The true source of high health insurance costs...

[Matt's Dad]

"A national health plan is not a bad thing, as long as
it is planned and managed carefully. "

Claudia, 2 questions:

1. What government program has ever been managed carefully?

2. Do you think a national health care plan would cost any less than you pay now?


Message was edited by: Matt's Dad

[claudia]

Matt's Dad:
No system is perfect. No system could ever be perfect. That's because we have different needs and because predicting every single eventuality would bog the system down. That being said, England's system is pretty good. Yes, you can wait for some things. But there is a private system as well. However, things that we feel are necessary for our children and tbpi--like ot and/or pt, would be covered. My insurance company will give us 30 pt/ot visits "per injury". If Juliana was only injured "once": ie, at birth, then she gets only 30 visits. In her lifetime. Mind you, this same insurance company told us that surgery is not the "standard of care" for Erb's Palsy. So what is? THERAPY. So how many therapy visits does she get? 30. Each year? No per injury, per lifetime. After 30 she is cured. Ahhhh... I think if we had a National plan that included things like ot and pt, it would put less pressure on our schools. And less pressure on parents.

Can you abuse the system? Absolutely. Would it cost less, probably not. I pay $1500 per month for health care. To a company that I had to sue to get them to pay 85% of Juliana's first surgery. However, I still believe that every citizen deserves health care. Our elderly should not be worrying about health care after they have worked and supported the economy of this country.

Is it great that we can just choose our doctors? Yes. But so many people don't. Those in HMO's take whomever is on duty that day. I will pay for any doctor whom I think is worth the money. My sister, on the other hand, will only go to see someone who is "in-network". Severely limiting, I think. If we are all in the same "network" it give us all more choices.

I'm not looking for perfect, I am looking for improvement. And with the power of the medical and insurance lobbies as they are, we have glaciers that will move faster.

claudia

[katep]

Matt's Dad,

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2 ... study.html

Just googled "medical bills bankruptcy".

Kate

[Matt's Dad]

Kate, that study estimates that half are caused by illnesses and medical bills.

However, I have read various studies of consumer Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases that found that anywhere from 5-10 percent of the general unsecured debt was medical debt.
No where near half??

I think it all depends all where you pull you research from - you got a article from a left-leaning Harvard based study that is espousing the wonders of a natinal healthcare system.

I have "paper" articles at home from the Weekly Standard, Newsweek, and the National Review that are right-leaning and publish numbers to fortify their views against a national healthcare system.

Bern

[brandonsmom]

In the state of Illinois, all children can be covered under medical insurance, even if you make a ton of money. The program is called ALL KIDS, however, this to has its problems. The state takes a year and a half to pay their bills soooo....no private Dr. Will take you if you have this insurance....you have to go to the Health Department !!! My children are on the program, when my husband lost his job and we had no insurance. The waits in the doctors office sometimes range from 2-3 hours, the doctors have to be pushed for anything more than an it's viral diagnosis...for example Brandon had strep. I had him in the office three times, before they would even test him and I had to get angry for them to do that !!!! In April we go back to employer paid insurance....I Cannot wait. Yes, in a perfect world......but nothing is perfect !!!! GAYLE

[Ben's Dad]

Matt's Dad,

I implore you to read this article: http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7497, they did a great, in depth, statistical analysis of the effects of medical malpractice cases and the so called need for tort reform.

In answer to your question, I am against tort reform - especially when doctors call out for it. No system is perfect, but I believe the current system works. I am absolutely against caps on recovery. Nowadays, the reality is your chances of prevailing in a malpractice case are less than 50% and even less likely to recover significant awards. In addition, punitive awards are highly infrequent in today's tort system. Of course they are the ones that you hear about on the news and therefore people think they are the norm...that's not the case at all.

My information about medical bills and bankruptcy came from speaking directly with an experienced bankruptcy attorney.

The article Kate cited (by the way, thanks Kate) also said the information was obtained..."With the cooperation of bankruptcy judges in five Federal districts (in California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas) they administered questionnaires to bankruptcy filers and reviewed their court records." doesn't that account for anything?

[katep]

That link will work without the "," in it:

http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7497

Good article, thanks!

Kate

[Matt's Dad]

I am actually against tort reform as well. However, my reasoning has little to do with the cost of med mal insurance.

What I do find interesting is that you are against capping how much a lawyer can make, but seem to be supporting a cap on how much a doctor can make?
I am against any type of government produced cap, but it appears that you seem to favor caps on some but not others?

I believe in a laissez faire type of market. The market will dictate how much money is spent and made, as opposed to a market driven by government mandates on financial issues.

Doctors are part of this market.
Hence, part of my reasoning for disliking a universal healthcare system. Socialized medicine eliminates healthy competition amongst doctors. Competition breeds quality - no one goes to a bad auto mechanic on purpose.

As far as medical costs being the biggest reason for bankruptcy - yes, it is a part of it and yes, Kate's article is a very relevant source and accounts for something. My point was that I have read articles that slant the issue a different way. The Harvard study is used to fuel the speculation by advocates to spout "With national health insurance ('Medicare for All'), we could provide comprehensive, lifelong coverage to all Americans for the same amount we are spending now and end the cruelty of ruining families financially when they get sick.". You wanna talk about "mis-truths"?

I agree that medical bills play a part of families and their financial struggles. We see it here on the UPBN, people being unable to afford to see the doctor of their choice because their finances won't allow it.
But medical bills share equally in the problem of debt. Most people's biggest cost in life is their home(food included) and its maintenance, roughly 40% on average of people's yearly expenses. Add in the cost of vehicles and prices at the gas pumps. There is very little money left over, even for the cheapest "extras" in life.

The real question is how much of the debt that leads to bankruptcy is due to overspending on nonessential items in life like plasma TVs, digital cable, high-speed internet and Ipod Nanos???

[Ben's Dad]

Considering that the lawyers fees are usually around 1/3, the capping has a much higher proportionate effect on the injured person, doesn't it? Don't forget that when you lose the case...the lawyer gets nothing. With about a 40% chance of winning a med mal case...it's a gamble for a lawyer to even take a case.

Actually, I am not saying there should be a cap on what doctors make. My problem is when the AMA and doctors foster a perception that the tort system and cost of malpractice insurance is the cause for increased health insurance costs and access to health care, they are lying. That was part of my reason for posting the article to begin with. They blow a smoke screen over the real issues and the result is people who have legitimate cases get screwed. People see doctors protesting for tort reform at their state capitals and hear the president talk about it on national TV and they perceive a crisis that is not real. The result is jurors have a biased view of malpractice claims before they sit down to hear the case. Most doctors look the other way when it comes to cleaning up their profession and that makes me disgusted.

I agree that socialized medicine may not be the answer, I just can't believe that we can't do better than the current system...with millions of people with no coverage at all. The English system seems like it works well, maybe there is a middle ground that we could find. My mention about bankruptcy was part of an answer to jenny's questions about what happens in the US when you don't have health insurance.

I totally agree that personal debt is out of control in this country...you forgot to mention the big SUV's people buy to go to the supermarket, that's a discussion for another day.

[jennyb]

Thanks Ben's Dad.
This provides interesting reading. http://mwhodges.home.att.net/healthcare.htm All of this info is available from the World Health Organisation but their site is complex to navigate, this one puts all the info together. Despite the US govt spending more than any other country per head on health, the US ranks only 37th, and the life expectancy and birth outcomes are worse than most other western countries. So the system is expensive, inefficient and millions of people have no health plans. I note that France is ranked best, my dad broke his leg in France (he was not insured) and the care he received was phenomenal, he still exchanges letters with some of the nurses and doctors 13 years later.

I note that New Zealand is one of the only western countries whose system performs worse than yours!
Thanks again for the discussion.