The "history" that we witnessed on 11/7/2009 when the House of Representatives passed a bill on health care reform wasn't really what we needed. You can check out the highlights here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR03962:@@@L&summ2=m& and decide for yourself but if you ask me, it would appear that our elected officials continue to miss the point on this.
Part of the problem appears to be the way the media refers to any legislation. Let's stop calling it "Nationalized Health care" because not everyone in the nation will be able to participate. Some 200 million already insured Americans may not be eligible for the benefits given under the bill. The only way many Americans will even see any change is in the effect the bill has on their employer and their insurance carrier.
The real problem is actually insurance. There is too much money being made (and paid) by the insurance industry. Insurance however is effectively the "middle man" in what should be a open market system of providers and patients that works to limit access to care and drive up the costs of providing service.
Currently insurance companies sell their services to large groups (read businesses with employees) and leverage these numbers to get contracts with providers (read doctors and hospitals). Having "coverage" supposedly allows an insured a "discount" with contracted providers. With some plans (like PPOs) you can go to a provider that isn't covered by contract, but then you aren't completely covered by your insurance. And some care (like physical therapy) aren't covered at all until you reach a certain threshold and once it does begin to pay, there are caps and limits as to how much the insurance will pay. In this way health insurance companies effectively operate like monopolies--which were illegal the last time I checked. (What excludes them from monopoly status however is the fact that different companies are allowed to operate in different states--thus there is sufficient competition under the law). Under this system, providers just sit and wait for patients. The insurance companies effectively filter patients to providers and the patients have no idea about the quality of care, competency of the doctors and worse, how much the provider is charging.
Contrast to what would happen if health care was a free-market system like say the tech industry. Supply, demand and quality dictate the pricing structure in the tech industry--why can't health care operate this way? Why not let me pick my health insurance like I do my auto insurance? Why not allow me to pick pieces from several insurance policies (if I'm willing to pay the premium price) much like I can build my own computer from individual parts? A truly free market system for health care would require providers to publish prices and for them to charge people based on those services, not what insurance company they are with. (In theory, BCBS may be able to get a more favorable contract than say UHC because it has more customers--thus individuals going to the same provider may pay different prices--or even worse, certain providers may not accept certain insurance because of these contracts (an attempt to freeze out competition) thus limiting access to certain providers).
With patients picking their own providers and pricing being dictated by the market, health insurers would need to switch their game up. Life insurance companies can't dictate where you get buried; health insurance companies shouldn't be able to dictate (with back room deals) where you get health care. Health insurance companies should have to compete for customers in the same way every other market segment does. (Allegedly they do this now, but I'm talking about on an individual basis rather than a group basis. Say what you want about the cost savings of insuring groups of people--but won't "the market" correct those costs?) If I'm a cancer patient and the best treatment is available in Idaho, I should be able to go there and have my insurance cover whatever I contract with them to cover--and in a "free market" that contract will be more favorable to the insured since the individual can shop around.
What about the other 30-40 million people that don't have health care? Well screw 'em. Understand that this is how capitalism and democracy works--there have to be have-nots. We cannot have it both ways--we cannot have low taxes and nationalized health care and education. Canada isn't that far away--perhaps the uninsured can move there? I'm sure they'd love to give up 50% of their income (provided they have jobs) to have free doctor's visits. But what would really work for those that are uninsured is to make it beneficial for doctors and providers to give pro bono services. Other professions are required to give so much of their service and talent away for free each year. Many private hospitals swear they are non-profit organizations anyway--make it part of their 503(c) (or whatever) status to give away a certain amount of health care services each year. Make it worth their while to take on 1-2 terminal cases quarter. Take the stress off public hospitals (the only facilities serving the uninsured) by providing some incentive to the private ones to take charity cases.
THAT my friends is health care REFORM, which is what the public asked for. Instead we got additions and complications. We just wanted government to fix what we had--not create something worse. Like the banking industry, health care should be regulated not restructured. Hopefully the Senate realizes with their version.
No comments:
Post a Comment