- The US uses about 22% of the GDP on health care and this percentage is rising sharply. Faster than in other countries.
- Millions of people are uninsured, and that includes a lot of people who DO have work, but still can't afford it. Which comes as no surprise to me if I hear the prices. Some of these people will also be those that chose not to spend the money on insurance, as they perceive themselves as healthy. This of course only raises insurance premiums for those that do have insurance.
So what? Also, how does one person not buying insurance raise the price of another's insurance? The costs of medical CARE raise the costs of insurance, along with the other expenses incurred by insurance providers. In no case is the costs of a person who wishes insurance the problem of anyone other than the potential insured. If I wanted a car, but the refusal of others to buy cars was inflating the price, that does not mean the government has the right or moral standing to force the purchase of cars in order to lower my prices (how the hell would that even work? Your misunderstanding of prices and insurance would seem to invalidate any opinions you might have on this topic)- Legal costs are through the roof, and in order to manage the liability on a micro level, doctors do every test possible, hoping not to be sued for missing something. This is costly.
This is a result of insurance and bureaucracy. A bill that will create more of the latter, and force a greater use of the former will only increase those costs. - Cost-effectiveness is not even discussed, let alone that it is used to allocate money efficiently over the health care sector and over all sectors in the economy. In many European countries (UK, Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, France, amongst others), although it should never be used as a sole criteria, it is understood that a basic understanding of the additional costs per gained health is important.
What the hell is a unit of "gained health" and what "additional costs" come with it? In a free market system where people pay for their own medical care and have greater freedom to choose their providers, they can weigh the cost effectiveness for themselves. The criteria of which you speak is exactly what the so-called "death panels" refer to. People will decide for others and for groups, what constitutes a cost effective level of treatment, rather than deciding for themselves how much they wish to pay for the services they seek.- My wife just finished an internship in a US hospital, where she learned that insurance companies, even though they pre-approve all the treatment, do not pay the hospital bills 30% (!!!) of the time. This was seen as inevitable, and routine by the physicians. This money is recouped in other ways. In other words: those that do pay, pay (much) more.
So the answer to this problem is INCREASE the dependency on those insurance companies? Individuals who failed to pay any sort of bills 30% of the time would be held liable in civil or criminal court. On the other hand, the companies leave no way for the providers to get recompense. Those physicians or practices which forgo insurance plans and deal on direct payment basis find they can charge much less and run a more remunerative practice. My father ran a couple of optician stores once, and he finally refused to take some form of insurance plan or Medicare or something, because it was too hard to get reimbursed, and the costs of keeping records and applying to the provider for reimbursement was prohibitive as well.- I also have the feeling, from anecdotal evidence, so correct me if I'm wrong, that US doctors seem less inclined (relatively speaking, compared to European doctors) to take quality of life into account: extra life is extra life. US doctors will therefore treat end-of-life patients more aggressively than European doctors will, focusing on any life gain they can achieve. (Dutch doctors are of course notorious for starting palliative treatment early, although I don't think this is wholly deserved.)
If you think this is a problem, you can bloody well drop dead, thank you very much. Quality of life is purely a patient's choice, and the default SHOULD be to save a life, absent the patient's specific and explicit wishes otherwise! Those bullshit euphemisms about palliative treatment simply mean "it is not cost-effective to try to aggressively save this patient's life, and with bureaucratic mandates in the name of cost-effectiveness dictating we expend resources on patients with anticipated higher quality of life, we'll write him or her off, spend less on them, and call it 'dying with dignity'."So tell me, what should be done instead? Can anything be done? What way should the US go forward, before the whole system collapses, which I am afraid will happen sooner or later.
Scrap the system. The system is the problem. Let people buy their own insurance (or choose to not buy it), stop forcing employers to provide it, stop restricting the market for insurance providers, stop requiring the approval of special interest groups for legitimizing treatments or care, institute tort reform to prevent a jury of ignoramuses from second-guessing medical decisions and raising the costs of medical practices, and make insurance providers compete for customers' business and doctors' acceptance, rather than interfering in the free transaction of a business service between the doctor and the patient.
Cannoli
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
Health care reform
04/04/2012 07:38:50 PM
- 551 Views
As a supporter of a socialized health care system (obviously), I still found the bill terrible.
04/04/2012 07:54:04 PM
- 247 Views
Overcoming the propaganda is a huge challenge in itself, one Robamacare has only exacerbated.
05/04/2012 05:08:51 PM
- 320 Views
While I think a movement towards public health care in the long run would be good...
04/04/2012 09:11:50 PM
- 238 Views
The problem with cost reduction is that you need to consider the system.
04/04/2012 09:45:24 PM
- 319 Views
I want to see ObamaCare ended. There are two viable options as I see them:
04/04/2012 09:52:58 PM
- 258 Views
coming from a veterinary viewpoint, this emphasis on even having insurance is unnecessary
05/04/2012 01:01:27 AM
- 238 Views
That actually was the way medicine was practiced for the longest time
05/04/2012 01:23:28 AM
- 347 Views
it looks to me like it was more like employers trying to manipulate the program
05/04/2012 01:30:19 AM
- 240 Views
![](/site_media/images/smilies/wink.gif)
![](/site_media/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
Re: Health care reform
05/04/2012 12:45:37 AM
- 318 Views
Well, I can give some thoughts on the matter (Disclaimer: Long post)
05/04/2012 07:18:19 PM
- 321 Views