Employers and the uninsured are feeling the squeeze of skyrocketing medical costs, so the answer is what? Do we look into why the cost of treatment here in America is more expensive than anywhere in Europe? Perhaps we can allow the government to import cheaper drugs? What’s the answer?
The President’s answer is to shift responsibility from employers onto individuals, and ultimately onto the government through tax cuts for out of pocket costs. Will this reduce the cost of a procedure or a pill? No. That’s not the idea at play with savings accounts or the new prescription drug plan. With both, the federal government is creating situations that please insurers, bankers, health providers and drug makers, at the expense of everyone else, to include itself.
It counteracts the ‘small government’ theory in every way, as the market is unable to work this out on their own, so government is expanded to cover a deficiency. Your tax dollars, already heavily leveraged by interest payments to southeast Asia, will now be spent to maintain a health care system that is becoming more ineffective for Americans by the year.
Is this what Republicans stand for? To me it’s merely another way to kick the can down the road. This isn’t an issue the GOP can manage, nor can they spin it for political points. With this in mind, I’d rather they just leave it alone, because these ideas do nothing but complicate the issue. Costs are killing the system, it’s obvious. Costs are the root cause.
What will health savings accounts do to address the root cause of the problem?
These accounts can be useful for people who don’t go to the doctor much and our relatively healthy, as long as they have some sort of catastrophic insurance policy or just a policy with a high deductible. the savings account can used to pay the deductible in the event you have a big illness and if you don’t need it then you save some money.
These accounts are not going to help parents of young children as it seems like kids are always getting sick and it is not going to help the elderly for the same reason. In those two groups it will encourage people not to take their kids to the doctor and will encourage the elderly to grin and bear that little tumor.
If the goal is to dicourage people from seeking medical attention then health savings accounts are good policy.
Another thing is that right now young healthy people who don’t use the system, but still pay for insurance, subsidize the health care system for those that do use it. If everyone who is young and healthy switches to a health savings account then they will no longer be helping to pay for the health care of the people who need it.
I know some of the conservatives on here think that is a good thing, but I do not think the country as a whole can live with the consequence of lots of uninsured children and elderly, which means the government is going to wind up picking up a larger share of the tab.
It is a good product for some, but a new product is not what’s needed to fix the problem. I see health care in America as the #1-2 issue in the coming years, and the party that actually fixes the problem will be the one I support in the coming years.
Newt Gingrich had a talk a while back that made a lot of sense to me as I heard it, and it was the single-payer system combined with an influx of cheaper drugs…after researching and thinking about it more though, the reality of life for those without coverage isn’t going to get any better if they still have to fork over a thousand dollars at the begining of each year.
It’s a situation where the idea that the market will fix itself somehow should be in the garbage. This administration is all about the idea that providing more choices will work wonders, but the logic doesn’t match up with the facts when you look at statistics of costs and the number of uninsured, particularly the number of uninsured who work full time!
Unless as a society we are willing to let people die becuase they cannot afford health care, the market is not going to fix the problem. Plus, once you get the right wing involved in health care decisions it gets worse, like the refusal to vaccinate against cervical cancer and the refusal to pay for birth control. Just one more example of conservative policy failures, undoubtably caused by the liberal media.
Unless as a society we are willing to let people die becuase they cannot afford health care, the market is not going to fix the problem.
I think the idea is that the private sector handles the mainstream of America and the State governments have a very limited healthcare plan for the poor, indigent and those in financial crisis. A massive social wellfare plan just doesn’t work, the quality is way too low.
Right:
Are you saying that poor, indigent and those in financial crisis have a right to health care?
One thing that seems to be part of the HSA plan is the idea that health care is being over-consumed by those with good insurance, if that is the case aren’t pharmacutical companies with all their advertising part of the problem.
The chicken pox vaccine is a great example of what can happen with market driven health care. About 10 years ago someone figured out that they could market a vaccine for Chicken Pox so they created a demand for something that probably was not needed. Now, a side effect of the vaccination is that people who have been vaccinated against Chicken Pox are probably more likely to devolope shingles, which is how the Varicella virus expresses itself in older people, as they have no natural immunity to it because they were never exposed to the full virus. The free market is not always the answer.
Are you saying that poor, indigent and those in financial crisis have a right to health care?
I’m not tossing around the “rights” designation here but I do believe that mostly the state governments and a bit of the federal government should provide health care to that certain segment of society. The permanently disabled, both mental and physical, as well as short term care for people in crisis. I am totally against socialized medicine, socialized retirement and just about anything socialist/communist.
One thing that seems to be part of the HSA plan is the idea that health care is being over-consumed by those with good insurance,
Correct
if that is the case aren’t pharmacutical companies with all their advertising part of the problem.
Advertising isn’t a cause for healthcare problems. People who don’t have health insurance, it isn’t because of advertising. People demand the best cures no matter the cost and then when the cure arrives they balk at the price. There are a small number of illnesses that could be treated with a $0.10 water pill, for example, but big pharma developes a $100 treatment.
If I were to name one thing that is hurting healthcare right now that would be administrators of healthcare plans. The middleman needs to be cut!!!
The free market is not always the answer.
If we sat back and never tried anything new because we were too afraid something bad might happen we’d still be living in caves. We live and we learn and we make things better, not overnight, but things do get better.
As far as never trying anything new, seems like we have been trying to let the free market solve the health care problem for some time and it is not working.
The profit motive does not always lead to the best health care, obviously it is more profitable and much easier to treat suburban children with the sniffles, than it is to homeless people with frostbite or severe ailments but we both seem to agree that these people should be treated. The question is how do you get medical professionals to want to treat them(the homeless and indigent) when it is much easier to hand out anti-biotics and bill the insurance company a couple of hundred bucks for an ofice visit.
Typicaly the homeless and the indigent as well as the elderly are going to have more severe and expensive problems, passing these problems on to the government and letting private industry deal with the easy and profitable cases leads to trouble in the form of higher taxes for everyone because the governemnt is responsible for the expensive cases, seems like a single payer system might solve this problem.
I think we both agree that health care is being overconsumed, what do you think is the cause?
This sort of fits what we are talking about:
MONDAY, Feb. 6 (HealthDay News) — Patients in U.S. hospitals rated in the top 5 percent for clinical excellence have a 27 percent lower risk of death and a 14 percent lower risk of complications, a new study finds.
The findings were released Monday by HealthGrades, an independent health-care ratings company.
If the quality of care at all U.S. hospitals matched the level of hospitals in the top 5 percent, 152,966 lives could have been saved and 21,896 complications could have been avoided over the three years — 2002, 2003 and 2004 — included in this study, the report found.
The fourth annual HealthGrades Hospital Quality and Clinical Excellence study analyzed nearly 39 million hospitalizations at all 5,122 non-federal hospitals in the United States.
Hospitals were rated based on death and complication rates in 26 procedures and diagnoses, including bypass surgery, hip replacement, stroke, pulmonary embolism, sepsis, bowel obstruction and gastrointestinal bleed.
“The data in this year’s study indicate a clear and profound divergence between the best hospitals and all others,” Dr. Samantha Collier, HealthGrades’ vice president of medical affairs, said in a prepared statement.
She added that, “this growing ‘quality chasm’ is of concern to health-care professionals and patients alike, and we urge all consumers, if possible, to do their homework before checking into a hospital.”
The question is how do you get medical professionals to want to treat them(the homeless and indigent) when it is much easier to hand out anti-biotics and bill the insurance company a couple of hundred bucks for an ofice visit.
First of all, I think healthcare professionals want to treat everyone, regardless of their current status. The government already has a program for urban renewal and investment for inner cities and ghettos. There are loan guarantees for these areas and other enticements for businesses. It just needs to be applied to healthcare. They do it for insurance also.
passing these problems on to the government and letting private industry deal with the easy and profitable cases leads to trouble in the form of higher taxes for everyone
That is the point, the uninsurable are able to get coverage through the government. That is how flood insurance works, that’s how inner city loan programs work, and the other 90% have their risk covered by the private insurance blanket. Taxes shouldn’t be affected. Once Social Security goes away we will all be better off.
I think we both agree that health care is being overconsumed, what do you think is the cause?
I hinted at it before but the biggest issue is demand for perfection. People demand their children are saved from cancer, NOW. People demand cures over treatments and people are not trained to take care of themselves.
Technology is a catch 22, we spend billions developing the heart bypass surgery and then shit a brick when we get the $150,000 price tag. Some people smoke and drink their way into an ICU and some are born with defects through no fault of their own.
Can you look at a person on their deathbed and say that it is too expensive to heal you?
Just out of left field, I would suggest the creation of a not-for-profit consumer group that researched cheap commercial and herbal treatments that are used as a first line of defense. My wife and I rented a birthing tub for $450 and she used no drugs, IVs at all. Just hot water I continuously scooped and poored over her back.
Cancer needs chemo but maybe high blood presure just needs a $0.10 water pill. There are cheap remidies already out there.
If the quality of care at all U.S. hospitals matched the level of hospitals in the top 5 percent, 152,966 lives could have been saved and 21,896 complications could have been avoided over the three years — 2002, 2003 and 2004 — included in this study, the report found.
Every doctor can’t be the best anymore than every team can win the superbowl every year. Why is Harvard better than Orange Country Community college?
This is the expectation of perfection I was talking about, we want every hospital to be the best and we spend and spend to make them all equally the best. How much will it take to get Orange County Community College on par with Harvard? Would we want to?
Like colleges, Americans consilidate their expertise in confined locations to gain from an expert environment. If every hospital only chose to hire the top 5% of doctors then the other 95% would be on the treat and a lot of hospitals would either have no doctors or be broke from hiring the top 5%.
As someone who’s experienced the impact of a shit hospital, it’s no picnic. Not for the workers or the patients. Hospitals in certain areas are like schools in certain areas. Does the area have a high average household income? That’s all you need to know for the most part. I agree with Right, that the folks working on the front lines want to do a good job, want to help people.
I think that’s the case for the overwhelming majority of Americans.
As far as the over-use/costs…everyone’s got ideas, and for the most part everyone’s right. There are too many administrative levels that aren’t needed, generic drugs should be used more often, and hypocondriacs ruin it for everyone.
Right, karl – look at the prescription drug bill…they ADDED insurance companies into process. Basically creating ANOTHER unnecessary level of BS, and the government (only the VA is allowed) cannot purchase drugs at a bulk discount rate or import generics.
Seems like right now because money is interwoven in politcs it is hard to get anything through that is not filled with pork and in the end the patients pay for it.
With all due respect to the free market types health care may be a place where the market does not fix the woes.
Seems like right now because money is interwoven in politcs it is hard to get anything through that is not filled with pork and in the end the patients pay for it.
The prime argument for less federal and more state control.
With all due respect to the free market types health care may be a place where the market does not fix the woes.
The market responds to demand so someone is demanding that things be this way. The great thing about Free Market economies is it is hard to hide the demand, there is a transparancy there. The problem with socialized healthcare is the government provides what it thinks is important, not what people actually want or need.
The states and Fed need to incentivize(real word?) the healthcare that people need. Maybe there needs to be several types of plans, which I don’t like, or the Fed needs to pay the states to administer plans for the bottom 5%. Either way, social medicine is a killer to innovation, and service.
This last sentence is something you can’t prove Right. It’s just like saying, ‘if we install democracy within the Middle East, it will spread and everyone will live in peace’.
When conservatives chuck up the ‘killer to innovation and service’ point, it flies in the face of what the market is ‘supposed’ to provide. Now, to say that socialized medicine would have that effect in America is to pretend that there are no other countries on the planet. It’s a GLOBAL ECONOMY, and many countries have scientists working on cures and advancements.
Look at automobile manufacturing for example. We started it, and someone else perfected it. The exact same thing will happen with treatments and prescription medication once you remove the government subsidies. By not allowing Medicare to bargain for better prices, our government basically works for Pfizer, Merck, etc…and not for us.
If Belgium makes a generic for $.25 a pill, why should Americans be forced to go with the brand name for 10 times the cost? Oh, because the foreign prescriptions aren’t safe, right?
You know Right, that’s the line the GOP has fed us on this issue, and they’re 100% full of shit. This is about keeping the right companies flush with cash and much like our automobile industry, government pretends to be helping them, our economy and us by interfering, creating a rigged game…but all it does is drag down the whole country.
As I wrote about before, when government gives preferential treatment to business that it does not provide to individuals and itself, the other two suffer.
With health care, corporations are doing fine, individuals are not and the government surely isn’t.
So if conservatives really believe in the market’s ability to fix problems, then why do they go the opposite way in addressing health care? I think it’s because that industry has them in their back pockets.
This last sentence is something you can’t prove Right. It’s just like saying, ‘if we install democracy within the Middle East, it will spread and everyone will live in peace’.
I have all the current models of socialized medicine as evidence. If you then say that these other coutries are doing it wrong then I ask why would we do it any differently than they do?
When conservatives chuck up the ‘killer to innovation and service’ point, it flies in the face of what the market is ’supposed’ to provide. Now, to say that socialized medicine would have that effect in America is to pretend that there are no other countries on the planet. It’s a GLOBAL ECONOMY, and many countries have scientists working on cures and advancements.
Are you advocating that we stop innovating and let the scientists from other countries make all the discoveries? This seems like an extension of the leech mentality that socialization breeds. Why work when someone else will do the job?
Look at automobile manufacturing for example. We started it, and someone else perfected it.
Moving a plant to Mexico to save money isn’t perfecting an industry in my mind. Care to expand on this?
If Belgium makes a generic for $.25 a pill, why should Americans be forced to go with the brand name for 10 times the cost? Oh, because the foreign prescriptions aren’t safe, right?
American companies make a $0.10 pill but there is no profit in that so they make something with a profit margin.
You know Right, that’s the line the GOP has fed us on this issue, and they’re 100% full of shit.
America is too litigious for companies to import low grade drugs.
So if conservatives really believe in the market’s ability to fix problems, then why do they go the opposite way in addressing health care?
Healthcare deals with people and the government has to be involved, it’s not going the opposite way, it’s understanding that heart bypass and fritos are two completely different products. When there is a human element the government will have to play a small role, there is no way around it.
When did I say that Europe and Canada and a number of other nations are doing it wrong? Let’s get real here. America isn’t the only place on earth where a person can receive top notch medical care.
Of course we don’t stop innovating. The false choice you presented is what I’m addressing here. It’s not, ‘status quo or no innovation and discovery’ – – – that’s a false choice. Our scientists aren’t going to stop working if the health care system is fixed. Medical science takes place all over the world, and we’ll have our share of discoveries regardless of this discussion.
Toyota is on track to become the world’s #1 auto maker by the end of 2006. Are their cars all made in Mexico? How about their fuel effeciency? How does one of their engines run after 150K miles? Why are all these things better for thousands less than a GM or Ford automobile?
One thing countries like Japan, Brazil and most of Europe have done is tax gasoline and urge their auto-makers to produce higher miles per gallon vehicles. Sound governing, realistic governing…non-corrupted governing.
That’s a problem. Human beings don’t exist to keep drug companies alive. Drug companies exist to keep human beings alive. Why does our majority party advocate on behalf of Pfizer before the people?
That’s the new excuse? ‘Low grade’…that’s a think tank’s way of changing ‘generic’ into something that will scare people.
Really? So Republicans are taxing junk food (fritos) now? I must have missed that…in fact, I haven’t seen a single piece of legislation passed during Bush’s presidency that addresses obesity, diabetes and heart disease.
Right, they do NOTHING when it comes to the health of our country.
Of course government is going to be involved. Reality is…government is a ‘customer’, just like BlueCross, only Congress and the President feel it would be unfair to the drug companies to allow the government to bargain for lower drug prices.
So they allow Pfizer and others to bilk the taxpayers, whether we consume their drugs or not.
America isn’t the only place on earth where a person can receive top notch medical care.
Then where can you go that has socialized medicine and receive top notch care?
Our scientists aren’t going to stop working if the health care system is fixed.
If the market doesn’t direct research then you have to rely on a bureaucrat to direct research. Scientists won’t work for free.
Why are all these things better for thousands less than a GM or Ford automobile?
I mostly agree except for Toyotas are the most expensive cars in their class and they don’t haggle, they don’t need to.
Sound governing, realistic governing…non-corrupted governing.
Also tax & spend governing, economy crushing governing, oppressive governing.
That’s a problem. Human beings don’t exist to keep drug companies alive. Drug companies exist to keep human beings alive. Why does our majority party advocate on behalf of Pfizer before the people?
Because people don’t want to keep taking insulin, for example, they want a cure for diabetes. Even a $0.10 water pill is a hassle to Americans, we demand more than the system can provide.
That’s the new excuse? ‘Low grade’…that’s a think tank’s way of changing ‘generic’ into something that will scare people.
I’m fine with generic, I’m not fine with generic made out of some Brazilian’s garage.
Really? So Republicans are taxing junk food (fritos) now?
No, but I think they should. I’m fine with the “sin” taxes to offset social costs.
Right, they do NOTHING when it comes to the health of our country.
And Democrats do? Please!!! And does the government need to regulate how you feed yourself?
in fact, I haven’t seen a single piece of legislation passed during Bush’s presidency that addresses obesity, diabetes and heart disease.
Bush Derangement Syndrome acting up again?
government is a ‘customer’
And that is my point, the government should only be a small customer and the insurance companies and drug makers need to negotiate amongst themselves. The government should not be price fixing drugs, which you are advocating whether you realize it or not.
Maybe the system is not working so good:
Tracy Pierce, 37, lived a full life. He grew up with family and faith. He went to a Catholic school, got married, had a son, and he even had the car of his dreams. It was the perfect life.
“He’s been strong. He has,” his wife, Julie Pierce, said.
Two years ago, Tracy Pierce’s life changed dramatically when he was diagnosed with kidney cancer.
“I have no treatment. Three months has gone by and I haven’t had any treatment,” Tracy Pierce told KMBC’s Jim Flink in May 2005.
When Flink talked to Tracy Pierce, his cancer was attacking his body. Despite being fully insured, every treatment his doctors sought for him was denied by his insurance provider. First-Health Coventry deemed the treatments were either not a medical necessity or experimental.
“I don’t know what else to do but just wait,” Tracy Pierce said last May.
As he waited, his doctors appealed again and again, including a 27-page appeal spelling out that Tracy Pierce would die without care. Coventry dismissed each request.
“It’s purely economical. You never see an insurance company try to block an inexpensive test,” said William Soper.
Soper leads a group of doctors who filed a lawsuit last year against insurance providers. This week, Soper went to Jefferson City to lobby legislators for change.
“And you know, it’s not going to get better anytime soon. It’s going to get worse,” said Myra Christopher, who is the president and chief executive officer of the Center for Practical Bioethics.
Christopher told Flink that change won’t happen until there’s a change in the entire medical model.
“I just believe strongly that we need to start being honest about what’s going on here,” Christopher said.
What is going on is that some insurance companies deny even routine treatments because insurance companies treat their patients as costs, not as clients, Christopher said.
“Some of these companies are just unethical the way they treat both subscribers and providers, doctors and hospitals,” Soper said.
Two weeks ago, Tracy Pierce talked with Flink again.
“Just holding a lot of anger in,” Pierce said.
Cancer ravaged his body, moving from his kidney to his lungs and to his brain.
“Now, we’re just to the point where we’re trying to make him comfortable,” Julie Pierce said.
Even as he was dying, for more than a week, his insurance company denied him oral morphine, which had been prescribed to reduce his pain.
“That’s unacceptable because in this day and age, no one should be in pain,” Pierce said.
“I just hope we can get something done about it, that’s all. We just have to get something done,” Tracy Pierce said.
An hour and a half after Tracy Pierce talked to Flink, he took a nap and never woke up. His family calls his case death by denial.
“They just wrote a prescription for him to die,” Julie Pierce said.
The family is begging for change.
“The reality is the blame-and-shame game isn’t going to get us anywhere. We are all at fault,” Christopher said.
Insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, patients and politicians all need to work together, she said.
“We have to have the moral will. We have to have the intelligence. We have to have the political leadership to change this,” Christopher said.
For Julie Pierce, it was 15 months of watching her husband die slowly, painfully and helplessly with no chance at lifesaving treatment, Flink reported.
“My mother always told me to get a good job with insurance. For what? It hasn’t done anything,” Julie Pierce said.
Julie Pierce said that she understands that we will all die. What is expected, she said, is that if you have health insurance, you’ll be given every fighting chance. She said that is not happening.
Leukemia Story
Last fall, 12-year-old Nathan Crabtree was an outgoing child getting ready for a new school year. But his father says Nathan often played sick to extend summer vacation by a day or two.
To prove a point, his dad took Nathan to a doctor for test, which showed that Nathan had an aggressive form of leukemia — one that needed immediate treatment.
Flink reported that a hospital room has become Nathan’s classroom. He spent just two days of his sixth-grade year with classmates; mostly, he’s been at Children’s Mercy Hospital.
“It’s not going away, so they were going to send me to Minnesota,” Nathan said.
Doctors wrote to Nathan’s insurance company, urging it to send him to the nation’s foremost research hospital. Nathan’s bags were packed, when his father’s insurance company, Coventry, refused to pay for that care, calling it “experimental.”
“You don’t have anyone to fight for you,” said Lee Crabtree, Nathan’s father.
Lee Crabtree said he’s desperate.
“I have to go out and find private grants, because for all intents and purposes, I have to assume I have no medical coverage,” Lee Crabtree said.
“I think they expect or depend on people giving up after the first phone call,” said Dr. William Soper, the executive director of Mid-America Medical Affiliates.
Soper said his group is so upset with insurance companies that it has filed a lawsuit alleging insurers block patient care.
“We have patients who say, ‘I want a complete physical,’ and we’ll look at their insurance coverage and we have to say, ‘Sorry, but your plan doesn’t cover a complete physical,'” Soper said.
Flink reported that many people don’t realize what isn’t covered by health insurance until it is too late.
Lee Crabtree said he has a helpless feeling when he looks at his son and tries to explain why he can’t help him live.
“The feeling of this is beyond words. It makes you feel hollow,” Lee Crabtree said.
Late Friday, KMBC learned that Nathan’s mother found out she could apply for coverage with Blue Cross Blue Shield at her workplace, and so she had applied. What Coventry spent months denying and calling experimental, Blue Cross Blue Shield approved on the first request.
Nathan Crabtree leaves for Minnesota on Sunday morning.
I found this at drudge.com
Maybe the system is not working so good:
I’ll readily agree with that. These people will win their wrongful death lawsuits, they usually do. This is why I’m against capping malpractice and lawsuit claims at such low levels.
We seem to be in agreement on many things lately. Strange.
I’m a moderate, remember? You said it yourself :- )
I have heard that parenthood makes you more pragmatic, which probably encourages one to be more moderate.