Okay, everyone needs to take a deep breath. A really, really deep breath. The anger and vitriol over healthcare 'reform' is amazing.
First thing to understand is, no one in our country is ever denied healthcare. At least the basics. You go to the ER and they help you if you have a life threatening problem. They do not care about insurance or your ability to pay at that time. We should all be very happy about that. We have some of the best life-saving measures in the world.
That being said, the ERs in Massachusetts, where we actually have almost universal healthcare, are full. Why? Because everyone here has insurance now. They call their Primary Care MDs and they are told they have to wait for an appointment. Sometimes weeks. They are also told by many, many MD offices, if you are that sick, go to the ER. So they do. In droves. I do not think that was an expected outcome. Surely the talking heads and big thinkers thought that ER use would decline because people would use their primary care doc instead. Well, that is the problem with these big policy decision makers. They don't ask the people who are actually providing the care for any input. The people writing policy have most likely never actually worked with patients. They have simply read data. They didn't ask the feet on the ground. The worker bees. The nurses.
We would have painted a very different story. We knew that ER use would rise. The problem we see, the main problem, is not the uninsured. It is the UNDER-insured. The folks paying $1500.00 per month for healthcare coverage who never really understood their benefits. Most have very basic services. So many have to pay out of pocket co-pays, they have deductibles, they have services covered at only 40% and are charged the balance of the charges, not the contracted, discounted rate that the insurance company has with the provider. I will give you an example of this. I went for a yearly physical. I did not know that BCBS changed my benefit to only one physical every other year. So the claim was denied. The office sent me a bill. Full charge, $200.00. I called BCBS. I asked what the contracted rate for that office visit was. After much ado, they told me. 60 dollars. And I was being billed 200 dollars. And I had to pay it.
And so it goes.
So herein lies the frustration. This just does not seem like a solution to the inherent problems with healthcare. This is not healthcare insurance reform per se. This healthcare bill is simply a medal of honor that the Democrats would like to wear to say that they passed healthcare reform. Some of them even say, something is better than nothing. Not true. The big insurance industry is making a lot of money off of this. We all know that. This is not about saving lives and making healthcare more available. It is like they are putting a band aid on a hemorrhage and saying, "all better now". No, not better. Plus, we simply cannot afford it. Not now.
To have any meaningful reform we have to start looking at the money. Follow the money. That will show you where reform is needed. And all I see are insurance companies getting richer, and the common man becoming poorer. And sicker.
I am not saying that I have the answers. I am saying that we need to start asking more questions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou must read about some of the KEY PLAYERS in the Healthcare reform bill. Here is one to start with: (I am telling you, we need to follow the money...)
ReplyDeleteMAX BAUCUS, Senator from Montana (D)
Baucus has been criticized for his ties to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries, and has been one of the largest beneficiaries in the Senate of campaign contributions from these industries.[33] From 2003 to 2008, Baucus received $3,973,485 from the health sector, including $852,813 from pharmaceutical companies, $851,141 from health professionals, $784,185 from the insurance industry and $465,750 from HMOs/health services, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.[42][43] A 2006 study by Public Citizen found that between 1999 and 2005 Baucus, along with former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, took in the most special-interest money of any senator.[44]
Only three senators have more former staffers working as lobbyists on K Street, at least two dozen in Baucus's case.[44] Several of Baucus's ex-staffers, including former chief of staff David Castagnetti, are now working for the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries.[45] Castagnetti co-founded the lobbying firm of Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti, which represents "America’s Health Insurance Plans Inc.," the national trade group of health insurance companies, the Medicare Cost Contractors Alliance, as well as Amgen, AstraZeneca PLC and Merck & Co. Another former chief of staff, Jeff Forbes, went on to open his own lobbying shop and to represent the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the Advanced Medical Technology Association, among other groups.
A statistical analysis of the impact of political contributions on individual senators' support for the public insurance option conducted by Nate Silver has suggested that Baucus was an unlikely supporter of the public option in the first place. Based on Baucus's political ideology and the per capita health care spending in Montana, Silver's model projects that there would be only a 30.6% probability of Baucus supporting a public insurance option even if he had received no relevant campaign contributions. Silver calculates that the impact on Baucus of the significant campaign contributions that he has received from the health care industry further reduces the probability of his supporting a public insurance option from 30.6% to 0.6%.[46]
In response to the questions raised by the large amount of funding he took from the health care industry, Baucus declared a moratorium as of July 1, 2009 on taking more special interest money from health care political action committees.[47] Baucus, however, declined to return as part of his moratorium any of the millions of dollars he has received from health care industry interests before July 1, 2009, or to rule out a resumption of taking the same or greater health care industry contributions in the future.[47] Baucus's new policy on not taking health care industry money reportedly still permits him to take money from lobbyists or corporate executes, who the Washington Post found continued to make donations after July 1, 2009.[47]
A watchdog group found that in July 2009 Baucus took more money from the health care industry in violation of the self-defined terms of his moratorium, leading Baucus to return the money.[48]
good blogging. i saw your letter in the NYT.
ReplyDelete