For those who express a desire for an option in regards to health care other than the status quo or government involvement, I'd suggest a few different ideas as a starting point to reduce costs:
- Electronic record keeping could improve efficiency.
- Re-work the doctor/patient relationship. Instead of a 'one size fits all' approach to doctor visits, offer different options such as video-conferencing visits, phone visits or emailing visits.
- Re-institute doctor home visits, which could cut down on the doctor's overhead in regards to leasing costs, property taxes, staffing, etc.
- Lower malpractice insurance premiums.
- Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), with higher deductibles but low max annual out of pocket expenses.
- Revert back to a pure consumer/provider relationship. Right now the consumer (patient) rarely directly pays for their provider's (doctor) service. Normally a third party (insurance company), hired by a fourth party (employer), pays the bill. There is too much confusion in the marketplace to sufficiently determine what the actual cost of care is. In order to better know how to reduce costs the fog needs to be removed from the equation.
- Charity. If you're concerned about someone not being able to pay for their medical care, quit complaining and do something about it. And I don't mean outsource the responsibility to the Federal Government. Start a charity. Give to a charity. Pharmaceutical companies have programs for those less fortunate as do some hospitals. Get involved in that arena. The truth is in the United States it is illegal for a hospital to deny someone care if they don't have insurance, so people aren't dying on the streets for lack of care. The question becomes how to best help them when the bill arrives, and private charities full of people who love others and funded by people who care for others has always been the best way to help.
Keep in mind that health care is expensive for a reason. You're paying for cutting edge services every time you go in no matter if it is your annual visit, blood work or an MRI. No one provides medicinal care learned 10 years ago. And the more exotic your condition the more expensive the care becomes as the doctors scramble to simultaneously treat your symptoms and determine what your illness is. You're being treated on million dollar machines developed at great cost and run by people who are in some instances being paid hundreds of thousands every year. When you buy a car you have the option of buying a brand new Lexus or a 10 year old Camry. That isn't the case with health care and I think we'd all do well to keep that in mind. 100 years ago if you had cancer you'd pay the doc 10$ to visit your home, at which time he'd tell you to chew a root and call on him tomorrow. And in a year, you'd be dead. If you want cheap health care you can get it, but the 'best' always comes with a price tag. Certainly we can take steps to make it more affordable, but there will always be those of us who struggle to afford a 2009 Lexus and in the same way there will always be those who struggle to afford services such as hospital stays.
On a lighter note, about the Broncos:
- I'm not excited about him being a Bronco, but Orton is serviceable. He is the same type of player Jake Plummer was, and I'm not just saying that because both share an affinity for left handed jump passes. As long as the game plan calls for short dunk passes Orton will be successful, but once that is shut down he isn't the type of player who can put the team on his back and carry them to glory. Think Jake Plummer in the AFC Championship game in 2005. Lucky for Orton there is more offensive talent on this team than there was for Plummer, so perhaps he won't have to shoulder the load all that often.
- If the Broncos are 3-3 at the Bye they'll be doing pretty good. They should beat Oakland, and defeat either Cincinnati or Cleveland. However I don't see them defeating Dallas, New England or San Diego. If they manage to take one of those games they'd be doing well.
- I wouldn't be surprised to see them finish 5-11, and 8-8 should be considered a success after everything that has happened.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The President Stumbles Upon the Truth
A mounting concern for those against a public run health care option is the private industry's inability to compete with the government in the marketplace. When the government is able to avoid the costs of running a business (things like local property taxes, etc) it theoretically makes it easier for them to provide the same service and charge less for it. In the health care debate the private industry is represented by insurance companies who some are worried would be driven out of business if the government gets involved.
At a recent town hall the president was asked about this very issue by a young man in the audience. In an effort to assuage the man's fears that the government would run the private insurance companies out of business President Obama made reference to how both UPS and Fed/Ex have been able to thrive in the package delivery business even while competing with the government run/backed USPS. In fact, he made this comment:
"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. Right? They are. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems."
I happen to agree with this statement 100%. But in his effort to calm fears on one issue he hit upon another serious concern that those opposing his efforts have: that everything the government touches eventually turns to manure. Government run programs that are either failed or in some degree failing such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Cash for Clunkers, Education, the War on Drugs and even the DMV hardly lend credence to the idea that while the government has failed in those fields they will be successful with running our health care. A simple question illustrates the issue: If you had the option of using a public rest room or a private rest room which would you chose?
To be fair to the president, everyone of us has had their share of "Ah hah!" moments, where a previously confusing issue suddenly becomes crystal clear. These moments directly result from our stumbling through and examining the issue. For me most of my "Ah hah!" moments came in math class as I labored over algebra problems.
I hope this was an "Ah hah!" moment for the president. What he said was a simple mistake of the tongue, but if he takes the time to investigate the simple truth it contains it'll be one of those rare occasions when the truth jumps out at you and forces your attention on it, even against all your attempts to quiet it.
At a recent town hall the president was asked about this very issue by a young man in the audience. In an effort to assuage the man's fears that the government would run the private insurance companies out of business President Obama made reference to how both UPS and Fed/Ex have been able to thrive in the package delivery business even while competing with the government run/backed USPS. In fact, he made this comment:
"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. Right? They are. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems."
I happen to agree with this statement 100%. But in his effort to calm fears on one issue he hit upon another serious concern that those opposing his efforts have: that everything the government touches eventually turns to manure. Government run programs that are either failed or in some degree failing such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Cash for Clunkers, Education, the War on Drugs and even the DMV hardly lend credence to the idea that while the government has failed in those fields they will be successful with running our health care. A simple question illustrates the issue: If you had the option of using a public rest room or a private rest room which would you chose?
To be fair to the president, everyone of us has had their share of "Ah hah!" moments, where a previously confusing issue suddenly becomes crystal clear. These moments directly result from our stumbling through and examining the issue. For me most of my "Ah hah!" moments came in math class as I labored over algebra problems.
I hope this was an "Ah hah!" moment for the president. What he said was a simple mistake of the tongue, but if he takes the time to investigate the simple truth it contains it'll be one of those rare occasions when the truth jumps out at you and forces your attention on it, even against all your attempts to quiet it.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Health Care Confusion
When it comes to health care everyone seems to be up in arms about something whether they are for or against the current House bill. Along with the emotion has come a lot of confusion. In my discussions with people both online and off I've noticed that the first obstacle that needs to be overcome is miscommunication. Here are the top three items I see people being most confused about.
1) Health Care vs. Health Insurance.
These terms are not interchangeable though people seem to use them as though they are. Health insurance is a premium you pay in advance to ensure a limited economic exposure in the event your health takes a turn for the worse. It shouldn't be used to cover every day events or menial costs but instead should be purchased to avoid catastrophic events from plunging you into bankruptcy under a mountain of hospital bills.
Health care is a service provided to human beings by other human beings. Too many of us don't recognize that but instead believe it to be some sort of magical creature that comes hopping out of the woods when you're hurt to blow colorful rainbows on all your injuries: It's free, plentiful and we're entitled to it.
The problem is it doesn't work like that. Care is provided by someone who has $100 grand in student loans to pay off, a mortgage and their own family to provide for. When you receive care you're paying for the doctor's knowledge, their education, their staff, their malpractice insurance, their expenses, their rent and everything else that goes along with it. When you have your blood drawn draw it is processed by a technician, someone with their own bills. When you're prescribed a medication, that drug was researched by a company for years on end, all the while paying their researchers and their rent and their staff. When you have an X-ray, you have it on a machine someone else had to research, design, manufacture, transport, house and run.
When you think about health care in these terms it is easier to understand why this service tends to be expensive. That's not to say we should be accepting when our system out prices people with limited income, but it does change our perception of the problem. Too many people think they posses a 'right' to health care but that's just an easy way of saying you have the right to another human being providing you a service. Possessing a right to another's work isn't health care, it's slavery. No one has that right.
2) Government System vs. Status Quo.
Often times when discussing the new House bill my opposition to it is taken as an endorsement of the status quo. I'm convinced this is a natural reaction by those who are looking more for someone to debate than they are for an actual solution to the problem. Otherwise their reaction would be to inquire about my position rather than to project some sort of love of insurance companies onto me. It is essential that we approach this issue with open minds. We can't authentically discuss the future ramifications of any plan if we're not only presenting our view but also assuming what everyone else's opinion is. People tend to make the assumption that if you're against government control you're for insurance companies because they don't see any other option. This leads to confusion #3.
3) Our Options: Government or Insurance Companies.
Sometimes it is difficult to think outside the box. Because of our limited perspective we aren't always able to see options that aren't immediately presented to us. For this reason people tend to frame this debate as a fight between those who want Government control of our health care provision and insurance company control. That isn't the case.
One of the main difficulties in our current situation is that the consumer is no longer paying for the product. For instance, if you go to the store and buy a candy bar you're telling the manufacturer it is worth 90 cents to you. But when you go to the doctor rarely are you paying for the service you receive. Most often an insurance company is paying for it. To make the matter more difficult is the fact that a lot of us don't even pay for our insurance, our employer does. So not only do we not pay for the care we receive but we don't even pay for the service to pay for our care! Going back to the candy bar illustration, how difficult would it be to establish what a candy bar really costs if you hired someone to hire someone to buy it for you? It'd be impossible. The situation would quickly get out of control as the manufacturer would automatically realize they can start charging more for the product because the consumer really isn't aware of what they are paying. The solution is to make people aware of a third option besides just government and insurance companies: returning the consumer to their rightful place and give them control of their own health care options. Not only would this help clear the confusion about prices, but it would give us the consumer a lot more control over what care they do receive. The 'manufacturer', in this case the health care provider such as your doctor or hospital, would have to adjust their service to appeal to the largest possible consumer base. A drastic change in how health care is provided would be expected as the industry makes the adjustment. Nonetheless in order to have a productive conversation it is important that the average American voter realizes that their is at least a third option beyond just government or insurance company control.
Solving the difficulties in our health care industry won't happen quickly, but in order to get to a point where we can actually have the necessary conversations we all need to get on the same page. While understanding these three points wont get everyone there, I think it'd be a great first step.
1) Health Care vs. Health Insurance.
These terms are not interchangeable though people seem to use them as though they are. Health insurance is a premium you pay in advance to ensure a limited economic exposure in the event your health takes a turn for the worse. It shouldn't be used to cover every day events or menial costs but instead should be purchased to avoid catastrophic events from plunging you into bankruptcy under a mountain of hospital bills.
Health care is a service provided to human beings by other human beings. Too many of us don't recognize that but instead believe it to be some sort of magical creature that comes hopping out of the woods when you're hurt to blow colorful rainbows on all your injuries: It's free, plentiful and we're entitled to it.
The problem is it doesn't work like that. Care is provided by someone who has $100 grand in student loans to pay off, a mortgage and their own family to provide for. When you receive care you're paying for the doctor's knowledge, their education, their staff, their malpractice insurance, their expenses, their rent and everything else that goes along with it. When you have your blood drawn draw it is processed by a technician, someone with their own bills. When you're prescribed a medication, that drug was researched by a company for years on end, all the while paying their researchers and their rent and their staff. When you have an X-ray, you have it on a machine someone else had to research, design, manufacture, transport, house and run.
When you think about health care in these terms it is easier to understand why this service tends to be expensive. That's not to say we should be accepting when our system out prices people with limited income, but it does change our perception of the problem. Too many people think they posses a 'right' to health care but that's just an easy way of saying you have the right to another human being providing you a service. Possessing a right to another's work isn't health care, it's slavery. No one has that right.
2) Government System vs. Status Quo.
Often times when discussing the new House bill my opposition to it is taken as an endorsement of the status quo. I'm convinced this is a natural reaction by those who are looking more for someone to debate than they are for an actual solution to the problem. Otherwise their reaction would be to inquire about my position rather than to project some sort of love of insurance companies onto me. It is essential that we approach this issue with open minds. We can't authentically discuss the future ramifications of any plan if we're not only presenting our view but also assuming what everyone else's opinion is. People tend to make the assumption that if you're against government control you're for insurance companies because they don't see any other option. This leads to confusion #3.
3) Our Options: Government or Insurance Companies.
Sometimes it is difficult to think outside the box. Because of our limited perspective we aren't always able to see options that aren't immediately presented to us. For this reason people tend to frame this debate as a fight between those who want Government control of our health care provision and insurance company control. That isn't the case.
One of the main difficulties in our current situation is that the consumer is no longer paying for the product. For instance, if you go to the store and buy a candy bar you're telling the manufacturer it is worth 90 cents to you. But when you go to the doctor rarely are you paying for the service you receive. Most often an insurance company is paying for it. To make the matter more difficult is the fact that a lot of us don't even pay for our insurance, our employer does. So not only do we not pay for the care we receive but we don't even pay for the service to pay for our care! Going back to the candy bar illustration, how difficult would it be to establish what a candy bar really costs if you hired someone to hire someone to buy it for you? It'd be impossible. The situation would quickly get out of control as the manufacturer would automatically realize they can start charging more for the product because the consumer really isn't aware of what they are paying. The solution is to make people aware of a third option besides just government and insurance companies: returning the consumer to their rightful place and give them control of their own health care options. Not only would this help clear the confusion about prices, but it would give us the consumer a lot more control over what care they do receive. The 'manufacturer', in this case the health care provider such as your doctor or hospital, would have to adjust their service to appeal to the largest possible consumer base. A drastic change in how health care is provided would be expected as the industry makes the adjustment. Nonetheless in order to have a productive conversation it is important that the average American voter realizes that their is at least a third option beyond just government or insurance company control.
Solving the difficulties in our health care industry won't happen quickly, but in order to get to a point where we can actually have the necessary conversations we all need to get on the same page. While understanding these three points wont get everyone there, I think it'd be a great first step.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)