I know very few people who believe that our entire health care industry is healthy however everyone has differing ideas as to what is exactly wrong. Personally I believe that when most health care is delivered that it is state of the art unless you can't afford insurance or have an insurance carrier who is borderline on committing insurance fraud. The fact that a major cause of bankruptcy, even among those who have current health insurance, is medical bills should be a big tip off that something is wrong.
If you have ever had to deal with insurance adjusters I'm sure you can point out many things that are suboptimal in the process. I have personally had doctors hold me in the hospital for longer than the insurance company deemed fit. If I chose to voluntarily leave I would not be covered because I would not be following medical advice. The insurance company told me that my last few days were not covered because it was not "medically necessary" and I was given a chance to appeal the decision. I had the treating team at the hospital submit documentation that it was in fact medically necessary or they would have sent me home earlier. The next statement I received from the insurance company was that it still was not medically necessary (despite the documented fact that it indeed was) and that I was now personally responsible for paying the last few days of care out of pocket. I was also informed that I no longer had any appeals left. This was from a large carrier whom I believed to be reputable.
Personally I believe that all people should have access to good and affordable health care that won't put them on the back burner or limit their access to cutting edge technology. Being privileged through wealth should not determine your access to doctors nor medical procedures. I also believe that a major problem plaguing the entire health care industry is the complete failure of medical billing to accomplish anything besides increase waiting times, add frustration, and jack up the cost of medical bills. I am not angry at insurance executives making millions of dollars so long as they actually bring an equal value to the company. In a true free market economy (which our medical insurance system is not) individuals can identify and resolve these issues through crippling boycotts and the such; the fact that an employer gives you at most a few health care options and usually not more than one company to choose from stifles competition and unduly rewards insurance carriers on a cost basis and not their total package as well as leaving a major life decision in the hands of someone who has little interest for your well being. Getting private insurance is nearly impossible as there is no requirement that a carrier accept you as a member unlike the requirement that employer sponsored health care must.
I also believe that single payer insurance is the only way to extract maximum efficiency from any insurance system. Along those lines I'm terrified of the United States Federal Government administering such a system as it is far too much centralized authority given to an elite class that is far too removed from the general population to actually be able to effectively represent them. As well I disagree that anyone, including me, should be able to cram their ideas and ideals down the throat of the entire United States population. This is simply because a populace as diverse and big as the US makes it virtually impossible to form a consensus where a majority of individuals will be happy.
Fortunately our form of government, as originally designed and not as has played out over time, offers a very excellent means for the distinct populations and cultures in the US to have their health insurance system the way that they deem fit: leave it up to the states. I realize the concept of state authority has fallen out of popular opinion and the last thing the Federal Government wants to do is concede authority to any other entity but in reality states allow individuals to be represented far better than is possible on the full national scale. The idea that there is some compromise that will make all people happy is going to lead to an impotent reform where the true winners, no doubt through massive lobbying efforts, will be the health insurance companies.
It may not be well known but Massachusetts has provided health insurance to every single child in the state for some time now. People who wish to see massive national health care reform point to their model as a positive example that such insurance schemes can work and should be implemented on the national level. I wonder why Massachusetts has not taken a position along the lines of "Hey the rest of the states, we figured out how to do this, here is how you can too!" and leave it up to each of the states to implement insurance as they see fit. As it stands right now each state is heavily regulated by the Federal Government regarding what insurance carriers can and can not do while leaving little authority for alternate implementations. In this way our strong Federal Government is hampering progress.
I view states as being distinct areas where social experiments can be carried out while letting individuals have the best possible representation to influence policies. All states should have the freedom to test out theories and drive themselves into the ground, remain at the status quo, or elevate themselves to health insurance nirvana. Who knows which way is the proper one to achieve any of those levels of care; giving the Federal Government the authority to pick one method forms a social experiment that is so large no American citizen can escape from it. Does this sound like a good idea?
No comments:
Post a Comment