Opinion from the right!
I usually get short, mostly positive, comments from my Critical Actions messages. Although, occasionally I get a comprehensive response, with in-depth thought, such as the one below from my friend who has agreed to share with you. Here's my response to him on Sept. 21st; his response to "A Damascus Experience" on health-care reform follows.
----------------------------------
Sept. 21, 2009: Virgil, thanks for your comments. Actually, we may not be all that far apart. A Damascus Experience was to be "thought provoking" and not to be specific in reform rectification. It was to raise many questions. Of course one could easily deduce that I might call for a more liberal solution. Actually, a 'Damascus conversion," in part at least, might be as simple as a reformed-commercial-private-health-insurance program. That may be the best system for America, contrary to most other developed nations of the world, where many countries have "public-insurance" coverage. Of course, with each of us, exceptions in thoughts would apply. But hopefully, the end goal would be the same.
Saturday afternoon I downloaded the electronic version of T. R. Read's latest book, The Healing of America, just out this July. For the past year he traveled the world to get the nitty-gritty of health-care operations in many countries. Only read 1/3 of it but it's a very interesting comparison to America's health care. I do believe there are some things we can learn from other countries.
Could I print your comments on my blog and share with other's that may chance to read it's announcement? You may want to reference some of the statistics or other quotes. Let me know and I'll share with all. Other than me trying to learn to write, the sharing thoughts in a civil manner is what my blog is about. It is to even question myself, which I often do, introspection, a medication that I believe might be a healer for our country.
Cornell
---------------------------------
Sept. 19th, 2009: Attached are some quick thoughts on health care. I enjoy exchanging ideas and appreciate your including me in the loop. Virgil
----------------------------------
Sept. 21, 2009: Virgil, thanks for your comments. Actually, we may not be all that far apart. A Damascus Experience was to be "thought provoking" and not to be specific in reform rectification. It was to raise many questions. Of course one could easily deduce that I might call for a more liberal solution. Actually, a 'Damascus conversion," in part at least, might be as simple as a reformed-commercial-private-health-insurance program. That may be the best system for America, contrary to most other developed nations of the world, where many countries have "public-insurance" coverage. Of course, with each of us, exceptions in thoughts would apply. But hopefully, the end goal would be the same.
Saturday afternoon I downloaded the electronic version of T. R. Read's latest book, The Healing of America, just out this July. For the past year he traveled the world to get the nitty-gritty of health-care operations in many countries. Only read 1/3 of it but it's a very interesting comparison to America's health care. I do believe there are some things we can learn from other countries.
Could I print your comments on my blog and share with other's that may chance to read it's announcement? You may want to reference some of the statistics or other quotes. Let me know and I'll share with all. Other than me trying to learn to write, the sharing thoughts in a civil manner is what my blog is about. It is to even question myself, which I often do, introspection, a medication that I believe might be a healer for our country.
Cornell
---------------------------------
Sept. 19th, 2009: Attached are some quick thoughts on health care. I enjoy exchanging ideas and appreciate your including me in the loop. Virgil
Here are some thoughts on how I see the health care reform needs….
First, I ask myself: what do we need to fix? What is broke, as we say?
Everyone should be covered. No one should fall between the cracks. It may not be a legal right but we agree that it is a moral necessity. Religious people – Christians and Jews primarily – historically have built the hospitals and provided care to the poor.
Costs must be contained. The current system is unsustainable.
Insurance should be tailored to the needs of each person and it should be portable and non-cancelable.
My second question is: why are we falling short of those goals? There are many problems among which are….
Private insurance is encumbered with too much regulation. There is no national market for health insurance which would create more competition and thereby lower costs. Each state regulates its own insurance offerings which cannot be purchased across state lines.
There are over 1900 mandates to insurance companies which increase the costs. Such things as covering massage therapy, cosmetic surgery, etc. When mandated, you get it whether you want it or not.
Tax laws. Much of the problem is from tax incentives. Businesses use health insurance as an employee benefit. It is tax deductible to it. When an employee leaves, the employer has no further interest in covering that person. On the other hand, an individual purchases insurance with after-tax dollars. And, contrary to the President, individual insurance is actually cheaper than corporate when all costs are accounted for. The confusion is because the company picks up much of the costs so the cost to the employee is less than private insurance.
Corporate plans are actually designed and paid for by the companies and the insurance companies are just administrators following the rules.
Medicaid is intended to insure those on the bottom of the economic ladder estimated to be 47 million people in the US. Currently Medicaid covers 58 million people plus there are an estimated 12 million eligible who simply have not signed up.
Add those two groups together and there are over 20 million on Medicaid who are not eligible. That is a significant cost. It is fraud and abuse.
Medicare is a favorite of folks my age and for many it is a good deal. But it is not a good program. Its costs are unsustainable by everyone’s assessment. Doctors and hospitals are reimbursed below costs and therefore “cost shift” the balance to private insurance and charity. Its unfunded liabilities are growing exponentially. It is not a success story and its problems lead to the talk of “death panels.”
The Wall Street Journal called Sarah Palin’s term “death panels” inelegant but not without a point. In the UK’s single payer arrangement there is an overall budget for health care. Modern health care technology is very expensive and no country can afford to give everyone everything they want. So there is a budget and allocation decisions (rationing) favor the young over the old and the decisions are made by panels. It is not what anyone wants but it is inevitable.
Litigation costs. America leads the world in litigation causing in the health care business defensive medicine, prohibitive mal- practice premiums, and passed-along costs.
I also think that our health care system is unfairly criticized. While it is true that the life expectancy in the US is less than in many other countries, it is also true that our homicide rate is 5.9 per 100,000 while Canada’s is only 1.95 and .98 in Germany. Also, the US has 14.24 deaths per 100,000 from auto accidents but only 9.25 in Canada and 7.4 Germany. If you don’t die from homicide or auto accident, we out live citizens of every other western nation.
We spend more on health care than other countries but also less than the Sudan. Spending is not meaningful without consideration of value. The US is THE engine for health care technological innovations. We are the destination for those in other countries who have serious or immediate medical problems and who can afford to come here.
The US is THE location for life enhancing and extending drugs. It costs a drug company about $1.4 billion on average to bring a drug to market. US citizens pay more for drugs than others for political reasons rather than market reasons. If we impose price limitations on drugs, the innovation will slow down proportionally as investment moves to more attractive areas.
I could go on but I don’t want to wear you out. Here is my bottom line. I look at the US government, both Democrat and Republican, pushed and shoved by special interests groups and the need to look good for reelection; I look at the current national health services (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, SCHIP) and I see waste and incompetence; I look at congress (GOP or Democratic) and I see self serving partisan bickering, and I conclude that if our government ran health care it would look just like Canada or the UK: routine care for everyone would be accessible and free, but if you really get into trouble, you’ve got a problem.
I think the answer to our problems –which are very real – is not to turn the problems over to politicians, but to fix the deficiencies one at a time: take care of the 12 million or so who really fall between the cracks; free up the private insurance industry from all the rules which make it inefficient; institute tort reform. It could be done if congress would stop the bickering and work on what is best for the people of this country.
First, I ask myself: what do we need to fix? What is broke, as we say?
Everyone should be covered. No one should fall between the cracks. It may not be a legal right but we agree that it is a moral necessity. Religious people – Christians and Jews primarily – historically have built the hospitals and provided care to the poor.
Costs must be contained. The current system is unsustainable.
Insurance should be tailored to the needs of each person and it should be portable and non-cancelable.
My second question is: why are we falling short of those goals? There are many problems among which are….
Private insurance is encumbered with too much regulation. There is no national market for health insurance which would create more competition and thereby lower costs. Each state regulates its own insurance offerings which cannot be purchased across state lines.
There are over 1900 mandates to insurance companies which increase the costs. Such things as covering massage therapy, cosmetic surgery, etc. When mandated, you get it whether you want it or not.
Tax laws. Much of the problem is from tax incentives. Businesses use health insurance as an employee benefit. It is tax deductible to it. When an employee leaves, the employer has no further interest in covering that person. On the other hand, an individual purchases insurance with after-tax dollars. And, contrary to the President, individual insurance is actually cheaper than corporate when all costs are accounted for. The confusion is because the company picks up much of the costs so the cost to the employee is less than private insurance.
Corporate plans are actually designed and paid for by the companies and the insurance companies are just administrators following the rules.
Medicaid is intended to insure those on the bottom of the economic ladder estimated to be 47 million people in the US. Currently Medicaid covers 58 million people plus there are an estimated 12 million eligible who simply have not signed up.
Add those two groups together and there are over 20 million on Medicaid who are not eligible. That is a significant cost. It is fraud and abuse.
Medicare is a favorite of folks my age and for many it is a good deal. But it is not a good program. Its costs are unsustainable by everyone’s assessment. Doctors and hospitals are reimbursed below costs and therefore “cost shift” the balance to private insurance and charity. Its unfunded liabilities are growing exponentially. It is not a success story and its problems lead to the talk of “death panels.”
The Wall Street Journal called Sarah Palin’s term “death panels” inelegant but not without a point. In the UK’s single payer arrangement there is an overall budget for health care. Modern health care technology is very expensive and no country can afford to give everyone everything they want. So there is a budget and allocation decisions (rationing) favor the young over the old and the decisions are made by panels. It is not what anyone wants but it is inevitable.
Litigation costs. America leads the world in litigation causing in the health care business defensive medicine, prohibitive mal- practice premiums, and passed-along costs.
I also think that our health care system is unfairly criticized. While it is true that the life expectancy in the US is less than in many other countries, it is also true that our homicide rate is 5.9 per 100,000 while Canada’s is only 1.95 and .98 in Germany. Also, the US has 14.24 deaths per 100,000 from auto accidents but only 9.25 in Canada and 7.4 Germany. If you don’t die from homicide or auto accident, we out live citizens of every other western nation.
We spend more on health care than other countries but also less than the Sudan. Spending is not meaningful without consideration of value. The US is THE engine for health care technological innovations. We are the destination for those in other countries who have serious or immediate medical problems and who can afford to come here.
The US is THE location for life enhancing and extending drugs. It costs a drug company about $1.4 billion on average to bring a drug to market. US citizens pay more for drugs than others for political reasons rather than market reasons. If we impose price limitations on drugs, the innovation will slow down proportionally as investment moves to more attractive areas.
I could go on but I don’t want to wear you out. Here is my bottom line. I look at the US government, both Democrat and Republican, pushed and shoved by special interests groups and the need to look good for reelection; I look at the current national health services (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, SCHIP) and I see waste and incompetence; I look at congress (GOP or Democratic) and I see self serving partisan bickering, and I conclude that if our government ran health care it would look just like Canada or the UK: routine care for everyone would be accessible and free, but if you really get into trouble, you’ve got a problem.
I think the answer to our problems –which are very real – is not to turn the problems over to politicians, but to fix the deficiencies one at a time: take care of the 12 million or so who really fall between the cracks; free up the private insurance industry from all the rules which make it inefficient; institute tort reform. It could be done if congress would stop the bickering and work on what is best for the people of this country.
No comments:
Post a Comment