Agreed, health insurance is a problem, but IMO, its because there is too much of it. Consider this, before insurance companies began footing the bill for every medical exam, procedure, etc. doctors and hospitals in the communities where they existed, charged their patients based on what people in that community could afford to pay. As insurance companies began to pay bills, prices began to rise. This is well known as the theory of deep pockets. Also, more people were now involved in processing all the paperwork, so doctors and insurance companies hire more staff. Prices go up. Couple this with lawsuits, sometimes legitimate, sometimes not, and no tort reform, prices go up. Health insurance does not reflect true supply and demand. We have health insurance through my wife's teaching position. I almost never use it. Yet, the district pays all that money to the insurance company, which of course, shows up as profit on their books because there are no "expenses" against it.
What if there were no health insurance for anyone, anywhere. The first thing that would happen is of course you'd have more money in your pocket. Maybe up to $6,000 a year or more. I'm sure a lot of people would stop going to the doctor for every little cough and cold, which automatically cuts down the demand for services. In a competitive market, prices will fall as demand decreases. Consider that many insurance plans do not provide for eye care. As a result,
since many people pay for that themselves, there is a lot of competition with the resulting reduction in cost.
Now, if we can reduce the everyday costs of health care to people,
such as normal doctor visits, cut down on unnecessary procedures that are done simply as doctor and hospital CYA because of fear of lawsuits, and severely reduce the staff necessary to process all of this paperwork, we only need to focus on catastrophic health care. With many other costs contained, this should be much more manageable.
I just don't believe blanket health care for everyone will help the situation by controlling costs. As prices rise, the insurance companies try to control costs, to protect profits, which of course leaves the individual paying the difference. If you have to pay $500 a month for insurance, a $3,000 deductible and a 20% co pay for a $10,000 procedure, wouldn't you be better off if you just payed for the whole thing yourself? And the procedure would likely be less than $10,000.
My mother went to the ER, several weeks ago, at the doctor's suggestion, because of a severe pain under her arm and across her chest. Based on what she told me she was doing at the time of the pain, I said did you pull a muscle? She said she didn't know. Anyway, after 6 hours in ER, blood work, EKG's and 2 additional days in the hospital for stress tests, etc., the results suggested it was a pulled muscle due to aging, shrinking and her spine compressing. I'm not a doctor, but a little common sense goes a long way. She didn't want to stay in the hospital and asked if she could leave the ER. The doctor said sure, but you could go home and die, so that's why we want to do the tests. True, but the tests were also to rule out any possiblity of lawsuit if she did go home and something else occurred.
Of course, Medicare paid for it, and my mom told me that if she had to pay for it, she wouldn't have stayed.
I'm fearing the same type of insurance fiasco is now beginning to occur in the auto repair business. Companies are now starting to offer insurance against costly auto repairs. What will happen to repair costs once someone the than the car owner pays the bill? How will the rest of us unfortunates cope with increased repair bills? Will this be the next thing to be negotiated into employment contracts.
Well, just my $.02.
