot of them. I can't honestly say I blame them. I sure am glad I don't have to practice law that way.
Originally posted by Refman That's a big part of the problem. ... By far. The other part of the problem is that the insurance that many of us have keep decreasing the amountof money they pay the doctors for their services. Only Medicare can accomplish that, and it does. That's why many doctors are beginning to refuse Medicare patients, sadly. That's when they decide to pay the doctors at all. There are certainly 'bad' health plans, but overall that was a gross overstatement. Not to mention the increasing paperwork required by the government that takes countless hours to prepare. In the end it's not really worth being a doctor anymore for a lot of them. I can't honestly say I blame them. I sure am glad I don't have to practice law that way. I cannot blame them either. I llok forward to the day when they can just practice again and no longer have the headaches.
Cohen-- I think overall we agree on these points, but I must respond to a few things. The insurance companies base what they pay on the Medicare rates. So every time Medicare goes down, so do the major health plans. Would it have been more accurate in your opinion to have said that they are unpredictable as to timing of payment? It is not uncommon with MOST health plans for the doctor to either have the textbook treatment denied by the insurer or to have payment take several months and several angry phone calls from the doctor. From your keyboard to God's ears my friend.
That may be true, BK, but then your tennis elbow is not really a dire medical emergency that necessitates some universal medical scheme. If proponents of universal coverage want to talk about those po' folk who live on the streets and need help, fine. But don't say we need universal health coverage (I know you have private insurance) for someone's mountain bike accident.
I can't believe you guys can allow this to happen in a first world country... I have been to third world countries with better systems in place for the poor. It's ironic that Hillary Clinton was SLAMMED for basically proposing a health system everyone contributes to from their taxable income. It was based on the system we have here in Australia called 'Medicare'. It's not perfect, but it works...and EVERYONE is covered in one way or another.
No, no, my fellow antipodean, you don't understand. You see, the market *must* run everything, even basic human rights like health care, and bugger all those people on crappy-to-average wages who can't afford jack ****, because all the people on *good* wages are receiving what they believe to be 'excellent' and 'innovative' care, and that's all that matters, right? I'm so *over* anyone trying to argue that the current US system isn't a big steaming overpriced turd. FranchiseBlade's story makes me *furious*. I'm really sorry, man. Move to Canada.
ScreamingRocketJet, You are mistaken. We DO pay for free healthcare for the poor, to the tune of $200 billion/year. Often their coverage is better than someone covered by their employer. And as I mentioned previously, we also pay for Senior healthcare (Medicare - $250 billion/year). Children can also be covered under a fairly new Federally funded/State implmented program called a CHIP. The main issue for the poor is that their access to care varies greatly on a State by State basis, because the States are responsible for implementing Medicaid. An ongoing problem was people who lose their job would lose their insurance. There is now a law to offer coverage for people between jobs called COBRA. Under CONBRA, they can elect to get coverage under their prior health plan for a fee. Sometimes the fee is prohibitive, so I think that Congress may tweak that law some. Health insurance is now becoming widely available for those who don't want are are not eligible under COBRA, but it isn't always cheap. In Austin its under $150/month for a 30-something male or around $350/month for a family. Hillary's main problem was a simple one: she failed to build consensus. She was not an elected official and was going to try to revise 1/10th of our economy, so she needed to tread carefully. Instead, she held closed-door meetings like a dictator. She wanted closed meetings so she wouldn't have to fight a PR battle (on healthcare) along the way, but she made herself the issue and lost the PR battle anyway. dimsie, You might be able to influence other people more if your tone was somewhat less offensive. It's quite apparent that you will continue to believe that our system/approach has no redeeming qualities and your's is perfect. I don't care to discuss topics with people like that, so I'll leave you alone and let you stew in your *fury*.
Since when is healthcare a basic human right? And if it is....is it so important that you can infringe on my right to the product my labor an force me to pay for some else's healthcare? And the market is the us. The market is every person out there in the economy who make choices everyday.
The poor have access to things like clinics, emergency care etc. They don't have access to regular and preventative care. Also someone who isn't in the lowest possible bracket but still below the poverty line or just barely above the poverty line to well into middle class but has a disease that requires regular treatment is out of luck without insurance. Anyone who can't have regular check ups and preventative care will suffer and end up having to use the emergency clinics etc. more. I think it's more of a drain on tax dollars the way it is now than providing regular health care for every one who doesn't have insurance. I understand the point that those of us in the U.S. live in the richest country in the world, but the country refuses to give regular medical care to all it's citizens. I understand that it was voted down. It's just sad.
I'm not saying that you are advocating universal coverage. But since you raised the topic, I must give my opinion. Governement sponsored healthcare takes the economic incentive out of an incentive based system. Therefore there will be no new advancements and no new cures for diseases. There will be no profit incentive for the companies to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in research and development under a government sponsored system. The level of care would also suffer. The best and the brightest will not go to med school to work for the governement. And those that do go will be forced by the government to see a certain quota of patients, for example 12 a day. Overall, it just doesn't work. There is a reason that the wealthy in Canada come to the US for their healthcare.
Overpriced? You've got doctors and hospitals LITERALLY going bankrupt, but the care is overpriced. Check your facts before posting something like that please.
However, wouldn't that also encourage them to maximize profits? There has been the suggestion that less money has gone into find a cure for cancer than a treatment (same for AIDS) because the treatments fund an entire insustry of oncologists. If it was more profitable to make money off of the suffering of others, wouldn't that be better for the industry as a whole? It's like alternative fuel and fuel efficiency in cars. They can make fuel from sustainable resources and they can make cars that go 60 or 70 miles per gallon of fuel. However, they don't because they are afraid of losing their profits. That is actually a case of the market SUPPRESSING innovation, not creating it. In the same way, wouldn't the healthcare industry make more money by holding back cures if the treatments were more valuable? And before you say, "Oh, they'd never do that," there are dozens of times throughout our history when people were sacrificed for profit. It isn't like this would be something new. They know they can make cars that burn cleaner and are more fuel efficient. We'd benefit from less pollution and lowered fuel costs. But, they've pretty much shoved that one to the side in favor of profits. What makes us think they'd do differently for healthcare? ------------- I don't think we are simply talking about the wealthy getting highly sought after treatment. This is about basic, everyday healthcare for those who cannot afford it. If you are poor in America, it is treated like a crime. No matter how good a person you are, you are viewed as a failure because of your lack of income. You can see it in every advertisement, in how we treat the sick or those accused of crimes and how they are represented (or more accurately, NOT represented) in government. We act as if being poor means that you are also lazy, stupid and worthless. That is a response of market-driven thinking that basically says, "You must be successful to matter." Last time I checked, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were "inalienable" human rights.
Jeff-- As usual you make some excellent points on the other side. True that there are cases where the market has suppressed innovation. The only thing I can really say is that the market MAY suppress cures for diseases. But the elimination of the market and the government absorption of 10 to 14% of the GDP makes never finding a cure INEVITABLE. We can hope that the market will stop suppressing these cures (should that be what is happening). What you end up with in the final analysis is: Temporary suppression vs. inevitable incurbility Personally I'll take the suppression given that it may in fact be temporary.
