I just wasted 3 hours of my life trying to debug this POS Dell box running Vista. I've had it for 2 months and it has sucked big time. I find myself at Fry's playing around with the iMacs more frequently. I am giving serious consideration to taking the leap and filing for divorce from Bill Gates. (No, I don't want to dick around with Linux because iTunes is central to my daily computing requirements.)
Anyway.
ObamaCare is in the news, and everyone has an opinion. You know what? The payment system for medical care in the US is broken. I know that the present system isn't really free enterprise and it is subject to massive government interference. I know that illegals swamp our emergency rooms. I know that socialized medicine results in rationed medical care. So what? All I do is look at the bottom line, which tells me that my cost for medical insurance increases 15-20% each and every year, even though my kids and I have no pre-existing conditions.
The system is broken. Everyone know this. At this point I don't care how the hell it's fixed, just fix it. The socialists win? Fine. Whatever. Otherwise, give me a better alternative.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Well put.
The problem is that the "fixes" being developed are literally drafted by the lobbyists from the hmo's and health plans that have been delivering 15-20% price increases every year. I'd feel better if you put our best independent doctors together with our best number crunchers to form the best plan possible -- rather than best for those companies providing the coverage. Otherwise we end up with things like medicare prescription coverage where the law prohibits the govt from negotiating for lower prices. Does that sound like a good deal for the taxpayers, or the drug companies? And this stuff actually passes and no one is out in the street marching on washington.
What you are seeing was caused by the government to begin with. Cost shifting from government programs is one of the three main reasons for the growth. Care providers just add what they can not collect from the elderly and poor to others. Goverment mandates and litigation risk management are the other two. The real question is how does what is proposed reduce the overall cost to the system, who gets what when, and how to allocate the price tag. Don't buy a pig in the poke IMHO.
It's just a matter of time: A payroll deduction to pay for an expansion of Medicare which will provide free coverage for everyone. Done. Call it what you want. Deal with it.
Added, premium coverage policies from private insurers will still be available to those who want to pay for it.
The millions of people who LOVE their Mac's are not trend-following fashion humpers - there is a rational, practical, damn good reason: They work. Always.
A colossal amount of money would be saved if we just rationed (or even stopped) end-of-life care to the elderly.
Toad is right, most of a person's health care costs are incurred in the last two years of life...that is why in most socialized countries healthcare is in part rationed based upon the "value" of the person...so you all had better get real productive or Mr. O will have your life support cut...IMHO
I also read somewhere that we spend a lot more trying to keep preemies alive. In much of the world with socialized medicine the state encourages abortion rather than giving live birth to children with birth defects. It explains why with our tremendous medical system we have a relatively higher infant mortality rate.
If we abort the defective fetuses our infant mortality rate would collapse.
Here it is:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-doctor-is-in-infant-mortality-comparisons-a-statistical-miscarriage/
I hope Anna Serin opts for a 110th-trimester abortion on her infant Casey.
I hate health insurance companies.
Evil bastards.
They just raise and raise and raise the premiums. my family does not even go to the doctor much. We just want catostrophic protection.
Health Insurance is something that has to be shopped every few years. Shop around, look at the deductables and copays, etc. Pick a product that fits your family needs and history. But keep it in mind it is insurance...how does it compare to your cable bill or cell phone bills? Which is of more worth to your family? Just asking.
We rely too much on insurance. Insurance was originally meant to protect us from high costs. Now, you have to have insurance just to get care. Add to that that the insurance companies used to be mutually-owned but are now publicly-owned, and you have these companies focused on quarterly profits and shareholder value, and their original mission is cloudy at best. Doctors and patients matter less than shareholders and profits.
"Doctors and patients matter less than shareholders and profits."
Get it through your head, the function of the insurance company is to make money - not to make your life easier or to provide payment for care.
Government pays (Medicard & Medicare) significantly less than a private insurer - cost is always shifted.
Government also does no management of care, but just pays bills.
It is not hard to be "efficient" at merely paying bills rec'd with a valid billing code.
Outright fraud also continues far longer under Medicare than private insurers.
There are plenty of empty storefronts down in Florida that were billing Medicare 6 figures a month for non-existent medical supplies a year ago.
bogalusan is right - the purpose of an insurance company (or any company) is to make money. The problem is that we haven't harnessed that motivation properly.
We have insurance pay the bill, so we don't see what it really costs. And we have no incentive to shop around.
The "public option" is supposedly a way to introduce competition. But it is unfair competition - the public option has the tax rolls to draw on if it runs a deficit. Private insurance does not. The public option will ultimately result in a single payer system.
We do need competition. The current system of regulation, where states determine who gets to offer insurance and under what terms, is stifling it.
I propose that we use non-profit 'medical unions', similar to credit unions, as the vehicle to engender competition. You join one of these unions, and they leverage the entire membership to contract out insurance for, say, two years. The med. union is non-profit, motivated only by getting the best care for its users at the best price. The insurance company is motivated by money. It has an incentive to cut costs vs raise premiums b/c it wants the next contract too.
Currently, insurance is tied to your employment. You aren't likely to switch jobs b/c of the insurance option, and the insurance company knows it. But if you could switch on a regular basis via your med. union, or even switching med. unions, the consumer gets the power.
Profit motive isn't bad if you harness it in the right way. you don't have to go the route of socialized medicine to address the problems we have with medical care.
I know I'm very late in reading and commenting on this article, but I hope you'll see this anyway.
I read a very interesting comparison of costs between two Texas cities recently. El Paso, which is very low (relatively) and McAllen which is the highest cost area per capita in the country. Very similar demographics, just very dissimilar treatment decisions.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all
Post a Comment