Few contributors to the health care debate offer practical solutions to the real issue: the cost of medical services.
Costs are high for three major reasons. First, a third party pays for care, not the one receiving it. Second, competition is stifled by government restrictions. Third, the threat of civil suit for malpractice forces unnecessary services. Any real solution must address all three.
Patients should pay the provider for primary care services -- that is, for any service but hospitalizations and major outpatient procedures. If patients pay, providers could drastically reduce fees by eliminating the insurance processing apparatus.
Patients could be reimbursed by an employer, insurer or government entity. Rather than paying recurring premiums each month whether or not care is obtained, employers would benefit financially by reimbursing employees for care actually received and at lower cost. Insurance only for hospitalization and major procedures would be needed, and at much lower premiums.
The poor and disabled should be offered vouchers. They could use the vouchers for medical care; save or invest for future care; or squander it, as they choose. The cost to taxpayers would not exceed current Medicare and Medicaid costs, and may be even less because care wouldn't be received in emergency rooms, and the federal bureaucracy could be reduced.
To stimulate competition among insurers and providers, the government need only remove itself from the system. Individuals should have the freedom to shop for coverage across state lines without restriction. All mandates on insurance plans should be eliminated. Why should males pay for plans offering obstetrical benefits? Why should plans be required to cover family planning benefits when many have moral objections? The government should remove all current restrictions so that insurers could tailor any plan to the needs and desires of the insured.
Tort reform also must be addressed in any solution. Implement penalties for frivolous suits and caps on punitive damages for starters.
The real solutions involve personal responsibility, limited government intervention and competition. We appear headed in the opposite direction.
I am reminded of a quote by Sir Winston Churchill: "Some regard private enterprise as if it were a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look upon it as a cow that they can milk. Only a handful see it for what it really is -- the strong horse that pulls the whole cart." I fear that any government plan for health care will both shoot the tiger and milk the cow dry.
John Vigna, Evans
The Augusta Chronicle ©2010 Morris Communications, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
The number of infants that don't survive during the first three months in the U.S.A. is thriple (x3) that of Hong Kong. Great country, eh?
Great country, it is a free country where one can prosper by his own hard work. It is so free justazz, that you are free to leave. You always have negative things to say about this country, so why don't you pack up and leave.
Theoretically these ideas are good. However, since doctors will not reveal their rates, even for out-of-pocket cosmetic procedures, the entire theory falls flat. How is it possible to shop medical care wisely?
In fact, you have to pay outrageous fees, i.e. $250, to get a freaking estimate on cosmetic surgery! Where are the market forces lowering prices here? In truth, my insurance company fights for fair fees while doctors just make up outrageous bills in hopes that some stupid patient will actually pay it. Often, the uninsured are defenseless and DO pay the grossly inflated invoices.
Then, Low Stewall, I would suggest you change doctors. Shop around. Ask about rates. Ask for itemized bills. Most doctor offices will supply you with that information. But, if you don't like it here, Mexico and Canada are right next door.
People kill me with the tort reform most states have it and the state with the stiffer penalties haven't seen any reduction in costs. I think the reason doctors order tests and more treatment is because they make more money that way.
More competition is easy to achieve if alternative care is promoted and not restricted. For example; many doctors believe thermography is better than mammograms and cost less but how many know that? Oil pulling is very effective for lots of aliments but how many have heard of it. How many know about NAET or EFT? One person's hearing was restored the other day through the repair of a jaw cavitation but does your dentist know about cavitations? There is a whole world of care that is years ahead of 80% of medical methods being done but because it is easy and cheap and no one gets rich; you don't hear about it on the local news. People talk about becoming independently wealthy but through a little education you can become independently healthy and drop 80% of all medical costs immediately. Use doctors when you need them but that will become rare and medications will be few and far between. God never intended for being healthy to be difficult or expensive. God didn't decide at creation that everyone would have to suffer with poor health until the 20th century when man would becomes very smart and be able to fix almost anything. Good health has always been available.
Roeschen, my point is that shopping around is not feasible. It actually costs you more to shop, even with the direct out-of-pocket doctor-patient relationship touted in this letter as a cost containment factor. Nice theory, only it's impossible with highly restricted consumer information. Insurance companies are far better equipped to know comparative rates and actually force a doctor to accept a reasonable rate.
Justass4, who or what source says infant mortality being higher here than elsewhere is the result of bad medical practices and not poor pre-natal care by the would be mother? How many crack head/dopers, alcohol users, smokers, etc. are in that count?
People kill me with the tort reform most states have it and the state with the stiffer penalties haven't seen any reduction in costs. I think the reason doctors order tests and more treatment is because they make more money that way.
Posted by concernednative on Mon Sep 7, 2009 10:25 AM....You've spouted this crap before, but NEVER back it up with any real information/statistics to prove it. Try this on for size:http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16217. Seems I can't find any information on any state where tort reform has not worked to decrease health care costs.
Hey justus4....Hong Kong isn't full of pregnant crackhead wefare mommas either. Those Chinese girls actually care more about their babies than hitting the pipe. The infant mortality has NOTHING to do with the quality of our healthcare. It has more to do with quality of our citizens. Everyone throws up the infant mortality numbers but the true telling numbers are the cancer survival rates which are MUCH higher in the U.S. Same situation applies to a comparison of PAYING for this plan here vs. Canada and England. In Canada and England most people actually pay into the plan. Here we have an entirely different demographic where they want 40% of the people to pay for the 20% of the people, many of whom don't work, won't work, wouldn't work if you made them the chairman of GM. DEMOGRAPHICS makes the difference in this country and is why this plan is really Communism instead of just plain old benevolent Socialism.
Jack, nice try but I search that site and no mention on tort reform saving money. If you could be a little more specific than the home page it would help. I have researched this thoroughly and trust me there is not evidence. Riddle me this, if 40 states have tort reform and it worked why would there be a need for the federal govt to pass tort reform. Especially among you conservative federalists. I mean that would be kinda useless. That why I call it what it is a talking point. That you can't even dispute. You threw a link of to a home page that doesn't even discuss tort.
Test people who are not paying their own way for illegal drugs. So anyone on welfare or getting their health care for "free" should be tested. If they pass, issue them their welfare check, and stamp their health care card that shows it will be good for another month.
soonerorlater, fi nally we agree on something.
Justus, I am sure anyone who knows you personally would gladly pay for your passport and one way plane ticket to Hong Kong. The removal of your type of thinking would help blacks progress into the 20th century and learn that they are capable of anything and yet are owed nothing. And, even if your statement is true, they don't have people having babies just to get more welfare money, tax credits, etc. so they can put more dope into their bodies.
Here ya go concerned: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/tort-reform-aids-health-lowers-cost-why-isn...