Bobbie Solo - Healthcare

[HALL85]

Bobbie, to respect Old-Alums request, I'll just give you my opinion on your statement.

First of all, its easy to just superficially compare our model to that of European countries, but there is so much more too it than government sponsored healthcare. With that, I will agree that the system here is broken, but the biggest issue by going to that system is that the government is unable to manage fraud anywhere near what private insurers right now...its not even close. Plus by scrapping the system we have will have a more major impact on the economy (lost jobs, devalued 401K 's, etc.). You will not save anything (and it will cost you) to go to a government sponsored plan and that will not change the trends I mentioned before (less qualified physicians, shortages, etc.)

In terms of the quality of care, if someone here is diagnosed with cancer in NJ, you have access to world class treatment at Fox Chase, Sloan Kettering, UPenn, etc. When was the last time you heard of someone diagnosed with a life-threatening disease that says, "Jeez, I want to go to Denmark to get the best care"? The reality too in those countries is that they ration healthcare and do not offer coverage for many disease states...for instant advanced stage cancers. You get treatment of the first line of treatment for cancer, but if you get a reoccurance and you are of certain age, they send you home. I'm just saying it's not an apples-apples comparison. Finally, add to that the U.S. population has the absolute worst health lifestyle. Obesity, Diabetes Type II, sedentary lifestyle...you name it.

 

[SPK145]

As for health insurance, I often wonder how it would be if we went back to traditional indemnity plans??

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by SPK145:
As for health insurance, I often wonder how it would be if we went back to traditional indemnity plans??

This will never happen, but it needs to be simplified like you're suggesting. I can tell you people in this industry, and I mean executives, don't understand the system and how complex it is. As we discussed too, the incentives are all misaligned.

 

[Bobbie Solo]

how did trad. indemnity plans work?

 

[Bobbie Solo]

if the rationing is so bad and they don't help you with cancer as much as they should, amongst other issues, then why are we consistently ranked so poorly compared to the countries that do all these things? What are they doing that makes them so much better than us? It seems to be an across the board opinion year after year about how poorly our system is. How bad could it be to mimic the ideas of the countries that seem to be doing way better than us and have a population that is very happy with their care?

The article I quickly found talks about efficiency as one of the issues. If our private insurance companies are better on fraud then these others countries, then why is our efficiency so bad? You're really that worried about major increases in fraud just b/c we go to single payer at some point? I don't. I just have more faith than you about the gov't being able to make this work long term. I think people can be put in place to ensure doctors still get paid well so we can bring the brightest and best here. You don't. Okay, well I'm not that cynical on this just yet, b/c to me it's worth a try b/c there's no better alternative. If the rest of the world is doing it and having success, then why can't we?

Furthermore, I would argue we ration care now, just not as black & white as it's made out to be in other countries. Ration based on who can afford, etc.


Time article

 

[donnie_baseball]

Originally posted by Bobbie Solo:
I just have more faith than you about the gov't being able to make this work long term.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by Bobbie Solo:
if the rationing is so bad and they don't help you with cancer as much as they should, amongst other issues, then why are we consistently ranked so poorly compared to the countries that do all these things? What are they doing that makes them so much better than us? It seems to be an across the board opinion year after year about how poorly our system is. How bad could it be to mimic the ideas of the countries that seem to be doing way better than us and have a population that is very happy with their care?

Our life expectancy is not as high, not because of the healthcare system efficiencies, but more because of our unhealthy lifestyle choices. If you've ever traveled to Europe, its painfully obvious. You can pick out the U.S. tourists immediately..morbidly obese. We drive more...they walk. They eat smaller portions, etc. The biggest contributor to our healthcare woes is self-inflicted. We also consume more pharmaceuticals per capita than anyone.

The article I quickly found talks about efficiency as one of the issues. If our private insurance companies are better on fraud then these others countries, then why is our efficiency so bad? You're really that worried about major increases in fraud just b/c we go to single payer at some point? I don't. I just have more faith than you about the gov't being able to make this work long term. I think people can be put in place to ensure doctors still get paid well so we can bring the brightest and best here. You don't. Okay, well I'm not that cynical on this just yet, b/c to me it's worth a try b/c there's no better alternative. If the rest of the world is doing it and having success, then why can't we?

There is $40-60 billion in fraud in Medicare alone today. Sorry, I don't have the faith that you do in the government pissing away money. At least private industry is motivated by profit to eliminate waste and fraud. What's the governments motivation?

Furthermore, I would argue we ration care now, just not as black & white as it's made out to be in other countries. Ration based on who can afford, etc.

Bobbie, in all seriousness, we have a great example of government mismanagement of healthcare right in front of us with the recent VA fiasco. Care was rationed, patients were mistreated and left to die, it was covered up (until a whistleblower came forward....and even then it took forever for Washington to react), and millions of dollars were wasted along the way. And the patients were our best and bravest who serve with their life. You can imagine the rest of us poor slobs don't have a chance in that system.

There also has always been and always will be a difference in the care that one has the ability to afford...and that goes for any country and any system. What I mean by rationing is immediate access to qualified care. Obamacare or not; that's where we are heading. Fewer primary care docs means you either lower your standards (doctors educated at lesser accredited hospitals) or give more rights to other healthcare professionals (NP's/PA's).

My advice; take more responsibility for your health and be more informed about decisions you make. Don't expect the government, your employer, an insurance company to guide you. And don't just take what your physician tells you as gospel. (Then again, you can do what many do in this country, which also makes our healthcare the most expensive...you can sue!).

This post was edited on 7/22 3:31 PM by HALL85

This post was edited on 7/22 3:34 PM by HALL85

 

[SPK145]

Originally posted by Bobbie Solo:

I just have more faith than you about the gov't being able to make this work long term.

Like education, public housing, the VA, the IRS, etc., LOL!!!!!!!!!

 

[SPK145]

Originally posted by Bobbie Solo:

how did trad. indemnity plans work?

There was an individual deductible and then insurance covered 80% of usual and customary charges. That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Your healthcare was mostly between you and your providers. Today's HMO/PPO's are a form of entitlement. Pay your co-pay and you don't care what the doctor/hospital/provider doers. Order tests? Who cares, etc?

The last indemnity plan I rememebr having had a deductible of $200 and then 80%/20% coverage. I went to whatever doctor I needed, he performed his service, he charged me and I paid for what I needed/used. Much less third-party interference.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by SPK145:

Originally posted by Bobbie Solo:

how did trad. indemnity plans work?

There was an individual deductible and then insurance covered 80% of usual and customary charges. That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Your healthcare was mostly between you and your providers. Today's HMO/PPO's are a form of entitlement. Pay your co-pay and you don't care what the doctor/hospital/provider doers. Order tests? Who cares, etc?

The last indemnity plan I rememebr having had a deductible of $200 and then 80%/20% coverage. I went to whatever doctor I needed, he performed his service, he charged me and I paid for what I needed/used. Much less third-party interference.

Responding from the other thread.

Every once in a while I read this article (which I believe I found when it was posted by someone here) and the arguments are more compelling each time I read it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/307617/

It is not perfect, and I do see a few flaws but I think this is a better approach than anything I have seen from the left or the right.

 

[HALL85]

Merge, I posted that link. It's pretty damn accurate