ways to reform healthcare
Any healthcare reform that can be truly meaningful must put healthcare market controls back into the hands of consumers and patients.
Health insurance is sold mostly to businesses that force it on their employees, automatically inflating the volume of business for the insurer. Most employers that offer health insurance require you to submit proof of other health insurance in order to decline their offering, as they are typically required to cover at least 70 percent of their employees simply to hold a policy.
Employees have no say in the type of policy, premium price or coverages. Corporations seldom change policies because of the concerns of a few employees, so there is less leverage on the insurance provider to respond fully to the needs of the insured.
Employer-based coverage may last for a year or two under one policy, until you change jobs, or the employer chooses another insurer. During that year or two, the insurer has to recoup all your medical costs through premiums. Risk could be alleviated if consumers held the same policies for longer periods, as they do auto and homeowners policies, allowing insurers to amortize cost over more policy years.
Theweek.com today reports that President Obama threatens the uninsured with up to five years in jail under He chooses to criminalize those who fail to buy health insurance policies that are exorbitantly overpriced bad deals and have no prospect of getting better.
These policies often seem to provide benefits we didn't ask for at a price we can hardly tolerate and are least likely to pay out specifically when you get sick, citing pre-existing conditions, unapproved or uncovered treatments, insufficient health of the patient, maximum limits. And consumers are powerless to demand a better deal.
And why should those who don't partake in plethora pills subsidize people who run to the doctor every time a new pill is advertised, particularly if it can make a "patient" thin, happy or sexy? Many people rarely get sick because they pay responsible attention to their own health.
Why should they pay $400 monthly to have benefits contingent on a several thousand dollar deductible they will not meet in several years?
Behind it are the corporate healthcare conglomerates. The industry sector that includes hospitals, medical facilities and practices is the only sector of our economy that has experienced steadily increasing profit growth since the 1950s, as every other sector of the economy has had its ups and downs, with years of contraction as well as growth.
When a for-profit organization has you captive (sick in bed), they charge up to $20 for an aspirin. In what world is that not considered gouging? Every time Florida has a hurricane, prosecutors get their hands on a few entrepreneurs that jacked-up prices on the backs of the afflicted.
Why can't we outlaw medical gouging? Medical administrators cite high costs. The prices are set to include the costs of malpractice claims and whatever growth investments healthcare companies wish to make: a new outpatient building or the latest 4-D sonography, and wages and benefits for healthcare workers that are two and three times the hourly rate for similarly educated workers in other industries.
These arguable costs are passed onto patients with no reasonable option to refuse, who are much more vulnerable than hurricane victims.
A valid point of healthcare reform might address a means to obtain a quote for needed healthcare services and to negotiate details, including the option to provide your own aspirin. Perhaps you need very minor surgery. Since it only involves a few stitches, doctor knows he could do it in his office for $1,000s less, but rarely tells you that, and schedules you into the outpatient center because it's there.
Even the insured usually pay 20 percent of this cost. The patient must be informed of other options to decide what they can, will or must pay. Consumers must become the ultimate market control for reform to be effective, rather than being insulated from the details and realities of cost.
A major step in cost reduction would be to reform malpractice litigation. Bad things happen to people and it's not the doctor's fault as often as doctors pay out malpractice claims. A doctor is often forced to order tests and screenings that her medical training tells her aren't really needed.
Still she must satisfy her malpractice liability carrier, who will pay in the event of a claim. We pay for the most expensive option to cover the doctor's hide against a malpractice claim.
Many insurers give special ratings and bonuses to practitioners who follow the best liability-avoidance practices, which include over screening, over medicating, and second opinions at the patient's expense. Your cholesterol is two points above the good range. Do you really need to be on that cholesterol medicine?
Health insurance is sold mostly to businesses that force it on their employees, automatically inflating the volume of business for the insurer. Most employers that offer health insurance require you to submit proof of other health insurance in order to decline their offering, as they are typically required to cover at least 70 percent of their employees simply to hold a policy.
Employees have no say in the type of policy, premium price or coverages. Corporations seldom change policies because of the concerns of a few employees, so there is less leverage on the insurance provider to respond fully to the needs of the insured.
Employer-based coverage may last for a year or two under one policy, until you change jobs, or the employer chooses another insurer. During that year or two, the insurer has to recoup all your medical costs through premiums. Risk could be alleviated if consumers held the same policies for longer periods, as they do auto and homeowners policies, allowing insurers to amortize cost over more policy years.
Theweek.com today reports that President Obama threatens the uninsured with up to five years in jail under He chooses to criminalize those who fail to buy health insurance policies that are exorbitantly overpriced bad deals and have no prospect of getting better.
These policies often seem to provide benefits we didn't ask for at a price we can hardly tolerate and are least likely to pay out specifically when you get sick, citing pre-existing conditions, unapproved or uncovered treatments, insufficient health of the patient, maximum limits. And consumers are powerless to demand a better deal.
And why should those who don't partake in plethora pills subsidize people who run to the doctor every time a new pill is advertised, particularly if it can make a "patient" thin, happy or sexy? Many people rarely get sick because they pay responsible attention to their own health.
Why should they pay $400 monthly to have benefits contingent on a several thousand dollar deductible they will not meet in several years?
Behind it are the corporate healthcare conglomerates. The industry sector that includes hospitals, medical facilities and practices is the only sector of our economy that has experienced steadily increasing profit growth since the 1950s, as every other sector of the economy has had its ups and downs, with years of contraction as well as growth.
When a for-profit organization has you captive (sick in bed), they charge up to $20 for an aspirin. In what world is that not considered gouging? Every time Florida has a hurricane, prosecutors get their hands on a few entrepreneurs that jacked-up prices on the backs of the afflicted.
Why can't we outlaw medical gouging? Medical administrators cite high costs. The prices are set to include the costs of malpractice claims and whatever growth investments healthcare companies wish to make: a new outpatient building or the latest 4-D sonography, and wages and benefits for healthcare workers that are two and three times the hourly rate for similarly educated workers in other industries.
These arguable costs are passed onto patients with no reasonable option to refuse, who are much more vulnerable than hurricane victims.
A valid point of healthcare reform might address a means to obtain a quote for needed healthcare services and to negotiate details, including the option to provide your own aspirin. Perhaps you need very minor surgery. Since it only involves a few stitches, doctor knows he could do it in his office for $1,000s less, but rarely tells you that, and schedules you into the outpatient center because it's there.
Even the insured usually pay 20 percent of this cost. The patient must be informed of other options to decide what they can, will or must pay. Consumers must become the ultimate market control for reform to be effective, rather than being insulated from the details and realities of cost.
A major step in cost reduction would be to reform malpractice litigation. Bad things happen to people and it's not the doctor's fault as often as doctors pay out malpractice claims. A doctor is often forced to order tests and screenings that her medical training tells her aren't really needed.
Still she must satisfy her malpractice liability carrier, who will pay in the event of a claim. We pay for the most expensive option to cover the doctor's hide against a malpractice claim.
Many insurers give special ratings and bonuses to practitioners who follow the best liability-avoidance practices, which include over screening, over medicating, and second opinions at the patient's expense. Your cholesterol is two points above the good range. Do you really need to be on that cholesterol medicine?
Source...