By way of example, I'll tell you the real problem with health care in America. It's got less to do with tort law and access, and more to do with who's name is in the top left corner of the check.
I took a spill about a week ago. It's a miracle that I didn't break any bones. I was in a lot of pain, and needed to see a doctor. I asked friends for recommendations, and found a chiropractor nearby. Now having medical insurance through my employer, I went to the doctor's office without batting an eyelash... "I'll probably have to make a $20 co-pay or something, $50 at the worst", I thought.
Following the initial consultation, I paid $165 out of pocket, expecting that I'd see most of that money again when my insurance provider got the bill. I instructed the receptionist, "Please verify that your services are covered by my insurance provider, or you'll never see me again." "Of course, sir. When you return in the morning, we'll have that answer for you".
Fast forward one day. I show up for my appointment, and against my better judgment, went straight back for treatment without my answer. At the end of the session, I asked the question again. "I'm sorry, sir. We have not been able to confirm that your insurance provider covers our services. That will be $125, please". Ouch! "Okay, I'll pay for the services, but you'll never see me again until you can confirm coverage". "Of course, sir. Accept my apology, and a phone call later this afternoon with confirmation. Have a nice day."
You can probably guess what happened next... you guessed it, "Not covered". So there I was. $290 lighter on the back side, still in pain and needing treatment, but unwilling to fork over $100 a pop (pun intended) for treatment. So what did I do next? I did the same thing we all do for auto insurance, groceries, housing, etc. I shopped around! I entered the marketplace and sought out a merchant that met 2 requirements: quality and price.
The ubiquitous consumer practice of shopping around is absent (or at least compromised) in health care. As things are today, I (the consumer) have no motivation to seek out an ultimately less expensive alternative (as long as the service is "covered", I generally don't care how much my provider is paying).
It gets worse. During an unrelated stream of dialogue, I asked the same doctor where he sends his blood samples for processing. "I use one of the big two - it's totally random. It depends on which form I pull out.", he said. "Are their rates comparable?", I asked. "I don't know. Most of the time, the patient's insurance covers the cost, so it doesn't matter to me", he replied.
So there you have it. A system in which purchasing decisions are made on both ends by individuals with no pecuniary responsibility! It is a run-away train that needs to be derailed, or we're all doomed to spend ourselves into poorer health.
But changed to what? Changed for the sake of change? Changed to something that will exacerbate the problem? "But at least we did something". Are you kidding me?!
Adding a so called public option will not control costs. To the contrary, it seems obvious to me that it will increase costs. It seems obvious that the public option will destabilize the last remnants of market competition, a force that we all know controls costs (though not to a proper degree in this case because it's not a true market).
Is the United States Postal Service (USPS) as efficient as FedEx or UPS? Does the USPS drive down the cost of parcel transfer? Of course not. So if we see that logic, why on earth would we believe that government provided health care could reduce the cost of seeing the doctor, let alone cost less (as is being touted by President Obama and some members of Congress).
I could refute ethical arguments justifying public health care. I could get into the ideology and politics of forced compassion. Here, I have done neither. I've only attempted to demonstrate the lunacy in believing that a public option could or will improve our collective financial position with respect to health care. It's laughable.
I welcome your comments and dialogue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Good post. Too bad the Obama administration is dead set on ruining the best health care system in the world. A few tweaks here and there may be necessary, but a complete overhaul, no way.
Too true. Government health care will be a complete and utter disater.
I went and did some cash for clunkers shopping yesterday. What a mess. If they can't run that program, they can't run healthcare for entire country.
I also detest the fact that they are not being honest about it. Just say "we want single payer". Tort reform is necessary to reduce costs. If a surgeon doesn't have to pay 200,000/yr for insurance they can lower their costs.
The thing that stuck with me most of all from your post is how poorly designed and inefficient the current system is. I don't understand how anyone could think that our current system doesn't need a complete overhaul. Consumers have little to no choice, and even the providers don't care who they send their samples to. Where is the incentive to provide quality care at a low price? There isn't one in our current system. Do you really think that a public option (i.e.: additional choice) wouldn't elicit additional competition?
It wouldn't fix the second issue you brought up (the doctor not caring where he sent blood), but I think it is pretty obvious that additional choice leads to additional competition.
You cite the USPS as an example of an inefficient public option. I'd love to talk to a person that has never used their services in one way or another. You think that if the USPS went away tomorrow that everything in this country would continue to run smoothly? If the USPS is such a poor option then why do they get so much business?
Note: I'm not arguing that the USPS is efficiently run, just that at least one public option still manages to compete and provide additional choice to consumers (something that you seem to frequently praise here).
How was cash for clunkers a mess? From what I can tell the government actually managed to stimulate the economy, reduce pollution emissions, and reduce our country's reliance on foreign oil with a single program.
Or were you calling it a mess because it caused so many people (Just a conservative girl included) to consider purchasing a new vehicle that car dealerships were actually crowded for the first time in months?
I just came to your site after hearing you on Fox talk radio. I am a chiropractor, and a conservative, and I couldn't agree more. People are disengaged in their own health care. Patients who are paying for my care (and all my fees are discussed upfront before they even see me!) are in general more motivated to get better than those who no financial stake in the matter. So called "cash paying" patients are more willing to exercise and follow instructions in order to get better faster. Those with little-to-no co-pay, in general, are less motivated. Obviously, there is danger in people not taking care of their health due to it's cost, but I believe that this is a remote danger. Keep up the good work!
Post a Comment