Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Health Care Reform

I’ve heard so many reasons why President Obama should back off on his zeal to reform health care, and to me, none of the reasons make sense. Unless you’re very wealthy, or a Member of Congress, your health care coverage and expenses are spinning out of control.

Last week in Isthmus, Bill Lueders made a great point about one of the new buzzwords associated with health care: HIPAA, which stands for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. One of the benefits was supposed to give us increased privacy. Lueders says exactly the opposite has happened. Who has access to your health records now?

The people you would least want to know all about your health are the folks who have the most information about it. And those folks are insurance companies, which use the information to prevent us from getting insurance or coverage, and to find reasons not to pay our claims.

Another question, which the Obama administration is sort of addressing, is why for so many people, health insurance is tied to their job. Another big buzz-word is COBRA (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act), which means if you lose your job, for a few months you can have the privilege of remaining insured, by paying “both sides” of the policy cost.

This change to health insurance being tied to you job happened relatively recently. I remember when I bought my own health insurance, but then gradually it became part of the “benefits package” employers offered. Things started to go downhill from there, as far as I’m concerned.

We stopped caring how much drugs cost, when we changed the way we paid for them. First, we paid the cost out of our pocket, and then submitted the charges for reimbursement from the insurance company. We knew just how much the drug cost, because we actually paid for it.

Then, they changed it to a confusing system of co-pays and deductibles, so nobody really knows how much money the drug companies are charging. I have one medication, a common asthma med, which costs $235 for a month’s supply if I buy it myself, but $10 if I buy it through our insurance plan.

Despite the mounting number of health care horror stories, most of which relate to insurance, there are those who say the President should slow down, not try to take on too many things at once, worry about the economy now, and health care reform later. I think he knows that if it doesn’t happen this year, it’s not going to happen - again. Time is of the essence.

And to those who say “what, you want a politician making decisions about your health care?” I say “better a politician than an entry-level employee at a huge insurance company”. In my case, which I believe is common, more often than not some faceless nameless person at an insurance company is already telling my doctor what he can and can’t do in caring for me. Or at least what they’ll pay for.

Socialized medicine? Another scare tactic. Members of Congress have socialized medicine. They tend not to talk too much about that, though.
There are billions and billions of dollars at stake here, and some firmly entrenched special interests. For my money, ANY change would likely be for the better.

Tomorrow: my adventures in the wacky world of medical billing.


4 comments:

  1. While the Princes of Prospero, feeling safe behind their walls and guarded halls, dance, the plague 'The Masque of Red Death'menaces us all. (see Poe)
    A good friend of mine, many years ago bemoaned our fate as a nation for not institutionalizing health care to protect us against breeding grounds of infectious disease.
    I know that you publically view reports of contagious disease as hype,e.g. Bird Flu. I do not. Tomorrow does not belong to us, we can only safe guard the present. I want my grandchildren in a safe world, of safe food, air and water. I am not confused by political rhetoric nor nattering nay bobs. My view is that society should not be an adversery struggle, we should develop a preconcieved plan and move to the next stage of social evolotion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Republican approach is far more sensible: Make apples prescription-only and have doctors prescribe one a day. The Democrats' plan will force us all to have surgery without anesthesia! They'll require that fingers with infected hangnails be amputated, to save money on antibiotics! There will be a 72-hour wait for a Tylenol! Triage nurses at the ER will dress in leather and carry whips! Taxidermists and barbers will be treating gunshot wounds and gout and tennis elbow! The preventionistas will force us to eat nuts and twigs! Come on, people! Rush couldn't say it if it wasn't true!

    ReplyDelete
  3. antpoppa,

    >> My view is that society should not be an adversery struggle, we should develop a preconcieved plan and move to the next stage of social evolotion. <<

    If only there were a clear picture of what that "next stage" will be. I have a feeling that my view doesn't match yours too closely. Who's going to formulate this "preconceived plan", I wonder. Sounds like there might be some struggle over what it covers.

    Steve Erbach
    Neenah, WI

    ReplyDelete
  4. Colonel,

    A quote by Harry Browne, the late Libertarian Party candidate for President in 2000, is apropos here:

    "Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your leg, hand you a crutch, and say, 'See? If it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk.'"

    The current discussion over the extent and cost of health coverage as well as the cost of health care itself reminds me a bit of Dante's description of the furious goings-on by the denizens of "The Inferno". That is, the damned doomed to repeat the same Sisyphean tasks for eternity under the whips of the servants of the King of Hell.

    We repeat the same complaints about health coverage and care costs continually, but seemingly without examining too closely how we got where we are.

    For instance:

    >> And to those who say “what, you want a politician making decisions about your health care?” I say “better a politician than an entry-level employee at a huge insurance company”. In my case, which I believe is common, more often than not some faceless nameless person at an insurance company is already telling my doctor what he can and can’t do in caring for me. Or at least what they’ll pay for. <<

    I'd say that you, as someone knowledgable about contracts, should say rather that what the insurance company will pay for is spelled out in your policy. How else? When that "entry-level employee at a huge insurance company" denies your claim, don't you think that he has a leg to stand on when it comes to the contract? Or should the company set aside the contract because you're hurt? Are you a charity case? Your operation should be covered 80%, 90%, or 100% because the doctor says it's necessary?

    In light of the fact that insurance companies must cover costs for multiple procedures mandated by state government it's no wonder insurance costs more than it did in the past.

    Saying that you'd prefer "a politician making decisions about your health care" is, in effect, saying that you want someone to handle your health care decisions who has no limits on what he can say "Yes" to. The politician may be voted out of office, but he'll be replaced by someone just as eager to keep his seat by promising everyone a chicken in every pot and full coverage for every hangnail, wart removal, facelift, nastyplasty, horriblectomy, and omigodotomy. Great! Where's the money for that coming from?

    >> Then, they changed it to a confusing system of co-pays and deductibles, so nobody really knows how much money the drug companies are charging. I have one medication, a common asthma med, which costs $235 for a month’s supply if I buy it myself, but $10 if I buy it through our insurance plan. <<

    So, you want government to make it simple for you? Do you realize what you're asking for? Your preference for the politician over the insurance company drone is interesting. How will government-run heatlh care coverage be any simpler, say, than the the federal tax code?

    What will it be like when any of us has complaints about federal health care coverage? Now we have at least one recourse that we won't under Uncle Sugar: we can change insurance companies.

    And don't hand me the line about how insurance companies will still be around and that the government will simply be another insurance carrier competing in the marketplace. Total bollocks in my humble yet deadly accurate opinion. How can insurance carriers compete against the government? They'll all be scrambling for whatever piece of the pie they can get or they'll go out of business. Then where's your choice?

    Too much to comment on here. I'll have to give some serious thought to blogging about this myself.

    Steve Erbach
    Neenah, WI

    ReplyDelete