How American Health Care Killed My Father

[clambake]

it's my opinion the father had little to do with this man's research and observation.

[Drachen]

I guess another way to explain it is the following:

I read the Da Vinci Code a few years ago. Some of the book was dedicated to the history of the Templar Knights. I found them interesting so after I was finished, I went and purchased a book about the Templar Knights. This book continued to pique my interests and since I worked in the same shopping center as a Barnes and Noble, I ended up reading every single book on the Templar Knights that they had.



So Clambake and others focusing on the father's story, is the previous paragraph about the Da Vinci Code?

[clambake]

I guess another way to explain it is the following:

I read the Da Vinci Code a few years ago. Some of the book was dedicated to the history of the Templar Knights. I found them interesting so after I was finished, I went and purchased a book about the Templar Knights. This book continued to pique my interests and since I worked in the same shopping center as a Barnes and Noble, I ended up reading every single book on the Templar Knights that they had.



So Clambake and others focusing on the father's story, is the previous paragraph about the Da Vinci Code?

ummm i think you have mistaken my opinion.

[Drachen]

ummm i think you have mistaken my opinion.

My point is that the father was the lead in, the prompt for his research just as the Da Vinci Code was the prompt of my research on the Templar Knights.

The father story could easily have been "So I was earining my MHA at Brown University and we were looking for ways to fix the health care system. Along the way I found some surprising things . . . "

It would seem in that scenario you would not focus on what follows (the topic of the paper), rather that Brown's athletic program isnt very good, or that they are not ranked in the top 10 schools to get an MHA.

[LnGrrrR]

Long but good article. Though I'm afraid conservatives would decry his plan as some sort of socialism. After all, why should I pay as much as someone who smokes or eats unhealthy or doesn't exercise? Arguments of that nature.

[TeyshaBlue]

Long but good article. Though I'm afraid conservatives would decry his plan as some sort of socialism. After all, why should I pay as much as someone who smokes or eats unhealthy or doesn't exercise? Arguments of that nature.

It's the best article I've read thus far. It reinforces my point that insurance has morphed into something it was never meant to be....and we're responsible for it.

[TeyshaBlue]

Maybe. I don't like long winded articles, especially when they start out looking like an unfounded rant.

Invest 15 minutes and give it a good read. I think you'll change your tune, WC.

[Drachen]

Long but good article. Though I'm afraid conservatives would decry his plan as some sort of socialism. After all, why should I pay as much as someone who smokes or eats unhealthy or doesn't exercise? Arguments of that nature.

I'm afraid that liberals would decry that the poor would end up being underserved. It's a two way street, and I am a liberal. I am not sure if this plan would be classified as liberal, or conservative, and I honestly don't care. It would be cool to debate something in a political vacuum based on merits. What are the possible advantages and the likelihood of them happening (including the effects on people), what are the drawbacks, etc. One thing that I would change about his plan would be that people could get private HSA's and have to prove yearly (or semi annually, or quarterly) that they are funding it to the appropriate levels. If they are not, then it will appear as a charge on their taxes. I say this because I think it would be a bad idea for the government to have access to these funds and be able to IOU the accounts.

[hope4dopes]

Great article Marcus thanks for posting it.

[101A]

BTW...Brilliant minds think alike (or, if informed, can come to the same conclusions)

I posted this several weeks ago in this forum:

How about this; We put Uncle Sam in a position to do the most good; while not being able to do the most damage (day to day operation and control of people's healthcare). Make the fed the ultimate stop-loss; they pay claims on individuals over $100,000 - to $250,000 (and index it to healthcare inflation biannually); private en ies cover everything up to that point - with subsidies for people who cannot afford that lower coverage. The payor's file claims with the govt. for claims over the stop/loss - the govt. reimburses the claim; but doesn't have to get involved directly with the processing - although, obviously, they must have an ability to audit. Pass a regulation, not controlling prices; but making pricing by providers transparent (doctors/hospitals/labs); they must post their charges publicly; and must charge everyone the same price - whatever that might be (I cringe at this suggestion; but for reasons that are more complex than I want to explain - there are a lot of shenanigans that go on in contractual pricing that should be stopped).

[Marcus Bryant]

One wonders what the premium of a catastrophic policy with a high deductible would cost. There's also the cons utionality of requiring an individual to purchase such a policy. Unlike requiring drivers to purchase auto insurance, which is a requirement for the privilege of driving on a public road, requiring the purchase of a catastrophic health policy could be viewed as a tax on one's existence. I guess the way to get around that would be to make it "voluntary," but if the policies offered met some national standard (ie no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, no loss of coverage after large claims, etc) with a high deductible then the large majority of Americans would enroll, as the premium shouldn't be that high. Insurance companies could then compete on the quality of services offered and offer different policies which offered different levels of deductibles - want a lower deductible, pay a higher premium. That might go against the author's idea as those likely to incur large medical expenses would presumably prefer a lower deductible.

In any event, this is the kind of reform which should be currently discussed, as it addresses the heart of the matter. Obviously there would be quite a few hurdles to overcome, starting with decoupling health benefits from employment and getting insurers out of the business of taking in premiums for the payment of routine medical expenses. Not that I expect anything like this to be considered in DC, as it makes too much sense and would threaten too many entrenched interests to come to pass.

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=6597

[jack sommerset]

We can't afford free healthcare. I really don't get why people don't get that. It's not OK to be in debt trillions of dollars. They will pass a bill and we will be bankrupt before you know it.

My Grandma died because of free healthcare in Canada. A routine operation would have done the trick but she could not get in until it was too late. Died on the operating table months after she should have been there at 60.

Some people are living in a fantasy world. Obama and his dems can't save everyone ( I think they want votes) and will hurt more by doing this.

[clambake]

routine huh?

lets hear it.

[boutons_deux]

"We can't afford free healthcare."

We can't afford for-profit healthcare.

As a local doctor in an article the E-N said a couple weeks ago, letting poor people have access to primary care costs $1, vs the $20 the public health system spends treating poor people whose diseases advance so far they end up in the ER.

So for you social Darwinian Repugs and conservatives who would rather let people rot and die young, the argument for primary care for the poor is not humanitarian ( an emetic 4-letter word to black-hearted Repugs and conservatives), but economic.

The health care system is fighting like not to provide health care, but to preserve and enhance their exorbitant revenues.

[AussieFanKurt]

hmm reality hits hard in that article

[101A]

for the record, rita has a metal shard in her finger and went to the doctor to get it looked at

she switched insurance last week, and although she is technically covered, she has not received her card and member # in the mail

she went to the doctor yesterday and was denied treatment because she did not have a member # yet

USA USA

That is an ALL too common problem; her employer made their decision at the last hour; and the employees pay the price for that. Doctor's office often could care less; more individual control of their own coverage; not beholden to an employer would help straighten that out; I don't imagine govt. bureaucracy will improve it, however (regardless of good intentions).

[Winehole23]

"Patient-centered, outcome oriented."

Medicine should be practiced on the human scale. Instead, patients are fed into a system that puts ins utional needs first, and profits ahead of health outcomes.

You don't have to remove profit from the system, or put the whole shebang in government's hands; just emulate the providers like the Mayo Clinic who provide the best quality for the least cost, and standardize best practices. What 101A said upstream about price transparency should go a long way to rein in costs. Encouraging good nutrition and the practice of preventive medicine could do a lot too.

Also, what MB keeps saying about personal responsibility. There's nothing that prevents one from saving on one's own account for life's various contingencies. In the present low-interest scenario (and the future high interest, hyperinflationary one) the incentives for savers isn't very good; maybe some kind of tax credit would encourage people to do it.

[Winehole23]

Gawande's new piece in the New Yorker ponders possible benefits of health care chains:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...?currentPage=1

[scott]

I didn't read the entire article
...
I see it as a piece to enrage people only.

I read enough to know the ideas are full of holes.

I am right.

I don't like long winded articles, especially when they start out looking like an unfounded rant.

[ALVAREZ6]

^^^^^

[TeyshaBlue]

Gawande's new piece in the New Yorker ponders possible benefits of health care chains:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...?currentPage=1

Good article, WH. This push for chain medicine has a built in push back that will be difficult to overcome. That being said, the article illustrates the success of a "one battle at a time" strategy. If you want to play a long-term scenario, then I think success is achievable. But, I sure wouldn't expect to see the paradigm change within the next decade.
It took longer than that for the chain pharmacies to finally exert dominance of design.

[Yonivore]

The underlying premise sucked, why read the rest?

The guy's father was killed by lazy, overpaid, union workers, responsible for sanitizing rooms between patients and keeping them clean while occupied. Probably SEIU laborers.

That or bad luck. Hospitals are full of germs and it's hard to keep them from infecting people. Not impossible but, it takes diligence.

[TeyshaBlue]

The underlying premise sucked, why read the rest.

The guy's father was killed by lazy, overpaid, union workers, responsible for sanitizing rooms between patients and keeping them clean while occupied. Probably SEIU laborers.

That or bad luck. Hospitals are full of germs and it's hard to keep them from infecting people. Not impossible but, it takes diligence.

I see you didn't read either article. Good job.

[Yonivore]

I see you didn't read either article. Good job.

No. The guy starts out saying the health care system killed his father. I disagree with the predicate and life is only so long -- the article looked like a boring read.

Sue me.