It's all gobbledygook to me. :PfirstanointedAugust 3 2009, 19:54:21 UTC
Call me naive, but it seems a bit absurd how something as vital as healthcare is discussed among political circles as something less even than a commodity.
The free market should be kept out of healthcare. It's hurting too many people.
Re: It's all gobbledygook to me. :PfirstanointedAugust 3 2009, 21:52:45 UTC
That's the problem, nobody seems to know how to/want to utilize it efficiently. The free market helps those who can fight their way into it. That isn't an easy feat for the middle or low middle class, many of who are suffering directly because of unharnessed free market ideology.
Re: It's all gobbledygook to me. :PjohnpalmerAugust 3 2009, 22:40:39 UTC
Nod. Insurance is a tricky business at this level. Insurance is supposed to be a service; everyone pools their money, and make claims from the central pool of cash. Administrative costs are (hopefully) paid for by investing the cash pool in a prudent manner.
Trying to make it a profitable business can trying to find excuses to deny (or just delay) claims, trying to drop high risk clients, etc.. (Or it can mean such invasive regulations to prevent that abuse that it causes other issues.)
It should be remembered that "rationing" doesn't have to be painful. If you were giving away food at a soup kitchen, and had a gallon of soup per person, there's rationing... if everyone wants > 1 gallon of soup, someone isn't going to get what they want.
But a gallon of soup per person at a soup kitchen leads to the problem of controlling waste, not rationing.
In health care, there's not a "gallon of soup per person", but there's probably a good sized bowl, a large slice of bread, and some butter (maybe even jam and/or peanut butter, to boot!). It's only folks with special needs where we'll have to be careful.
But even there, the rationing is going to be "what gets paid for" not "what's available." "What's available" will probably expand to meet demand.
As the popular example goes, no one's going to say "you can't *have* a hip replacement for the dying woman" it's going to be "if you want it, you have to pay for it yourself."
Yep, that's rationing by the insurance company. Supposedly it keeps costs down.
But, you get access to care fairly quickly. It may cost, you may not have as many choices, but access is fairly soon. What if you have to wait months for some procedures?
Technology drives most cost increases, so maybe the solution is to cut back on technology advances. That might mean delays in cures for some illnesses, and it will likely cost jobs for those in the medical technology industry. No easy choices.
It may cost, you may not have as many choices, but access is fairly soon.
You're skipping over "it may cost" too breezily. For many of us, that's a deal-breaker, that's where it stops. It costs so much that we essentially have no option, because we cannot afford it. Therefore, many of us would take "waiting for months" over never getting the care at all.
Well, I'm used to having to make dental and gyn appointments many months in advance, but I was sort of surprised when I called in January to set up a physical with my primary care and the earliest available appointment was in April.
And if we have a government sponsored plan (which could be where the Fed sets up a giant risk pool of all those who don't have or can't afford insurance through their employers, then prices the premiums at a not-for profit rate), there is nothing inherent that mandates that you will have to wait for months for critical care - I'm tired of that red herring. It will probably shift "procedures" for the currently uninsured from the emergency room where they get taken care of today when it becomes a life and death issue to outpatient medical centers where treatment is less drastic, less costly, and less time consuming - more efficient - and maybe we can shift doctors and other resources out of the ERs and into less urgent venues.
But cutting costs, don't forget, means rationing.I'm near to getting rationed into a coffin right now from supposed "really good" insurance. Doesn't matter if daily glucose testing helps prevent complications - you can only have one box of test strips every three months. Doesn't matter if a wheelchair would prevent serious flares (and expensive hospital visits)... unless you need it to get to the bathroom in your own apartment, you can't have one. And it doesn't matter if these two medications would prevent you from needing an amputation in a couple of years (with all the complications and expense that follow)... they're not on our preferred list, so you can't have them
( ... )
Doesn't surprise me on the insurance claim person. But I'm not sure that a government plan is going to cover everything either, or do it quickly.
I've had limitations on medicines for my stomach. It's not a serious a problem as it sounds like you have, but it's still an issue. I went from one plan where prescriptions were cheap and plentiful, but getting to see a doctor was tough and limited, to one where doctor visits are easy but the prescriptions are much more expensive. Not sure which is better or worse at this point.
Comments 14
The free market should be kept out of healthcare. It's hurting too many people.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Trying to make it a profitable business can trying to find excuses to deny (or just delay) claims, trying to drop high risk clients, etc.. (Or it can mean such invasive regulations to prevent that abuse that it causes other issues.)
Reply
But a gallon of soup per person at a soup kitchen leads to the problem of controlling waste, not rationing.
In health care, there's not a "gallon of soup per person", but there's probably a good sized bowl, a large slice of bread, and some butter (maybe even jam and/or peanut butter, to boot!). It's only folks with special needs where we'll have to be careful.
But even there, the rationing is going to be "what gets paid for" not "what's available." "What's available" will probably expand to meet demand.
As the popular example goes, no one's going to say "you can't *have* a hip replacement for the dying woman" it's going to be "if you want it, you have to pay for it yourself."
Reply
Reply
Reply
But, you get access to care fairly quickly. It may cost, you may not have as many choices, but access is fairly soon. What if you have to wait months for some procedures?
Technology drives most cost increases, so maybe the solution is to cut back on technology advances. That might mean delays in cures for some illnesses, and it will likely cost jobs for those in the medical technology industry. No easy choices.
Reply
You're skipping over "it may cost" too breezily. For many of us, that's a deal-breaker, that's where it stops. It costs so much that we essentially have no option, because we cannot afford it. Therefore, many of us would take "waiting for months" over never getting the care at all.
Reply
And if we have a government sponsored plan (which could be where the Fed sets up a giant risk pool of all those who don't have or can't afford insurance through their employers, then prices the premiums at a not-for profit rate), there is nothing inherent that mandates that you will have to wait for months for critical care - I'm tired of that red herring. It will probably shift "procedures" for the currently uninsured from the emergency room where they get taken care of today when it becomes a life and death issue to outpatient medical centers where treatment is less drastic, less costly, and less time consuming - more efficient - and maybe we can shift doctors and other resources out of the ERs and into less urgent venues.
Reply
Reply
I've had limitations on medicines for my stomach. It's not a serious a problem as it sounds like you have, but it's still an issue. I went from one plan where prescriptions were cheap and plentiful, but getting to see a doctor was tough and limited, to one where doctor visits are easy but the prescriptions are much more expensive. Not sure which is better or worse at this point.
Reply
Leave a comment