Why do Americans tolerate a healthcare system where the final arbiter of the medication they receive is not their doctor, but their insurance company. Anyone? Anyone at all?
I suppose Americans might ask me why I tolerate a system in which 35% of my (by no means small, but also not fantastically high) salary are taken away for taxes, and in which I am only a hop and a skip away from the 50% tax bracket.
And Brits would ask me how I could tolerate walking around with an identity card, which is necessary for almost any public activity, from voting to managing my bank account.
Different systems emerge out of different situations, and people get used to the system they've known their whole life.
Agreed. Question for you: does the government, which in the UK is ultimately the provider, ever deny procedures or medications? They've got to have some way of cutting or controlling costs, whether that be by saying 'you're too old for procedure x' or 'medication y is too expensive, we cover medication z which is almost the same thing.'
Here say you have heartburn. Usually companies will cover Zantac. Should that not work, then you are allowed to try more expensive alternatives such as prilosec. Many times it's a matter of paperwork the doc has to go through or how to feneigle the system, which can't be unique to the U.S.
Don't get me wrong, I get very tired of dealing with insurance companies and the problems they pose. But there's also a place for private insurance. My current research project is figuring out how decent systems (i.e. not ours) work.
In this case it's "We don't cover Seasonale because we don't think there's any reason that you should need to get your period less often than once every three months so you should take your Nordette and be grateful."
Despite the fact that my plan brochure says "All oral and injectable contraceptives and contraceptive devices, dispense 30 days or up to manufacturer's recommended dosage."
That should be "we don't think there's any reason you should need to get your period less often than once a month" or "we don't think there's any reason you shouldn't to get your period more often than once every three months." As is your preference.
Because as long as the decision makers (i.e., those with decent incomes, not just the wealthy) can get their care, they could give a damn whether others can get theirs.
Because, frankly, doctors really can get spendthrift sometimes. Their job is to heal, not watch the bottom line.
Because many people do not understand that the purpose of insurance is protection against financial ruin. The current state of health coverage in this country is akin to expecting car insurance to pay out every time you have to change the oil.
Every three months, it costs me $30 to change the oil or $170 to buy contraceptives. I'm just saying.
And the real issue here, as far as I'm concerned, is that our plan brochure says that they will cover in full "All FDA-approved oral and injectable contraceptives and contraceptive devices." I mean, how is there wiggle room there? It's a contraceptive, it's oral, it was approved by the FDA in 2004.
Because as long as the decision makers (i.e., those with decent incomes, not just the wealthy) can get their care, they could give a damn whether others can get theirs.
I'm not convinced of that, and am far more likely to lay the blame at the feet of a system that requires expensive advertising to get elected, meaning someone has to provide that money. I'm not sure I believe it's even possible to get elected without money from the insurance industry in this country.
Because, frankly, doctors really can get spendthrift sometimes. Their job is to heal, not watch the bottom line.
Doctors aren't really given a choice on this though, are they?
Because many people do not understand that the purpose of insurance is protection against financial ruin. The current state of health coverage in this country is akin to expecting car insurance to pay out every time you have to change the oil.
Well, except that for good or ill, health insurance isn't for protection against financial ruin (and, as I said above, it does a pretty pisspoor job of
( ... )
Comments 11
And Brits would ask me how I could tolerate walking around with an identity card, which is necessary for almost any public activity, from voting to managing my bank account.
Different systems emerge out of different situations, and people get used to the system they've known their whole life.
Reply
Here say you have heartburn. Usually companies will cover Zantac. Should that not work, then you are allowed to try more expensive alternatives such as prilosec. Many times it's a matter of paperwork the doc has to go through or how to feneigle the system, which can't be unique to the U.S.
Don't get me wrong, I get very tired of dealing with insurance companies and the problems they pose. But there's also a place for private insurance. My current research project is figuring out how decent systems (i.e. not ours) work.
Reply
Despite the fact that my plan brochure says "All oral and injectable contraceptives and contraceptive devices, dispense 30 days or up to manufacturer's recommended dosage."
Reply
Reply
Because as long as the decision makers (i.e., those with decent incomes, not just the wealthy) can get their care, they could give a damn whether others can get theirs.
Because, frankly, doctors really can get spendthrift sometimes. Their job is to heal, not watch the bottom line.
Because many people do not understand that the purpose of insurance is protection against financial ruin. The current state of health coverage in this country is akin to expecting car insurance to pay out every time you have to change the oil.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
Reply
And the real issue here, as far as I'm concerned, is that our plan brochure says that they will cover in full "All FDA-approved oral and injectable contraceptives and contraceptive devices." I mean, how is there wiggle room there? It's a contraceptive, it's oral, it was approved by the FDA in 2004.
Reply
I'm not convinced of that, and am far more likely to lay the blame at the feet of a system that requires expensive advertising to get elected, meaning someone has to provide that money. I'm not sure I believe it's even possible to get elected without money from the insurance industry in this country.
Because, frankly, doctors really can get spendthrift sometimes. Their job is to heal, not watch the bottom line.
Doctors aren't really given a choice on this though, are they?
Because many people do not understand that the purpose of insurance is protection against financial ruin. The current state of health coverage in this country is akin to expecting car insurance to pay out every time you have to change the oil.
Well, except that for good or ill, health insurance isn't for protection against financial ruin (and, as I said above, it does a pretty pisspoor job of ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment