Reply
Sun 5 Sep, 2004 08:40 am
Sophia, george and I started a discussion about the GOP approach to healthcare in another thread. I didn't want to keep it going over there because the subject had already been changed. To sum it up, my position is that insurance companies are at the center of the problem and their position, correct me if I'm mistaken, is that the government should force doctors and pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices so that insurance companies will lower their rates.
Anybody care to weigh in on the problem? Anybody from the GOP care to re-explain the GOP solution to the healthcare crisis?
I'm not smart enough to know what the answer is to our health care problem, but I do know that every time in history a government has imposed a price ceiling the inevitable result was shortages.
Phoenix, that was a very thoughtful and helpful post, thank you. I just want to clarify, though, that when I said 'correct me if I'm mistaken, I was referring to the position of sophia and georgeob1.
Thanks. I was not familiar with the other thread!
Phoenix, how does your mom feel about the new prescription drug benefit? I understand that opponents of it were concerned about wording in the bill which prevented the government from negotiating for better drug prices. I wonder if it creates problems similar to your walker situation.
Phoenix32890 wrote:As far as "forcing" doctors to lower their rates, do you know what would happen? Young people would avoid choosing medicine as a career, less qualified students would fill the vacuum, and the entire quality of medical care would go in the toilet.
Are you familiar with the term, "brain drain"?
Any questions?
By the way, I completely agree with this. I think they are already forced to lower their rates by insurance companies.
Absolutely. In addition, the paperwork involved has become very onerous.
Often medical decisions are made by HMO clerks, rather than a doctor and his patient. It is a real boondoggle, and I can't see improvement coming soon.
I have gone to MDs who wanted their money upfront, who did not want to be saddled with the administrative nonsense. The patient could then file the claim with their insurance company. I think that those doctors are smart. They could spend their time doctoring, rather than fighting with insurance companies, and raising their overhead by having to hire a whole staff to deal with insurance claims.
This is what the GOP proposes, and what I agree with--
Malpractice suits for 50 million, 250 million are forcing doctors to charge much higher rates. Doctors could be freed from this burden, and when they lower their prices, after being relieved of the prospect of ridiculous lawsuits--they will not even feel the lowering of their charges.
First, cap these malpractice awards.
Pharmaceutical companies charge ridiculous rates, and hold more affordable generic medications off the market to force consumers (and insurance companies) to pay astronomical rates for meds. Pharm prices should be cut, and generics should be rushed in to production.
These two things will have a strong affect on healthcare prices.
Then, bring the insurance companies in line.
This seems like a simple, common sense solution.
To take the corrupt, screwed up system as it is--and force the govt to pay these inflated prices for us--just lines the pockets of trial lawyers. People who have been hurt by malpractice certainly need and deserve recompensation--but rarely do they need or deserve 50 million dollars. Or 20 million dollars. Or 10 million dollars. The waste makes me sick. To allow this, and ask the government to subsidize this insanity is bad for all of us.
Quote: have gone to MDs who wanted their money upfront, who did not want to be saddled with the administrative nonsense. The patient could then file the claim with their insurance company. I think that those doctors are smart. They could spend their time doctoring, rather than fighting with insurance companies, and raising their overhead by having to hire a whole staff to deal with insurance claims.
Same here. In addition, even doctors who take insurance sometimes will give a discount for cash up front from the uninsured, and they often will give you extremely long periods of time to pay if you pay just a few dollars a month toward your bill.
I don't know how to solve the problem, but I feel very strongly that insurance companies have a lot to do with it. There should be a safety net for very serious problem, like cancer or sever injury, but I don't know how we could do that without giving the govies too much power over healthcare.
Sofia wrote:Malpractice suits for 50 million, 250 million are forcing doctors to charge much higher rates. Doctors could be freed from this burden, and when they lower their prices, after being relieved of the prospect of ridiculous lawsuits--they will not even feel the lowering of their charges.
First, cap these malpractice awards.
I think what you mean is that doctors raise their rates so that they can afford their malpractice insurance. These increases in malpractice insurance rates, however, cannot be shown to be related to increased malpractice awards, rather they are due to the insurance companies losing money in the stock market. I prefer to leave these awards in the hands of juries. I don't feel comfortable making the determination that somebody only deserves x dollars for their injuries without knowing any of the details involved.
I understand your opinion.
I feel comfortable saying no one deserves or requires more than $5Million dollars--unless it is shown that their care and life maintenance will cost more than that.
Sofia wrote:I understand your opinion.
I feel comfortable saying no one deserves or requires more than $5Million dollars--unless it is shown that their care and life maintenance will cost more than that.
And I feel comfortable saying that that determination should be made by those familiar with the circumstances of the case. For instance, it is possible someone could be permanently disabled by an act of malpractice. I imagine that under those circumstances someone might require care for the rest of their life, which could easily exceed 5 million dollars.
That is why I said if the care or life maintenance requires more than that, I have no qualm with raising it to the level of need.
But the facts are that most of this is pain and suffering. While pain and suffering is terrible--10 million dollars, 20 mil, 100 mil, 250 mil have been awarded. I feel strongly that this is wrong, and it is why you and I pay exhorbitant prices for healthcare--and why so many of us can't even afford it.
The needs of the one are far outweighing the needs of the many.
Sofia wrote:That is why I said if the care or life maintenance requires more than that, I have no qualm with raising it to the level of need.
And do you think that the government should make this determination or that juries of citizens should?
Quote:
But the facts are that most of this is pain and suffering. While pain and suffering is terrible--10 million dollars, 20 mil, 100 mil, 250 mil have been awarded. I feel strongly that this is wrong, and it is why you and I pay exhorbitant prices for healthcare--and why so many of us can't even afford it.
The needs of the one are far outweighing the needs of the many.
The fact is that malpractice awards have been virtually flat for the last 20 years. They are not the reason that our insurance rates are high. Our insurance rates are high because the economy sucks and the stock market holdings of these insurance companies are not performing well. They are trying to make up their profits by increasing premiums.
People like you and me will buy the 'outrageous jury awards' argument because we love to hear how stupid our fellow citizens are -- it makes us feel smart.
I've read and followed cases that have resulted in these huge awards. It doesn't make me feel smart--just informed.
But, I guess we have adequately established our views.
I do agree that insurance companies are a large part of the problem. Just not the entire problem.
The new alleged prescription drug benefit is a benefit for the pharmaceutical and Insurance industries only. It will unless one has very heavy prescription costs end up being an added expense to the average subscriber. However, many states have plans which cover the cost of prescription drugs for a minimal cost. In addition several pharmaceutical manufactures do the same. They are all income related. In case anyone is interested in NY State it is called EPIC. I should add that the increase in the Medicare premium is in part due to the new legislation and the full effect will not be felt until prescription legislation kicks in-in 2006. That increase should be a whopper. And that is no hamburger. The legislation should have been called industry welfare assistance act not prescription drug benefit.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace