It’s funny how thinking about the achievement of man’s walking on the moon 40 years ago puts almost everything else into a different perspective.
Such as why, for example, we still cannot ensure that every single person in this country has access to adequate health care.
Granted this is in a larger category of experience, for instance, than your mom saying to you, “If we can put a man on the moon…why can’t you clean up your room?” Or saying to your significant other, “If we can put a man on the moon…how come you mess up the checkbook every month?”
On the other hand, health care matters a lot more than whether you’re a slob or are driven crazy by someone who can’t add and subtract.
So, how is it, then, that in the 40 years since Neil Armstrong’s “giant leap for mankind,” the number of uninsured in this country has grown inexorably larger year after year?
Defenders of the status quo will simply ignore the question and start ranting about how we have the best health care in the entire world and any move to seriously reform it is a step on the dreaded path to “socialized medicine.”
Now, I won’t argue that the quality of health care in this country is good, even very good. The problem is that that’s not true for everyone and it is definitely not true for anyone who does not have coverage.
One question that never seems to get asked is whether we, as a people, would rather have the most superlative health care for some of the population or good basic coverage for the entire population.
I recently had the occasion to call a specialist for an appointment. I’d done my homework, which essentially meant finding out the answer to the all-important question: was the doctor in my network?
When I called his office and said I’d like to make an appointment, the very first question his receptionist posed to me was: what insurance do you have? Not my name or even, heaven forbid, what the problem was. No, what insurance did I have?
And if I didn’t have insurance? I shudder to think.
I’ve also experienced several wrenchings of the so-called doctor-patient relationship because the company changed health plans and my doctor was out of network, making it prohibitively expensive to continue that relationship.
I’ve also encountered instances where a long-standing practice of one spouse being covered by the other’s health plan was jettisoned due to the second spouse’s having the option of being covered by their own employer. The result? Two spouses covered by two different health plans with two different networks of doctors and hospitals.
And these are problems for people who have health insurance!
And what about those folks who are working but whose employers don’t offer health insurance?
It’s just not right or fair that the system is so temperamental, whimsical and arbitrary. Health care is too important for it not to work for everyone.
By all means let’s keep health insurance in place as the conduit for coverage, but let’s make sure that everyone has the ability to get coverage if that coverage is the gatekeeper for getting care.
Flying to the moon is rocket science. Ensuring access to health care for everyone should not be.
Tags: health care reform, opinion
Entries (RSS)
Interesting article to read – great anecdotes!
But where’s the substance?
What about a solution?
As industry leaders shouldn’t we have some answers?
Our President and Congress seem to think they do.
If we as an industry don’t take action and become pro-active we will be under a plan that not only we may not like but I’m afraid utltimately will not work.
SH Benbow in NC
Consider this:
Look at how the cost has come down and the quality has gone up on vision correction surgery, with no federal or state intervention
Only basic regulations are in place, and tort laws were not reformed
think about that example, while you read this
Part of the problem is that Congress wants to take 500 – 1500 pages to establish some simple, 1 to 2 page issues.
They seem to like 1500 pages, because they can then slide other things into a bill, and leave parts unwritten, like with Cap and Trade
what would change the whole system in a gradual manner, and not add tons more debt would be the following:
- eliminate the pre-existing clause for health issues, like has been done in multiple states already
now people can get coverage – no matter what the issue
- allow reduced premiums for healthy lifestyles, so smoking and unhealthy lifestyles only penalize the ones who have them, such as the industry already does
If you want to be a chain smoker, and gain 300 lbs – go for it – the only one you hurt is you
- mandate coverage on all citizens, using a basic catastrophic plan as a minimum, such as the existing HSA approved plan structure, which are high deductible and no cap plans
now no one goes bankrupt because they have no coverage, or capped coverage
- phase out employer health plans, since the overall cost per person is higher than individual plans, and layoffs and terminations cause so many to loose coverage going from employer to individual coverage
Now no one looses insurance because of job issues – it’s your coverage, so you pay for it
- mandate Disability riders in the policy if need be – so a permanently injured person has coverage for the 36 months it takes to go on SSI
Employers are free to compete on the global economy, employees do not have salary caps that automatically factor in health care costs – even when they decline coverage
- make transference of cost illegal, so that private plans are not forced to pay the non-reimbursed costs that Medicare and Medicate do not cover: I should not have to pay for the federal government’s refusal to pay.
If Medicare and Medicaid’s payment schedule is not enough, providers can choose not to participate, which is the free market system
- set up a fail safe program, that allows people to move to Medicare and Medicaid when legitimate changes in income happen.
- keep the existing COBRA rules in place until the laws take effect
- Keep SCHIP in place to cover lower income children,
- keep means testing, so only people with a real need qualify for assistance
those simple changes will eliminate all but about 16 million uninsured,
those 16 million are here without legal documentation, and that is a different issue to resolve, and that legality needs to be resolved first
net cost to the tax payer – almost nothing
the states can continue to manage plans and benefits, but some federal intervention will be needed to keep things like hair transplants and fertility treatments for 60 year olds of of the mandated coverage list, so that costs stay in line
If you think this is crazy – and it can’t be this simple
remember what happened when it really is a free market – like vision correction surgery, like cosmetic surgery, with no federal or state intervention
why is this not happening?
look at the bills proposed
the major component is the tax structure – the Congressional interest seems to be more towards revenue management than health care
RE: “Rocket Science”
Steve,
Lets not drink anymore coolaid.
Lets free up the markets for competition of plan choices, put limits on tort reform, and remove the so-called kickbacks from the pharmaceutical companies.
Another must is too make all health insurance premiums tax-deductible and to remove the major of laws per state that tie the hands of insurance companies, period.
Furthermore, our President and Congress do not have clue what to do besides create more government spending, oversight, and control of our lives.
People need to wake up begfore its too late…
I really think we need to take the burden of health care off the shoulders of employers. We find that many people have little knowledge of the amount of money that employers have paid on their behalf and do little to keep themselves healthy, which in turn could help keep premiums down. It’s their right to have coverage but they don’t consider their responsibilities. Then when employers are having a tough time keeping their doors open, just paying wages, employees are striking because they have to take more responsibility for their health care.
While the idea of a mandate of individuals to carry at least a large deductible policy sounds interesting, how would it be implemented? Can’t renew your driver’s license unless you provide proof of coverage?
Think John has some interesting ideas, ones I’m sure our industry is contemplating. Part of the problem is that our providers offer so many options that the public is easily confused. I think the standardization of the Medicare plans was a great idea. Can we as an industry become more attractive by becoming more public friendly? Surely we can work faster than Washington to offer some prescription to prevent a health care meltdown.