Healthcare Isn't a Tomato

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-health2feb02.story
EDITORIAL
Healthcare Isn't a Tomato

February 2, 2005

The idea that Americans should purchase healthcare much as they do groceries or auto insurance — on their own, without any strong-arming by government or employers — has been around for years, and goes roughly like this: Because people have unique healthcare needs, they should be free to buy insurance policies tailored for themselves. And because most Americans typically shift jobs every few years, they, and not an employer, should control the policies. Consumers should also pay more out of pocket, so they would be motivated to do research and get the best deal for health services, which would help drive down prices. In theory.

The Bush administration is gathering up these arguments into proposals for action, in the form of high-deductible "catastrophic" insurance policies, with consumers paying out of pocket — with tax-free savings — for care falling under the deductible. If healthcare were really like tomatoes or Toyotas, it would make perfect sense.

Congress has already agreed to a cornerstone of the president's "consumer-directed" healthcare plan: health savings accounts, which are tax-exempt accounts similar to 401(k) plans in which people can deposit up to $5,000 a year before taxes. There is a built-in unfairness in these accounts, in that only a minority of taxpayers are wealthy enough to profit from the full tax savings. There is also danger in making people decide between their savings and their health, because deferred healthcare is more costly than prevention. And how would patients balance the price and quality of chemotherapy?

Among the largely undiscussed drawbacks of the president's plan is that though the change would free consumers to purchase health coverage individually, it could also deprive them of the collective clout that helps employers, unions and other large groups score deep discounts in the medical economy. The administration has yet to explain how it would compensate for — or retain — group bargaining power. <snip>

The district I taught in for 20 years decided to go with a health care plan almost exactly like the one BushCo is touting.

We had to "divine" (with no counsel or example) how much we "imagined" we would spend on family health care during the coming fiscal year.

Then we signed away that amount of money into an "escrow account," and the "insurance company" (which turned out to be one guy at his kitchen table... but that's another story) got to reap the interest from everyone in the district who belonged to the insurance group.

Now, after figuring out who in the family might need new glasses, dental work, and after adding in routine check ups for the fiscal year, we had to "transfer" a sizable amount of our "insurance dollar value" into a separate account, which did not roll over to the next year, as BushCo is now promising.

Even if the "health savings account" rolls over, there's no guarantee that you'll get approval of medical procedures or even the voice of a human on the phone when you have a question.

The worst part was trying to get "Bob" (AKA "The Insurance Company") to reimburse us for health care costs during the year.

That's right. I said reimbursement.

We had to pay for all health care services ourselves and then request reimbursement.

That's when you find out that the policy doesn't cover certain procedures (like mole biopsy & removal)-- after you've paid the physician up front!

What a crock!

"Bob" made a very nice living off of public school teachers and staff!

And that's my experience with "health care accounts."

Be very afraid!

and did they know this when they sold him the policy?

He can pay for the healthcare provided at taxpayer expense

He can pay for the transportation by Air Force One, etc

And he can pay for his own damn security

when its "heat or eat", people drop their health care.

they must be responsible for their own health, ie, eat right, exercise, get your mind right, etc. Take care of yourself cause no one else is going to.

or serious trauma. "Injury accident on I-5! Call me a dietician, quick!"

time they would need a doctor would be for trauma when surgery or a broken bone would need attention. The way that most of us do not take care of ourselves causes many, many visits to the doctor and hospital and drug store which all put together causes the over burdened health care system.

This is just nonsense.

Poster #8 must be extraordinarily young or healthy to believe that we can perfectly control our health. Genetics and environment can sabotage the health of even the most conscientious person.

After ten years with an HMO that had no deductibles (although the copays kept rising), I am now on an insurance policy with a $1000 deductible and 20% copays after that, in addition to the monthly premiums. The premiums were raised at the beginning of this year, despite the fact that I did not go to the doctor at all during 2004. Including the premiums, I will spend $3600 out of pocket before getting ANY benefits from my insurance company. As a self-employed person over 50, it's the best deal I can get, and next year, my premiums will take a huge jump, even if I'm completely healthy.

I looked into health savings accounts, and they were an even worse deal. I would have needed to spend $4000 a year before getting any benefit.

This month, I had a little extra money, so I decided to have a physical and some diagnostic tests that I'm supposed to have every year. But I haven't met my deductible yet, so I'm living in dread of the bill.

MISSDem,

I have been a physician for twenty years, and you really do not know what you are talking about.

Why should people who don't have fires pay for the upkeep of the fire department?

It's called capitalism. And according to those free market fundamentalists: everything is a tomato.
Apart from this: the administrative cost of privatised health care are about 40% of the invested money in the countries, who did privatize health care, while the administrative cost in the countries that have public owned health care systems are much lower (less than 20%).
But who cares if it's about: "No insurance company left behind".
During the economic bubble of the "new economy" it might have been just stupid, to privatise health care.
Now, it's just desk-terror.
Hello from Germany,
Dirk

It is working for them and it could work for us.
Take the corporations out to the equation and so much money is saved and the cost related to health care would go down like crazy.

:kick:

has incredible health insurance. CEO's have great health bene's too.
Our nightmare is that these are the people who want to tell us how healthy we get to be, and for many of us, how soon we die.

Let those assholes pay medical out of pocket for a decade before they open their well orthodontured mouths on the subject again.