Who Is Responsible For Our Healthcare "Crisis"?
Much is debated concerning healthcare these days, largely due to our aging population of baby-boomers. Everything is debated from availability of healthcare, who should pay, how much should be paid, and much more. Prescription drugs have came to the forefront of debate in recent years, the culmination to this point being our "Fights like a Republican, but governs like a Democrat" president floating the Ford Pinto of healthcare legislation, the Medicare Prescription Drug plan. This Hillarycare-lite legislation was a lemon before it left the factory.
Regarding this drug plan, I was priviledged to have the educational experience of attending a local town hall meeting held by Congressman Nathan Deal, a Republican from Georgia, and the congressman for my district, a couple of years ago. At this time, this legislation was in its infancy, but was in the press regularly. Rep. Deal was questioned heavily on the logic of government involvement in healthcare and the Constitutionality of the legislation in general. Rep. Deal's answer was basically, "Someone is going to pass a drug plan for Medicare, and if we do it, then maybe it will not be as bad as it would if a Democrat congress would pass it in the future."
Behind this legislation is the perceived drive of individuals to have government involved in their healthcare, mainly at the paying end. No one wants to pay for their doctor's bills. They want someone else to, be it the Federal government or a health insurance company.
Health insurance is socialism in its most basic form. People of all ages contribute, in the form of premiums, some amount of money to a pool, from which funds are distributed to health care providers and to defray administration costs. Premiums vary little dependent upon health issues, so basically everyone pays the same premium. In some plans, after one pays for a family plan of 3 or 4 individuals, additional individuals in the family are covered by the premium. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
And so, a single, 30 year-old male who has an annual checkup every two years will pay as much or more per individual for healthcare premiums as the 50 year old woman with a bad heart, four children under the age of 18, and in love with her OBGYN.
As is the experience with the healthcare plan of which I am a member, every year brings higher premiums with less service. This is because healthcare costs are rising exponentially year over year, and this because of our aging population and lack of competition. The only logical end to this madness is that one pays an outrageous premium and gets no healthcare in return. And many people do.
So why are costs so high? Lack of competition is a big component of high health premiums. Many plans will pay "reasonable" fees for services from approved physicians in the plan. But you get what you pay for, and as it stands, you get about the same thing with any physician to which you go. Physicians have to run patients through as if at a cattle sale to turn a profit, and the result is a sub-par experience, short and impersonal.
But because of the restraints of most health plans, one has no choice but to take the one-size-fits-all approach. And this is the trade-off for someone else paying for your healthcare.
The solution? Abolish the need for health insurance by paying for your own healthcare. Easier said than done, I know, but the only insurance one should need would be for catastrophic occurrences, such as hospitalization, an event that is tightly managed by your HMO or PPO now. Tax-free health savings accounts are available to contribute for your own healthcare and not another. If the current insurance and Medicare structure were obsoleted, physicians would have to compete more for patients. Rather than Wal-Mart care, you could have range of Dollar General care to Sax Fifth Avenue care, depending upon what you would determine to be the cost/benefit of such care.
But people are too busy nursing the government breast to see that the cause of our healthcare crisis is them.
Regarding this drug plan, I was priviledged to have the educational experience of attending a local town hall meeting held by Congressman Nathan Deal, a Republican from Georgia, and the congressman for my district, a couple of years ago. At this time, this legislation was in its infancy, but was in the press regularly. Rep. Deal was questioned heavily on the logic of government involvement in healthcare and the Constitutionality of the legislation in general. Rep. Deal's answer was basically, "Someone is going to pass a drug plan for Medicare, and if we do it, then maybe it will not be as bad as it would if a Democrat congress would pass it in the future."
Behind this legislation is the perceived drive of individuals to have government involved in their healthcare, mainly at the paying end. No one wants to pay for their doctor's bills. They want someone else to, be it the Federal government or a health insurance company.
Health insurance is socialism in its most basic form. People of all ages contribute, in the form of premiums, some amount of money to a pool, from which funds are distributed to health care providers and to defray administration costs. Premiums vary little dependent upon health issues, so basically everyone pays the same premium. In some plans, after one pays for a family plan of 3 or 4 individuals, additional individuals in the family are covered by the premium. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
And so, a single, 30 year-old male who has an annual checkup every two years will pay as much or more per individual for healthcare premiums as the 50 year old woman with a bad heart, four children under the age of 18, and in love with her OBGYN.
As is the experience with the healthcare plan of which I am a member, every year brings higher premiums with less service. This is because healthcare costs are rising exponentially year over year, and this because of our aging population and lack of competition. The only logical end to this madness is that one pays an outrageous premium and gets no healthcare in return. And many people do.
So why are costs so high? Lack of competition is a big component of high health premiums. Many plans will pay "reasonable" fees for services from approved physicians in the plan. But you get what you pay for, and as it stands, you get about the same thing with any physician to which you go. Physicians have to run patients through as if at a cattle sale to turn a profit, and the result is a sub-par experience, short and impersonal.
But because of the restraints of most health plans, one has no choice but to take the one-size-fits-all approach. And this is the trade-off for someone else paying for your healthcare.
The solution? Abolish the need for health insurance by paying for your own healthcare. Easier said than done, I know, but the only insurance one should need would be for catastrophic occurrences, such as hospitalization, an event that is tightly managed by your HMO or PPO now. Tax-free health savings accounts are available to contribute for your own healthcare and not another. If the current insurance and Medicare structure were obsoleted, physicians would have to compete more for patients. Rather than Wal-Mart care, you could have range of Dollar General care to Sax Fifth Avenue care, depending upon what you would determine to be the cost/benefit of such care.
But people are too busy nursing the government breast to see that the cause of our healthcare crisis is them.
posted by Badbeans | 4:42 PM
1 Comments:
We know that you want your little guy or gal to have the best start, the greatest thing you can do for your child is to provide a home filled with love and laughter.
Link to this site: parenting aggressive child
http://www.parenting-faq.info/
Post a Comment
<< Home