Comments on: What Hunger Insurance Could Teach Us About Health Insurance

By: Hunger Insurance & Economics | Mormon Bloggers

Hunger Insurance & Economics | Mormon Bloggers — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:25:30 +0000

[...] Read the entire thing here. It’s a must! [...]

By: Hunger insurance & economics | LDS Freemen

Hunger insurance & economics | LDS Freemen — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 08:06:34 +0000

[...] Read the entire thing here. It’s a must! [...]

By: Alex

Alex — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 01:50:28 +0000

Let\’s not forget the incredible cost of the drug war on health care. For many they are on monthly prescriptions that require a doctor\’s visit each and very month. That prescription now costs four times as much each and every month, not to mention the time I am taking away from the doctor that could be spent on someone who needs it.

Doctors are terrified to manage patient\’s pain because they are afraid of (and rightly so) of being thrown in jail. So, many patients are forced to try prescriptions that do not work because they are not strong enough and then have to return to the doctor a week later to ask for the thing the doctor would have given them in the first place.

There are thousands of ways government interference has caused the price of health care to skyrocket.

By: Donald M. Coder

Donald M. Coder — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:28:17 +0000

We are overlooking the most important issues here. The American voters chose the government that is advancing these Marxist policies. They like them, they want them, and they believe that they deserve them. They are “entitled.” The ultimate goal is central control and we want it. We will get it. One comment from my Chinese students in Shenyang where I teach full-time: “Why do Americans want government control of their health care? We tried that for thirty years and found that it caused poverty. Now we are using freedom and market economy and we are getting prosperity.”

By: JCinTX

JCinTX — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 05:58:12 +0000

Apologies in advance for the long post.

Very interesting analogy! But health care is not like any other good or service we consume. Knowing the cost of health care would not help most of us, as we are relying on our doctor to determine what tests and treatments are needed.

The point about duplication of resources like MRIs is one that is often overlooked. And then once you have this new machine, you have to find patients who \"need\" an MRI, now don\’t you?

And how about eliminating drug company ads directed at patients! How many people come in asking for a pill they saw on TV? I\’d like to know how much drug companies spend in total for these ads. Lots more than on R&D I bet.

There are already high-deductible coverage plans out there. These are meant to be used along with a health savings account. But the premiums on those policies are still too high; we have looked into this every year when deciding on our small company\’s benefits.

But I agree that is a better model overall. Insurance should be for catastrophic or unexpected events, not for everyday stuff. Just like car insurance only covers damage over a certain amount and does not cover everyday maintenance.

There is one good thing to be said for having one single insurer. Insurance premiums can be based on the largest possible risk pool, and can thus be lower than they are today. I would like to see a comparison of the total of all insurance premiums currently being charged to what an actuary would compute for the combined risk pool for everyone now covered. I\’ll bet there\’s a lot of excess in there.

Dr. Steve made an excellent point. Texas enacted tort reform several years ago. I don\’t think it has made much difference. Malpractice premiums actually went UP the first year, and doctors still practice defensive medicine. The real losers are folks who have truly been the victims of negligent care, since their maximum awards are now limited.

I\’d rather see some way to get rid of the nuisance lawsuits; perhaps we shouldn\’t allow the malpractice insurers to force doctors to settle? Let the doctor who has been sued decide if the case should be defended. Or make arbitration mandatory. And courts should award attorney\’s fees to the winner, whoever it is. If plaintiffs knew they would actually have to prove their case, and would have to pay both sides\’ attorneys if they can\’t, a lot of those would probably go away. Then it\’s a matter of retraining doctors not to overtreat just for medico-legal reasons.

I\’m not so sure having patients responsible for the first dollar spent is a good idea. There are already people who don\’t seek medical attention for cost reasons. I don\’t like the idea of discouraging anyone from seeing a doctor when there is a legitimate need.

I agree with John that we should all take personal responsibility in all aspects of our lives, not just health care. But there are some cases where people are simply not able to do so. We must make sure there is a safety net for those cases.

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:45:07 +0000

The first two posts are spot on. The post by KDelphi misses the point. What difference will there be if Dr. Steve refers his “weird” patients to another doctor that operates within the same system? It’s the system that health care takes place in that needs to be addressed. The current proposals do absolutely nothing to change it and it will be a colossal flop just like the current SS and Medicare/Medicaid programs are.

By: KDelphi

KDelphi — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 02:52:13 +0000

Dr. Steve–you sure have some wierd patients. Why dont you refer them to someone else??

By: John

John — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:43:39 +0000

Dear Mr Blast:
Excellent analogy! But the reality of the American psyche is “gimme, gimme; I’m entitled to it!” Just look at what happened when Bush tried to privatize the social security system. Americans have lost their self pride. We are a lazy, complaining bunch of ingrates. And we vote! Yes, we vote for a free ride, whichever party proposes it.

Perhaps, we should let this whole health care insurance system FAIL and order the government to get out of our private lives and business! Out of business bailouts, out of health care etc! I know there are some who will say, but what about the poor and outcast? OK, maybe we should all be taxed for “catastrophic insurance costs of the poor.” But who will decide who gets help and who is on their own? How about this?: those individuals making over $250K are on their own!? OK, so I’m being a political ass!

We need to restore our American independence and dignity. You and I are responsible for ourselves. We need to teach it, preach it,and practice it.
John S Tinelli

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 30 May 2009 01:56:46 +0000

As a physician I agree with most of this discussion. There is one other factor and that is liability risk either real or perceived by the doctor. Now I am not asking for no liability by doctors for poor,inappropriate care. There is however defensive medicine practiced and I don’t think there is a way to objectively account for it’s cost. My malpractice carrier just gave a seminar on reducing risk. Most reasonable people would not believe the advice given. If someone ran an auto repair shop and was asked to behave this way they would laugh. If someone skipped appointments, delayed oil changes and tune ups, ran on bald tires, used bad fuel, and then came to the shop and argued with the employees and the owner while not paying bills and threatened to file suit….well what would you do if it were your shop? Patients are to often seen as potential adversaries and the way to protect one’s self is over utilization of services of diagnostic tests and consultants.
Don’t get me wrong. Getting the patient responsible for first dollar spent is a must as a first step. More will have to be done however if costs are to be lowered to the fullest potential.

Dr. Steve