Tags for This Article:

Health Care Costs (214)  Health Care Socialized-Nationalized (148)  Corporations Health Care (43) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ;
Add to My Group
April 25, 2007 at 16:38:00

Fixing Healthcare: the answer lies in our past

by Gustav Wynn     Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com


Tell A Friend

How did America's health care mess get so bad? The answer is greed, obviously. There has been great wealth created for healthcare conglomerates, drug companies, lobbyists, and in a less direct manner, politicians who benefit from the support of these firms. Though most doctors make a higher then average living, I would say that in general they earn it without exploiting anyone. But the answer to our problem lies in our past. I remember about 25-30 years ago when healthcare was  provided by smaller, local practitioners. 

Now, Americans are paying our doctors and hospitals for their services through a middleman profiteer who extracts huge sums, lining the skies of Hartford with hi-rise office complexes, as well as the coffers of Joe Lieberman and others.

Of all the things our society pays for out of pocket, medical care should be the last thing we allow to be marked up. But it's "business" as usual in modern politics, and legislators either suckle off these enormous lobbies or fear them (I excuse only Rep. Dennis Kucinich from this), with their campaign war chests, and big bucks to spend pimping friendly candidates, or sliming opponents. You might remember the "Harry and Louise" ad campaign from the early 90s, portraying a fictitious "average" couple, critical of a nationalized plan. But neither Harry and Louise nor Bill and Hillary mentioned the simpler alternative that was in place two decades before. 

It all started years ago, when businesses began to offer their workers health insurance. My father's policy was offered through his job as a benefit, at a paltry $25 per YEAR covering hospitalizations. That was when it really was INSURANCE, as opposed to 'coverage'.

So, what took place? Abuse. Everybody started making claims, trying to get more out than they put in. Insurance companies were happy to comply, allowing more and more procedures be covered. They were not only increasing their role in more and more health transactions, they were raking in more profit, adjusting premiums upwards the following year. Some doctors got sucked into the game too. They'd do more "precautionary" procedures and tests because what the hell, insurance was paying for it all and the patient didn't mind much.

This is a very coarse explanation of what happened, but the end result speaks for itself. Today, 45 million Americans are uninsured with many more working stiffs killing themselves to pay unbelievably high premiums, afraid of getting just one large medical bill. Many people seek any job that will provide health care while companies look to lower their contributions more every year. The office I work in had premiums increase more then 18% two years in a row. 

Is it hopeless? I don't believe so at all. We just need to regain control of our democracy. 

What would correct the problem for millions overnight is a basic "catastrophic only" policy. Insurance is what the majority of Americans would prefer, but it's not offered by a single company anywhere in the country because were it offered, no one would pay for marked-up health care any longer. A similar model works nicely for auto insurance in my state - drivers keep their cars running tip-top, paying for maintenance and repairs out of pocket, even paying cash in the event of accidents to avoid making claims above a set deductible amount. It's just what was in place 30 years ago when my father paid his doctor directly, and paid a relative pittance for real insurance and peace of mind.

If we could pay our doctors and hospitals directly, it would keep both the doctor's costs low and the premiums low. The health care corporations would lose - in fact it would eviscerate the industry which has grown immensely by adding paperwork to our medical transactions. But with the middleman gone, the costs would be that much more within reach of actually paying out of pocket. There are other ways to bring costs down as well.

Today we have a nationwide recruitment program seeking classroom teachers to address shortages in 16 major metropolitan areas, with hundreds more local programs educating and certifying college grads and career changers for careers in education. If health care is as fundamental an entitlement, there is no reason we can't train preventive care workers to man screening and treatment facilities, pre-buying many common services in bulk to contain costs, as would restoration of Medicare's bargaining power. We already know investment in prevention pre-empts emergency room costs, but it simultaneously drives medical costs lower. This is one facet of Barack Obama's campaign already, though he, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards all support continuation of middleman corporate health profiteering.

In conclusion, I think this large and important issue could be best addressed by adding Kucinich's plan to eliminate healthcare middlemen with Obama's plan to ramp up preventative programs and awareness. But the catastrophic-only policy is the missing ingredient that would preclude the need for single payer medicare-for-all where the government would have such a  large role. 

I invite other perspectives on this issue because millions will likely cast their '08 vote for the candidate that promises them the best options for coverage. But are the candidates appealing to the same individual greed that got us into this fix? We really need to work on normalizing costs, not looking for systems that subsidize costs.

 

GW is a proud American from NY State, concerned about ethics issues, media manipulation and overconsumption. He has recently changed careers to become an inner city schoolteacher. A firm proponent of curbing overpopulation and international adoption, he hopes to adopt a third child and enjoys history, outsider art, garage rock music and rare/unusual vinyl records.

Contact Author
Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Spurl      Tag!RawSugar      Shadows Tag!      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 comments

Recently, I become passionate about brining about the changes to the the health care that will make health care affordable, less complex, and available to all of us when we need it and that at cost that is sensible and affordable.
lgoel for health care solutionRecently, I become passionate about brining about the changes to the the health care that will make health care affordable, less complex, and available to all of us when we need it and that at cost that is sensible and affordable.

Fixing healthcare

In reference to Gustav artcle on fixing healthcare, you are right on. Insurance shall be for the episodes that are rare and costly to fix. Given that more than 25% of the premiumis is spend in administring claims that are routine in nature and low cost, why bother to insure for these. The best choice is to keep out the insurance for office visits and non-catstrophic episodes. Let the consumer choose the health care service providers in a competitive market place based on quality of service, access, costs, and reputation and let the consumer pay directly to the service providers instead of paying to insurance company and than they paying to the proivders. It is an extra cost layer of the insurance companies that is a paid by the insured for administrative overhead and profits of the insurance companies. 

Recently, we have introduced such a model in Silicon valley where an insurance plan at low premium is written that covers catastrophic episodes and does not cover the office visits and other routine primary care. The insured pays for their primary care from the savings due to very low insurance premium (premium difference bewtween catastrophic plan and comprehensive plan). The end result is that average consumer is able to shave off 30% from their health care costs and have more choices.

by lgoel for health care solution (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, April 29, 2007 at 8:13:21 PM
 

 

2 comments

 

Tell A Friend

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008

Blog Ads

 

 

 

 

24 hrs 48 hrs
72 hrs 1 week
1 month 6 months
1 year All Time
Articles
Diaries Members
Products Events
Polls  
  

Articles Popularity:

GOP whistleblower names Karl Rove in Ohio's 04 election theft
by steveheller

Epilepsy Study Incriminates Aspartame in Medications
by Dr. GLEN MABSON, Phd. Epileptic Foundation of Maui dba Pacific Epilepsy Society

Nine Republicans Break Party Ranks: Send Impeachment Article to Judiciary for Hearings
by Ralph Lopez

Dalai Lama: "I Love President Bush... but... Lack(s) Understanding of Reality"
by Rob Kall

Bill C51 in Canada is a MAJOR WARNING to all of us. Fascism is coming in through food and health products.
by Linn Cohen-Cole

You Say You Want a Revolution?
by Olga Bonfiglio

Excuse this interruption of deadly serious matters, to ask what you're packing for the internment camp stay.
by Linn Cohen-Cole

The Greatest Bank Robbery of the Century
by William Helbig

False Flag of Terror
by Kelly Mitchell

McCain to NY Times; Damn It My Friend, Can't You See? I Am Right, Obama's Wrong. Let Me Repeat...
by Rob Kall