What's So Great About Private Health Insurance?

[Ritter]

Good points Velo. However, I'd like to think that we've reached a state in US society where things like equal access to privileges such as clean water, sewerage facilities, clean air, open space and medical treatment are rights, not privileges of the wealthy.

(and by the way, your assessment of cancer treatment is similar to my own. Having seen so many go through it, it would be a hard choice to make should I ever be diagnosed....)

[bretski]

I just wonder if maybe the human race was doing just fine back when we died 20 years earlier than we do now, or from different ailments.

The human race was doing fine, we just tended to have more children to guarantee that survival. The reason: infant and child mortality. I'm going from memory here from my college biology background/edgeimication, but infant mortality was near 20% at the beginning of the 20th century. Now a-days, it's probably around .5% in the US. (I'd have to do research to get exact numbers, but these should be pretty close).

That is a huge factor in life expectancy numbers over time.

We're very focused on "curing" ailments in modern times, for the reason you alluded to: the treatments are there. If they exist, we tend to do the emotional thing and want to get them. As human animals, we desire, at least in general, to survive as long as we can. It's baggage that comes along with sentience. So we seek out, and demand, those treatments. Hence, the root of the pharma-medical empire...are we better as a species because of it? Well...

[Velokid1]

Good points Velo. However, I'd like to think that we've reached a state in US society where things like equal access to privileges such as clean water, sewerage facilities, clean air, open space and medical treatment are rights, not privileges of the wealthy.

Aren't those things many times less expensive (per capita) than healthcare is, though? Maybe not?

[RussellK]

Greg- why struggle with the answers to your questions. What we paid for a week of bombs dropping on Iraq would make a pretty good dent in the cost. Apparently we can afford it.

[metric Cwrench]

russellk hit the nail on the head- we can afford the health care plans discussed in washington, if we are willing to change our priorities. take the most expensive plan and do the math- what wee percentage of the military budget would cover that? probably have to wait or scrap plans for some damn destructive toy.

fear is the tool of many politicians, lobbyists, and the corporate shitweasels. it was said here earlier (forgive me, i forgot who it was) that it seems many in government/ corporate power want the average joe and jane to be absolutely terrified, because people who are absolutely terrified don't have the time to ask questions and speak out and demonstrate their unhappiness with the status quo.

seems to me that 99% of this comes down to money. they got it, they intend to keep it; ergo the rest of us are fucked. oh, some few will get a taste of "the good life," just to remind all of us schmucks that "anything is possible" and that if we actually had that much money- we'd want to hold on to all of it, just like they do. we done got fleeced... again.

i don't have health insurance, because i can't afford it. i'm lucky i haven't needed it (few years back, also sans insurance, i had a blood clot in my leg- cost me $1500 including meds, because the doctor i saw knew i couldn't afford hospitalization and worked with me- damn good man, there).

a neat little side-issue: because i don't have health insurance, my auto insurance is about $400/yr more expensive. thanks guys, that really helps!

[Velokid1]

i'm on my phone and it sux to type so i apologize...

i agree 1000% about the cost of waging war and that it could provide coverage for every american instead. but if that's our argument then lets stop talking about all the other details we're discussing and just be explicit about the fact that we are asking for the costs of public healthcare to come from the funds freed up by paring down our military operations worldwide.

i dont hear anyone talking about that very sensible IMO trade so far.

[Manfred]

I'm looking for real answers to this one:

How did we get by without health insurance 100 years ago?

I think we just died a hundred years ago. Maybe we should introduce the Login's Run Bill. How cost effective is that. "Sorry we just can afford to keep you around any more. You understand."

[Cindy]

i don't have health insurance, because i can't afford it. i'm lucky i haven't needed it (few years back, also sans insurance, i had a blood clot in my leg- cost me $1500 including meds, because the doctor i saw knew i couldn't afford hospitalization and worked with me- damn good man, there).

When my ex-boyfriend broke his hand, he needed to see a specialist but without insurance there was no way he could afford it. Our family doctor set the bones and made the cast himself. And he did it free of charge. I'll never forget how careful he was. He said he hadn't done that kind of thing in years, but he was willing to give it a try.

I miss that doctor. He had no bedside manner whatsoever, and most people couldn't tolerate his lack of social graces. But his judgment and intuition were flawless.

Cindy

[RussellK]

i don't have health insurance, because i can't afford it. i'm lucky i haven't needed it (few years back, also sans insurance, i had a blood clot in my leg- cost me $1500 including meds, because the doctor i saw knew i couldn't afford hospitalization and worked with me- damn good man, there).

When my ex-boyfriend broke his hand, he needed to see a specialist but without insurance there was no way he could afford it. Our family doctor set the bones and made the cast himself. And he did it free of charge. I'll never forget how careful he was. He said he hadn't done that kind of thing in years, but he was willing to give it a try.

I miss that doctor. He had no bedside manner whatsoever, and most people couldn't tolerate his lack of social graces. But his judgment and intuition were flawless.

Cindy

Thats the kind of doctor we had when we first married. He always had a cup of coffee when he walked in, would always chuckle about your ailment but he always had the remedy. We were fortunate enough that we could pay him but I know he did a lot of work for free. He retired years ago and we've never found another like him.

[Sylvester]

Greg- why struggle with the answers to your questions. What we paid for a week of bombs dropping on Iraq would make a pretty good dent in the cost. Apparently we can afford it.

This is what I keep saying, take money away from defense, some people will loose jobs, but more jobs will be created, and we all will get health care that literally won't kill us. And yes it will not be perfect, and it will be bumpy, and it will be fraught with red tape and bureaucracy. But let me tell you, what I deal with today is all that and a bag of chips. How much did we spent for Iraq so far? I wonder how much we would spend if we had health care since 2003?

[hippiewannabe]

Greg- why struggle with the answers to your questions. What we paid for a week of bombs dropping on Iraq would make a pretty good dent in the cost. Apparently we can afford it.

This is what I keep saying, take money away from defense, some people will loose jobs, but more jobs will be created, and we all will get health care that literally won't kill us. And yes it will not be perfect, and it will be bumpy, and it will be fraught with red tape and bureaucracy. But let me tell you, what I deal with today is all that and a bag of chips. How much did we spent for Iraq so far? I wonder how much we would spend if we had health care since 2003?

A few facts:

Spending for Iraq and Afghan wars in 2009: $136 Billion

Health care spending in 2007: $2.4 TRILLION, or $7900 per person, 17 percent of GDP.

Health care spending is 4.3 times the total amount spent on national defense.

I'm looking for real answers to this one:

How did we get by without health insurance 100 years ago?

I think we just died a hundred years ago. Maybe we should introduce the Login's Run Bill. How cost effective is that. "Sorry we just can afford to keep you around anymore. You understand."

I'm looking for real answers to this one:

How did we get by without health insurance 100 years ago?

I just wonder if maybe the human race was doing just fine back when we died 20 years earlier than we do now, or from different ailments.

When it comes to a broken tibia, is a $1500 MRI really necessary? But in an effort to save that 1 person out of 100 who will beat the type of brain cancer he has, they spend tens of thousands of dollars on his treatment. Total shot in the dark. Shots in the dark are a luxury when they cost $50,000, it seems.

And OF COURSE when it's not just my bro-in-law but my wife or my 7 year old you're going to see me fighting tooth and nail for that $50,000 treatment. Of course.

Now you're getting close to the real crux of the issue, the third rail which politicians dare not talk about. This is the reason most of the debate is useless. The fact of the matter is, health care is an economic good like any other; people will demand as much of it as they can afford, and if someone else is paying the bill, they will demand an almost infinite amout of it. Therefore, it is rationed, by one method or another. So pick a number; 20% of GDP, 25%? Go ahead and eliminate all defense spending. No matter how much you want to spend on health care, at some point you have to make trade-offs. Do you spend $80,000 on a heart bypass for a 70 year old smoker? For that money you could pay for pre-natal care for hundreds of poor pregnant women, and get a much higher societal payback. But what if it's your mom?

There has to be rationing, period. And it occurs now, under every system, be varying means. My wife's uncle in Scotland, with its wonderful universal healthcare, was diagnosed with heart disease, and put on a waiting list for a bypass. He died of a heart attack almost a year later, still waiting. Her other uncle, another meat eating, non-exercising Scotsman, emigrated to the US. He went to the ER with chest pain on a Tuesday, and had his bypass on Thursday. He is still kicking 12 years later.

I'm convinced we need national health insurance, we should cut the link between employment and health insurance. How many people do you know stick with a job they hate (and are therefore not productive at) because they don't want to lose their insurance? Labor mobility is important for economic efficiency, and health insurance concerns get in the way. I know the weight of providing healthcare for my five kids was a factor in going with corporate employment vs. entrepreneurial risk for me.

So get that off the table, just cover everyone. But then the real debate starts; how much can we afford to spend, and what do we prioritize? Or bluntly stated, who dies so others may live?

[Amskeptic]

Spending for Iraq and Afghan wars in 2009: $136 Billion

Health care spending in 2007: $2.4 TRILLION,

But then the real debate starts; how much can we afford to spend, and what do we prioritize? Or bluntly stated, who dies so others may live?

Statistics. . . gotta love 'em. If you vaccum up every discretionary medical procedure/bill/administrative cost/building purchase by an HMO, yes, you have a whopper of a number.

But if you step back and remove the bloated parasite of private corporate expeditures and salaries in the name of "administrating" health care, the annual cost of maintaining and fixing our organisms is substantially less.

The real debate, Hippiewannabee, are we going to have one? I fear not. We need a real and honest look at how to do this healthcare thing. But my lawdy lawdy how loud the yelling, how small the actual debate, how entrenched the addicted are to the status quo. Meanwhile, actual human beings are lurching towards avoidable health issues and crises, and there is not only no reason for this, but it is truly more expensive in the long run.
Colin

[Randy in Maine]

Keep in mind that the cost of health insurance is rolled into about everything we buy and just about whatever we use or buy now. It is simply a part of the cost of "doing business". From cars to bankruptcy to electricity to buying an ice cream cone, it is involved in all of our purchases.

It is also a substantial cost borne by all businesses. I have good BCBS where I work, but it cost my employer a lot to provide it. I do not abuse it.

For the record here, my personal viewpoint is that governent should only do what 1) the private does not do well, or that 2) the private sector does not want to do.

However I would also like to see some other inititives added in here to a discussion.....

There is no denying that there is a shortage of good doctors in various parts of the country. There is also not a shortage of places in need or that many medical folks carry huge debts with them as they graduate. They need to make a reasoanble return on their investment of time, money, and skills.

How about increasing the class size of existing medical/nursing schools by 10% over a period of 3 years?

Also the way nurses (as patient care primary givers) are treated like crap in the current system is not helping. They are really the ones that provide most of the patient care out there and should be equally included in the solution process. Build on their skills to make them more capable, but do not discount thir abilities. Nurse practioners arelargely an untapped resource here for primary care.

How about requiring that all graduates of medical schools not be required to work "residency" of 100 hours a week in a hospital, but instead work more reasonable hours and spend a portion of that time doing some primary care work where it is most needed. Indian tribes, rural parts of the country, poor parts, geriatric "rich" areas, all come to mind that really need primary care providers. We could even pay them (money or a reduction in the student loan "load" they carry) but the idea here is that we would get a better qualllity of doctor out of the experience that would also meet some of the need that is out there.

It is not just doctors/nurses/specialists, but dentists/periodontists, and other providers of basic health services that these discussion should be including.

I am sure there are some good ideas out there (maybe not mine) on how to resolve this problem but they need to be heard in the larger discussion.

Just some ramblings of a guy in need of his cup of coffee.

[Amskeptic]

For the record here, my personal viewpoint is that governent should only do what 1) the private does not do well, or that 2) the private sector does not want to do.

Health care should be steered clear of the profit motive. Absolutely.
It is obscene to have these profiteers discussing human beings like cattle.

And today we have Sarah Palin gushing that Obama's plans are "downright evil."

"In the America I know ...," Palin wrote, people shouldn't have to "stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."

What? Haven't We The People had enough of idiots? Well?

An e-mail put out Friday evening from House Republican Leader John Boehner was titled: "DEMOCRATS GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTH CARE WILL CRUSH STATE BUDGETS."

I am sick of people who lie to protect their personal gravy train. These people are in bed with the behometh "Health Industry". I remember a time when health was between you and your doctor.

The only bureaucrats who are deciding your health care these days are bureaucrats who are protecting their bottom line. . .
Colin

[metric Cwrench]

RandyinMaine has a good thought:

How about requiring that all graduates of medical schools not be required to work "residency" of 100 hours a week in a hospital, but instead work more reasonable hours and spend a portion of that time doing some primary care work where it is most needed. Indian tribes, rural parts of the country, poor parts, geriatric "rich" areas, all come to mind that really need primary care providers. We could even pay them (money or a reduction in the student loan "load" they carry) but the idea here is that we would get a better qualllity of doctor out of the experience that would also meet some of the need that is out there.

do the same for nurses, dentists, etc. send them out to the small towns, rural areas, big city clinics, etc (pretty much everywhere) and have them work in the community providing low-cost health care services, learning their trade, and paying off that big debt from med school. it's been done before (think "northern exposure," for an example).

preventative healthcare is the greatest bang for the buck, and sorely lacking for most people (especially those without any health insurance, who probably need it most). if we made that the basis of our national healthcare plan, it would likely provide the greatest benefit to the most people. "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

then we have the folks who are past the point of preventative measures, at the mercy of the insurance companies and have to cope with the outrageous costs of even simple treatments. what to do?

one idea: an optional government healthcare insurance plan to draw the out-of-control costs of insurance and treatment back to a more reasonable level? hey, that's free-market economics! what we've got now is closer to an organized conspiracy to keep costs (and therefore profits) high.

i usually don't think much of government involvement as being a "good" solution, but in this case, something must be done to regain rational thinking and business practices- and government is the only solution available. it is going to have to be a combination approach to work here: legislation is clearly required to provide some regulation of insurance industry practices (raising rates or cancelling coverage to those who get sick, the whole "pre-existing condition" nightmare (nearly any illness can be said to have some prior indication of existence), etc; regulation of the costs (insurance co's get dirt cheap prices because they bring in more business, while the person without insurance gets a bill for 4,5,6, etc. times more- when it's that person who needs the cheapest rate); doctors and nurses must be involved (most of them really are good people, and practice medicine because they like to help people, not to make a bazillion dollars a year) and given a reasonable chance to perform "the art of medicine" without being told by insurance co's what they can and cannot do.

there are certainly many ways of paying for a national insurance program: re-thinking priorities (military spending, pet-projects, wasteful management of government $, etc), rational taxation policy, and bringing perspective and reason to healthcare costs are the top issues, i think.