Please help me understand, part 2.
If you are just joining us, you’ll want to read part one first (obv).
PC and I have spent the last….2 hours? (ugh) discussing this. He likes to play the devils advocate too much and it kind of makes me want to punch something. He’s being as unreasonable as the “christians”.
I think there is a part one and part two of this problem. Part one- should everyone be entitled to/right to/access to/call it what you want, healthcare? Part two- how or who will do it? Sadly, there are some people who say ‘no’ to part one. If we can’t agree on that, we can’t move on to part two, but it makes me question humanity and our society. Sometimes it seems so ironic that we (I will always say ‘we’ even though yes, I know it is my husband that signed on the dotted line) devote our lives day in and day out defending our country and its freedoms– a country that we disagree with many issues on.
Jessica and Jill – you both brought up the notion of personal responsibility. I hear you, I agree with you. Every time I go home to the United States I am amazed how we are fat and getting fatter. (I don’t know if you all saw the editorial John Mackey (CEO of Whole Foods) wrote on the health care debacle) but I dont know how we could possibly legislate something like that (in terms of cost of healthcare vs. risk factors). PC brought up smokers and how they should have to pay more because they have made the *lifestyle choice* to smoke. We know smoking causes all sorts of health related issues. But if you charged them more- they would say that was discrimination. As would fat people. As would (swig) alcoholics. And then what would you do in the gray areas such as being married to a smoker? (PC said that too was a ‘lifestyle choice’). How about being a firefighter and being exposed to smoke? I just don’t think you could (as it relates to insurance) come up with a pricing model/legislation that would ‘fly’. The only thing that is going to ‘fix’ our fat-asses is looking in the mirror.
As far as the medicare not paying and other insurance companies/ self-payors having to make up the difference- I’d like to think the system will self correct. As it stands now we have this hole that keeps getting dug bigger, a vicious cycle if you will with the healthcare/private insurance companies issue. Insurance companies are nothing but a greed machine looking to turn a profit. Note they don’t ‘provide’ the medical care….they have nothing to do with the drs or hospitals or nurses– they are a profit reaping middleman. We all know from econ 101 – you make more money by cutting out the middleman. Right now your insurance premiums are some effed up equation of actual cost/desired profit/how many claims we can deny and not pay/the cost of the 5 lobbyists per senator in Washington/the cost of the health insurance company big-wig’s ‘business dinner’ last night. The government, while not known for its efficiency, would force some of that fat to be trimmed.
Lets for the sake of argument use Melissa’s situation (I hope thats ok.) Her insurance wouldn’t pay for her surgery so her family got stuck with the $100,000 bill. I’d say that the majority of American’s would be forced to declare bankruptcy in this situation. So, that $100,000 bill goes back to the hospital. The insurance company is looking pretty because they didn’t touch that one with a ten-foot-pole. Melissa’s family is relieved of the burden. The hospital/dr’s/nurses are the ones left holding the bill. The only way the hospital/dr’s/nurses can recover that loss is by charging the rest of us more. Charging the individual who pay’s cash, charging the insurance companies a little more who then have ‘no choice’ but to raise your premiums. A lot. Because they have a fatty profit margin to maintain. The cycle continues downward and thats why when you look at your hospital bill and you are being charged $10 for a bandaid and $20 for a tylenol- its the only way the hospital can recoup their $. So the government steps in with their (que superhero music) Insurance Plan.
This time, Melissa has Government Insurance Plan (GIP). She pay’s her monthly premium. There is no ‘pre-existing condition’ back door-easy-way-out so the surgery is approved. The government asks for a detailed *actual* cost invoice. The surgery room, recovery room, the tylenol, all the doctors and nurses, the green jello for lunch, every last item is accounted for. Lets say the *actual* cost was only $60,000. The government pays the bill, Melissa goes home happy and healthy and medical-bill-debt free, the hospital gets its money, the greedy health insurance company is- well who cares.
I know hypothetically this works, but in practice, its not like the hospital gets to start with a clean slate….because they are still trying to recover that last $100,000 they are out. Since the government is not trying to keep any shareholders happy, they only need to charge enough in premiums to cover their costs. I know Im simplifying all of this, and obviously you need to get enough people paying into the system to make this work, and then you have the problem of people not being able to afford insurance but–well, first of all, do we really know what the cost of health insurance would be if it were just charging enough to cover costs? Because we all fret over the cost of private insurance which- we’ll just say based on my numbers alone is around $500 pp/mo. But thats the inflated private insurance cost. So lets say it was a more reasonable $100/mo. The rest of the ‘cost’ would come from the gov’t.
Where would they get the $ you ask? (Let me just say I’m no economist- so this is just me theorizing, feel free to correct me) The private insurance companies would be forced to lower their prices in order to remain even marginally competitive. So lets say instead of $500/mo its now $300/mo. Yes, we’d have to pay the government a little more in taxes, but since it would be spread across every American lets say to make up what they would need for healthcare it would be $100 more/month in taxes*. So if you kept your private insurance you’d be saving about $100 total (your taxes went up $100 and your health insurance premium went down $200). The gov’t has the $ they need to make it work, the health insurance companies get their pee-pees slapped (much deserved), hospitals are no longer taking losses, have I left anyone out?
*I know no one wants their taxes to go up- but it goes back to the “are we willing to pay a little to help the greater good” and also- the only reason your private insurance premium would go down is because of the gov’t plan…..so you can’t have your cake and eat it to. You either save $100 or status quo.
some articles that may be of interest:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=why_health_insurance_doesnt_work
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-kirsch/the-private-health-insura_b_191770.html
Filed under: This Is My Life, Uncategorized
Subscribe to the 
Leave a
It’s funny, even as I was writing the part about personal responsibility, I was thinking, yeah, but how do you legislate that?? Clearly, I brought no solution to the table. Something I continue to think about.
I have a lot of additional thoughts running through my head, but ultimately, yes, the system is broken and it needs an overhaul. I wish I could add more, but…I have baby brain mush. I can’t sort/organize all my thoughts. Way to ask the tough questions and present some solutions!!
1 Jill said this (November 10, 2009 at 3:06 am)
But what about the worse case scenario–sure, the insurance companies lower the premiums, but they also dump all but the healthiest people “you can get the government option.” Healthy people would flock to the insurance companies that would take them (“Sweet, low premiums!”) and all the sickest of society are then on the government program, essentially draining it. I think that is my biggest fear. The insurance companies are still making a bundle–maybe more because they have healthier clients. That’s why I feel that reforming the insurance business is essential to fixing the system. I don’t think a simple competition with the government (and what is sure to be a pretty poorly run system–again, they basically want to expand craptacular Medicare) is the way to get the ultimate goal.
Again, I love the posts, I love the thoughts, I agree something must be done. I simply hope the 1700 page bill that is being discussed but never read has some of the right answers…
2 Jessica said this (November 10, 2009 at 5:35 am)
P.s. If your math was correct, that would thrill me to pieces! I think anyone would agree with that. But I don’t think that will be the case. I really don’t believe the insurance companies will end up cutting their premiums 40%. I would love to see what kind of numbers HAVE been worked out by the Senate Finance committee…
3 Jessica said this (November 10, 2009 at 5:38 am)
Jess– on the math I know, it was easy for me to just make up those numbers to illustrate a point. PC and I were discussing that this morning too is that it seems like no one has done the math…and I don’t know– there are SO many factors involved it seems like it would be a near impossible (or highly inaccurate) riddle to solve.
I think you may be partially right on the sick people getting dumped my insurance….if what I’ve heard is correct that it will be illegal to penalize someone for pre-existing condition, they will have no basis on which to dump them– if you are part of a large group policy (ie- what I got through the bank) they must cover you, (I don’t remember if I learned this in HR courses or when I had to get my insurance license for the bank). Only if you have an individual policy (as in you walked into State Farm and bought it for yourself) can your policy be ‘not renewed’. So…they are sort of caught by the balls there. I think the sick would defect if they knew the premiums would be lower and coverage would be more complete. If that were true though– all the healthy people would follow, lower premiums. Period. I have to believe it would sort of work itself out.
I completely agree the insurance companies are about 101% responsible for all this mess. Take their power away. Free markets/capitalism don’t work when you are talking about something like health care.
4 lisa said this (November 10, 2009 at 6:21 am)
The only solution I could come up with is to NOT legislate anything yet. We know that The System is full of crap. In order to pass a bill about healthcare, you have to include a measure that allows dogs to choose whether or not they want to be spayed/nuetered and to give Alaskans the right to wear fleece parkas while picking up polar bear poop. To think that anyone can come into a political office and “fix healthcare” is a pipe dream.
My recommendation is that the President use his powers to throw money at the RIGHT people and have them solve the problem. Imagine what would happen if Obama decided that he would fund a week long summit every month for a year and host the top 200 members of the “health care community”. Meaning doctors, hospital administrators, nurses, health insurance providers, professors, economists, etc. Instead of letting legislators “think shit up” in Washington, why not take the people who know the reality of what they’re doing and throw them in a room with clear guidance and objectives and have THEM solve the problem?
I think that would go MUCH farther towards actually coming up with a bi-partisan solution than some 1700 page document, written by staffers who don’t actually need healthcare because they are fully covered and by lobbyists who are working very hard for their million dollar bonuses from the organizations they lobby for.
If Obama went that route, then I think he would have a shot at actually fixing the problem rather than just making it worse. Anything we get now, short of a complete overhaul, is going to make it worse for everyone.
5 PC said this (November 11, 2009 at 12:06 am)
Lisa, so I have decided to weigh in, as this topic is so near and dear to my heart. At the end, you have to remember you asked, b/c do I have an earful! Being that I live and breathe this everyday, as I am on the provider side, overseeing billing and collections for the largest provider of healthcare in the state of Colorado. Let me just say, in capital letters, that government run healthcare IS NOT the solution to the crisis that the US is in. To say that taxes will increase slightly is an understatement, small business owners are looking at an 8% increase, 8%%%%, that is huge. Hospitals cannot operate on the gov’t reimbursement model, and count on the much higher pmts of the private sector to operate and have capital. It appears that the US has become victim once again to the liberal mass media that exists, and is taking what they say as the truth. If you speak with people who are actually in the field and see margins getting smaller and smaller, it is very obvious that very few are getting rich on healthcare. There is this perception that the Private Payers are these fat cats with HUGE profits, but we also forget that they also provide one really important thing, JOBS, which are hard to come by nowadays and that the stimulus package has done NOTHING to alleviate. They are non-union, average wage earning jobs that support and feed the families of thousands of Americans.. To put this in the hands of the US government will be like comparing the operations of Toyota to General Motors. Think back about the story about the cost of Cell Phones in Japan , and how ridiculously expensive, however it was a govt contract and therefore that’s the way it was. Imagine what they can do with the sector that makes up almost 10% of the GDP, scary! Not to mention that there are over 100 new bureaucracies that will come out of this bill, ouch.
The government is going about this the wrong way. At this point in time, no actual healthcare reform is on the table, it is essentially cost shifting, no real focus on cutting healthcare costs, focusing on quality outcomes, and holding Americans accountable for the decisions they make. We are a sick system, where we are rewarded (monetarily) for treating sick people, there is no incentive to create a system of care, where preventative care is the focus. Our government has these lofty plans to put all of these uninsured people in a system that there is no fundamental support for, where are all these PCPs going to come from? In addition, the Baccus bill has no incentive for physicians or surgeons, they are looking for their reimbursement to be cut, yet their is no relief in sight to cut their malpractice insurance (once again, no fundamental reform is going on here).
I am a capitalist, and believe in free trade and the private sector, however I am also a compassionate individual that does believe that people should not go broke b/c they get sick. We first have to decide if 1) Healthcare is a right or a privilege and 2) If a right, only for US citizens or for those living in our country illegally? My proposal for reform would include the following:
1) Limit malpractice – Make it so physicians can actually practice medicine, and don’t have to order unnecessary tests (driving up costs) to CYA
2) Reward providers, both hospitals and physicians, for quality outcomes and keeping patients healthy (more Kaiser’s model)
3) Offer a tiered approach to healthcare. Meaning that those on the basic government option are offered just that, basic coverage. Preventative care, prenatal care, PCPs to keep them out of ERs, etc. Life saving measure would be limited (keeping a family member on life support with only a .05% survival rate at a cost of $5,000 per day is not an option. I know it sounds harsh, however tough decisions will have to be made, and those on the government plan will leave those decisions up to the government to decide. In addition, care will be rationed (just like it is in every other country with a government option). This is going to be a tough one for the US to cope with, but it is soon becoming a reality. In addition, gone are the days of private OB suites for laboring mothers, it is shared rooms in county hospitals.
4) Those that pay into the private sector are afforded the luxuries that any private sector offers. You pay for what you get, just like any other area of a capitalist society. You get to determine your own course of treatment, the hospital you deliver in, etc, because you are PAYING for the services, others are not paying for you..
Let’s let the government do what they do best, protect our country and its freedom, Medicare and Medicaid are a DISASTER, and I can only pray that America does not start down this path of despair, as once the train is out of the system, there is no going back, and I am afraid it is already too far to stop. Thanks for letting me vent, remember you asked for comments!!
6 anon said this (November 11, 2009 at 12:16 am)
Okay, so it looks like my idea was not original. I’m just not sure I agree with the scale that the bill talks about:
SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
who are Federal employees and officers, as the President may appoint.
(a) Establishment-
(1) IN GENERAL- There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.
(2) CHAIR- The Surgeon General shall be a member and the chair of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee.
(3) MEMBERSHIP- The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall be composed of the following members, in addition to the Surgeon General:
(A) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the President.
(B) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States in a manner similar to the manner in which the Comptroller General appoints members to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission under section 1805(c) of the Social Security Act.
(C) Such even number of members (not to exceed
Such initial appointments shall be made not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(4) TERMS- Each member of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall serve a 3-year term on the Committee, except that the terms of the initial members shall be adjusted in order to provide for a staggered term of appointment for all such members.
(5) PARTICIPATION- The membership of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall at least reflect providers, consumer representatives, employers, labor, health insurance issuers, experts in health care financing and delivery, experts in racial and ethnic disparities, experts in care for those with disabilities, representatives of relevant governmental agencies. and at least one practicing physician or other health professional and an expert on children’s health and shall represent a balance among various sectors of the health care system so that no single sector unduly influences the recommendations of such Committee. Not less than 25 percent of the members of the Committee shall be practicing health care practitioners who, as of the date of their appointment, practice in a rural area and who have practiced in a rural area for at least the 5-year period preceding such date.
(b) Duties-
(1) RECOMMENDATIONS ON BENEFIT STANDARDS- The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall recommend to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the ‘Secretary’) benefit standards (as defined in paragraph (4)), and periodic updates to such standards. In developing such recommendations, the Committee shall take into account innovation in health care and consider how such standards could reduce health disparities.
(2) DEADLINE- The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall recommend initial benefit standards to the Secretary not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
7 PC said this (November 11, 2009 at 1:03 am)
to discuss some of anon’s points….
You said small business owners are looking at an 8% tax increase. This is not entirely correct- *some* business owners– only those that have payroll that exceeds $400,000 will see an 8% increase. Payroll 0-$250,000 is 0% increase. $250k-$300k is 2%. $300k-$350k is 4%. $350k-$400k is 6%. $400k+ is 8%. (title 3, sub-title B, part 1,section 3-13B of The Bill)
Im not sure I believe that profit margins are getting smaller. If they are its because they are wasting money on lobbyists. $2.79 billion (BILLION) was spent on healthcare lobbying efforts in 2008.
You asked if healthcare is a right or a privilege and if so- for citizens only or those who are here illegally. I think everyone has the right to healthcare if they want it. I sort of waffle on the idea that everyone is required to have it—but the reality of the matter is people wouldn’t buy it, they’d get sick and expect to reap the benefits after the fact. I mean- if car insurance was “optional” Im sure more people would figure “won’t happen to me” until it did, and then those of us who had insurance, who dutifully pay into the system would have to absorb that cost. I think there is no other choice but to make everyone get it. So I guess, coming full circle, yes, I think everyone, from a humanitarian perspective should be able to get it. The illegal alien questions is a whole separate tangent we could go off on but no, I don’t think they are entitled to it. They do not pay taxes, they are here illegally.
1) I agree malpractice should be limited. Going to the dr. is a choice, you go because the benefits outweigh the risks. Dr.s are human, mistakes will always be made. I think there is a *very* fine line between ordering unnecessary (costly) tests and being thorough. I failed to blog about this but a few weeks ago after having yet another “its just a virus” dr. appt I was given cough syrup with codeine, tesslon (sp?) as well as sudafed and afrin. Turns out the combination of those and moderate caffeine consumption can give one severe heart palpitations (where your heart is noticeably skipping a beat or taking extra beats). Not wanting to drop dead while at home with the kids I went to the ER where they did an EKG which was fine and chest x-ray because I still had my barky cough. They said all was well, heart palpitations don’t kill you, and they went to do my discharge paperwork. The dr. ended up taking an extra look at the x-ray and came back saying “oh wait, it looks like there might be extra fluid surrounding your heart. Put the gown back on.” They then wheeled in the ultra-sound machine and made sure everything was ok. Was that excessive? Perhaps. But it cost the dr. *nothing* to be just a little more thorough. Furthermore, military doctors can’t be sued (making CYA a non-issue)- so he had nothing to gain or lose– he was just trying to practice good, honest, medicine. I think doctors need to stopped being squeezed by costs/billing/insurance BS so that they can just do what they’ve been trained to do- and if they think extra tests are prudent, they should do it. Dr’s should be working for the patient and doing things in the patients best interest–right now they are being pressured to cut costs and do the minimum.
2) Yes. Do it. Have you seen Sicko? Michael Moore highlighted a Dr. in England who described how he was given bonus’ for getting patients blood pressure under control/diabetes etc. The problem is that doesn’t jive when you have ‘for profit’ health insurance out there. This article spells it all out nicely:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=why_health_insurance_doesnt_work
3) I agree with a tiered approach too, but it has problems too. I think on paper thats easy to say “this is covered, this isnt.” But to take an example that is near and dear to us- what happens when your baby is born 13 weeks premature and you are on the basic gov’t plan? Im guessing the $1 million-ish dollars in NICU costs wouldn’t be covered? So- you just tell those parents, sorry, its just dollars and cents, your baby dies? Its so so easy to say that when its ’someone else’. What about when its someone you care about? What if it was your own child? Could you just *accept* that? That because you make a certain amount of money, or really, because our healthcare is tied to our employer and your employer didn’t have good insurance, you drew the short straw and your baby dies. I don’t think we get to play God like that. The example you provided- someone being a vegetable with an unlikely survival rate- yeah, Im with you, pull the plug. But what about long cancer treatments? There are plenty of high expense medical events (the ones that bankrupt people) that go beyond checkups and strep throat- would the gov’t plan not cover that? I mean, even with a tiered approach you are equating someones health….their life to something like buying a used car. You can buy the used 1987 hoodless blue Honda Accord (yes we OWN that car) but if you can afford it you can have a shiny new Lexus. Capitalism and free market works great in goods and services, not so when you are talking about peoples lives. Your comment about care being rationed–its rationed right now. Every time someone is denied coverage/ a treatment their care is being rationed. I don’t know about every other country with socialized medicine but aside from Canada, I’ve heard nothing but good things about the standard of care. We (PC and I) have as close as you can get to government socialized medicine and I can’t say I have any *genuine* complaints. Nathan was born at Bethesda- the Navy’s largest hospital and I had a beautiful room- hardwood floors, two pull out beds for my mom and PC. Mackenzie was born here in the hospital that was built after the war- it was not built to accomodate labor and delivery (the post-partum rooms used to be men’s post-op or something like that I was told.) I shared a room with one person, I shared a bathroom with 4 (FOUR). I didn’t like it. I couldn’t wait to go home, but I survived.
4) The problem with the idea of getting different levels of care based on what insurance you have is that people have no choice in what illness they get, what disease befalls them. I can’t think of anything else in life that you can compare that to. When it comes to capitalism and free market- that all works because people can pick and choose what they want (or can afford). Like I mentioned before, I don’t think people- and their health, should be treated in the same way you would treat a car purchase. I just have a moral dilemma with that. My heath is not inherently more important than someone else’s just because I have more money or better job benefits.
8 lisa said this (November 11, 2009 at 10:47 am)
One quick comment about rewarding doctors with healthy patients or quality outcomes. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink!!! A doctor can knock him/herself out taking care of a patient, but the ultimate responsibility is with said patient. If he/she won’t follow the doctor’s orders or take their medications, is it right to punish the doctor with lower pay? Just sayin’…
9 Jessica said this (November 12, 2009 at 7:22 pm)
Jess– no, you’re right, they shouldn’t be penalized (and I hope it hasn’t come across in all of this that I think dr.s should get the short end of the stick. My dad is a doctor too.) Its been a long time since I saw Sicko- but I thought it was not on a patient-by-patient basis but wasn’t it on a whole, if patients lowered their blood pressure he was rewarded? I guess thats maybe where the personal accountability comes in, if you can’t give up butter and bacon then why bother going to the dr. for your high blood pressure? Its a waste. You can’t expect the government plan to give you a liver transplant if you can’t give up the drink. Again– how could we ever legislate something like that? Its so subjective I guess.
Viv….Im waiting for legal wisdom.
10 lisa said this (November 13, 2009 at 12:16 am)
Have you seen this?
http://pol.moveon.org/insurance_execs/?rc=fb.6&reloaded=1
11 Janelle said this (November 13, 2009 at 3:19 am)
I have to say I believe that a government plan is not the answer. Back in the day when I started working, I had catestrophic coverage and paid the first $1500 out of pocket. This meant that I paid $45 for doctor visits, straight to the doctor with no middleman, no paperwork, no insurance company involvement. The only reason I had to submit any paperwork would have been if I had reached my yearly out of pocket maximum. My cost was $3.54 a month. That’s three dollars, fifty-four cents for my portion.
Then United Healthcare came in, telling my employer that they could save the company money. Now they wanted me to switch, and for $50 a month, I could have a $10 co-pay for my doctor visits…and everyone but me thought this was a great idea. “It will save on your doctor visits,” friends tried to convince me. Why didn’t they see that they were actually paying more each month…to the INSURANCE COMPANY. And I only went to the doctor about twice a year. Doctors who accepted United Healthcare patients had to accept United Healthcare’s payment- that was part of the deal. I think trouble starts and costs go up when you get in the middle of the payer-payee relationship.
Here’s my socialized medicine story. Last year I took Ryan to the peds clinic on base FOUR times for a runny nose and cough at night. I saw three different doctors. The first time I was told nothing was wrong with him- just a cold. Second time I asked for an ENT consult and was denied. I expressed my concern that we were going through HUNDREDS of tissues. I was told the fluid was clear and it was just a runny nose. Give him honey for the cough. Then he was supposedly diagnosed with allergies. Again I was denied an ENT consult. After three different allergy meds only made matters worse, I told the doctor that Ryan was not hearing me- and I know he did not believe me. I was denied an ENT consult, but was granted a hearing test. The result? Significant hearing loss in both ears- worse than being underwater.
By this time, Ryan was a completely different child. He was frustrated and angry. The only way he could hear me was if I shouted in his face, so we were both a bit frazzled. His voice changed- more throaty, like a deaf person. So with the hearing test results I finally got an ENT consult- and the next available appointment was over six weeks away. This saga went on for over seven months.
Sorry if I’m sounding like a spoiled American, but had I been back in the States, I would have taken him to an ENT and paid out of pocket. I don’t want a government approved gatekeeper keeping me from the care I know my child needs. I cannot tell you the frustration we went through going around and around with this situation.
I think we should separate health insurance from employment. Your car insurance is not tied to your job, and you can choose the coverage you want and deductibles you are willing to pay. I know that in the state of NC, if your car insurer fails to renew your policy due to speeding tickets, etc, you are placed in a pool, and all companies licensed to do business in NC must share in the cost of those “high risk” drivers.
What about a system where people who are able to buy insurance for themselves do so, and those who can’t are issued health care vouchers by the government, similar to food stamps or WIC. I do agree with you that no one should go without care because of lack of financial resources.
I believe that if you were able to go back to a system where you paid your doctors and hospitals for services directly that costs would drop drastically. When I was in my 20’s I had a pregnant friend who had no insurance. Her costs to have the baby were about $6000 which she was able to pay over time to the doctor and hospital directly. Think about if you were able to pocket the money that your employer is paying for your health insurance each month, just how quickly you could become self insurered (if the costs were actual costs).
How do you think the plastic surgery doctors stay in business? How do their procedures stay affordable? I personally know MANY women who have paid out of pocket for plastic surgery of one type or another. Save up, and you can choose your doctor and choose what you want done. So I’m saying save up, and pay for your own flu shot. Don’t bog the system down with government paperwork and payments for each doctor visit and each flu shot. If you can’t pay for a flu shot, then get in line at the county health department and have the government pay through those channels.
Remember that some of the “uninsured” are so by choice…I was uninsured by choice for most of my 20’s. And please be careful accusing others of lifestyle choices that don’t agree with your own- what happens when the government takes issue with something in your life? Now that times have changed and we’re living longer, more of us will die from heart disease, and less from the plague and farm accidents- you can have all the preventative care, but you’re still going to get sick and die, and you don’t get to choose when or from what.
I believe that getting back to paying for your health care directly is the only way to lower costs without compromising care. I think the media has swayed people into believing that healthcare should be free to everyone, but it’s not free. Why shouldn’t food be free? How are we solving that problem? What about affordable housing? I say think about what you are saying when you think your flu shot should be free…while you type on one of your multiple home computers, TIVO your favorite programs, and chat with your friends on your iphone. Make your own healthcare a priority and something you gladly spend your money on- that’s a mindset I think needs changing.
12 deidre said this (November 15, 2009 at 2:57 am)