“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.” — Robert A. Heinlein

Monday, July 20, 2009

Health Care- We Are All Screwed No Matter What Happens

I have been putting this off for awhile. The article has re written itself in my head multiple times and while I am not completely satisfied with its content today is as good of a day as any. This is going to be sort of a hodge podge of theories, potential solutions, the problem with them and different examples.

A good friend who is otherwise pro limited government is for a single payer Canadian style plan. Insurance has been recockulous for his family and the Canadian style plan might have some benefits for him. All principle aside I thought a lot about this and he has something of a point. For a person with some relatively main stream but consistent medical problems which require regular hospital visits this could be a good thing.

The main problem with that sort of an idea as I see it is that unless you are constantly having needs that can get addressed by an ER doc or a GP you will need to see an expert, possibly more than one expert. In a government run single payer system the chances of seeing an expert in a timely manner is about as likely as the sloppy drunk random who comes home with you from the bar being truthful when she says 'I've never done anything like this before'.

My friend Maggy and I have talked about this pretty directly. She is for a single payer plan because she has seen them work first hand in other countries and also for the practical reason that right now there is no way she can afford health insurance (though thankfully boy has it through Ex-hole). Since she has a lower income and no current coverage she would fare reasonably well under this sort of plan EXCEPT that it will hurt our economy. The people who would take the real financial hit for this sort of thing are the ones who would likely employ her (as an individual or in a small business) or be regular patrons of the sort of service/ disposable income kind of places she would likely work. So odds are that even though this would not cost her money directly it would likely take money out of her pocket one way or another.

Wifey and I had an interesting discussion about this. Her Dad has a real good job and makes what I would consider a lot of money. Not top 1% or anything but a hell of a lot more than average. He is high up in the company he works for and if laid off it is unlikely he could find another job at that same income. Little Sister in Law has a complex medical condition. She probably goes to 6 or 7 different experts and has a multiple doctors appointments every month. She is also on Human Growth Hormone (her and Mark McGuire:). There is no way in hell they could get private insurance with her complex pre existing condition. At face value a single payer plan might be a good thing for them. No worries about job loss or pre existing conditions excluding you from being able to buy coverage. Except the problem with this is that she currently has Cadillac health care. In a single payer system (true in the best ones and very true in the less good ones) care in managed to keep costs in line. Her far cheaper care would be much more Chevy or Daewoo style and would not be effective for filling her medical needs and having high quuality of life.

My best theory of how to make our system better has been as follows. Simply put insurance needs to go back to what it is meant for, occasional unlikely extreme circumstances. We all have car insurance but of we get a blown tire or need an oil change that is out of pocket. Insurance is or at least should be for when you wrap your car around a tree or get into a collision with someone else. Health insurance should work the same way. Pay for regular visits and occasional trips to the doc with a bad cold or even a broken arm with cash and have catastrophic healthcare insurance for genuine emergencies. Have a catastrophic insurance plan (between $1,000 and $10,000 depending on your income and needs) coupled with a solid emergency fund and a lot of people are good to go.

There are two real problems with this plan. First it will only work for basically healthy people who really don't use their insurance much and only have it in case something suprising happens so they aren't financially ruined. Those who need regular care (not yearly checkups and such) and or have multiple perscriptions would often not be well suited by a plan like this.

The second problem is that insurance works reasonably (yeah that can be debated but we'll get there later) because most people who have it are basically healthy. For every 70 year old with 6 perscriptions and all sorts of doctor visits and medical costs there need to be several 20 somethings who have insurance and don't cost the company a dime. Lets say everyone pays $250 a month (yeah people pay more than that and not everyone pays the same, I got it) and Mrs Johnson costs the company $1,000 a month. That means that without even factoring in administrative costs and profit (we will revisit this one) there need to be 3 people who don't so much as go to the doctor once to even out the costs of her being insured. So if every healthy person got catastrophic insurance and paid a far lower premium insurance companies would have some real problems.

I do however have a real problem with many conservatives who think our medical system is working just great. To be blunt I don't think our current system is working well at all for anyone except the very rich and a few who currently have really awesome insurance plans. Even for those who have 'good' insurance premiums are getting higher and they are buying less and less as services get worse while deductibles go up. I have seen this through my Mom's insurance over the last decade or so. Loose a job and you are screwed by 'pre existing conditions'. The current system we have jacks up the prices of everything so much that you basically need insurance.

We the functional people pay insane amounts for services (and by default insurance) because illegal immigrants and assorted poor people go to the ER because it is cheaper than buying some bandaids or cold medicine at Rite Aid. I am not advocating that people aren't treated for genuine life threatening emergencies. Don't think any sane person would do that. Imagine Joe Middle Class looses his job and thus his families insurance. Since they're broke the family is cooking hot dogs around a small bonfire, little Timmy slips and falls face first into the blaze. Joe pulls him out getting some pretty good burns on his hands. The Mrs gets you both into the SUV and drives to the hospital like it is the Indy 500. You get there and they immediately ask for pre payment, cash or major credit card only and it is going to cost $10,000. You don't have that in the checking account and the limit on your AMEX is 5k. They say fuck you and to get out of line till you can provide payment. That is more or less how it is right now in China and I don't think even the most heartless liberterian wants that here.

As for the talk about how we will save $1,200 because Homeless Joe or Illegal Jose will have insurance instead of just getting care and us eating the cost I am not so sure. Sort of seems like us the tax payers giving these people free or very cheap insurance 'saving' us money may be Enron style accounting but me is not an expert on that.

A single payer system will be good for the currently uninsured particularly those with low incomes at least if taken at face value. Everyone having the same access to medical care certainly fits some egalitarian points of view. One real benefit it would have is that it would effectively de couple having decent insurance that doesn't exclude anyone who has ever had anything wrong with them from getting reasonably priced insurance. For those who want to work for themselves, do some consulting or maybe underground work this might not be a horrible thing.

When it comes to insurance people far too often forget (mainly because insurance is so intertwined in our lives) that insurance companies exist to make a profit from providing a service. They want to get as much money from people as possible and manage to exclude as many expensive treatments and conditions as possible. Their desire to make a profit might just be better than a single payer system which just doesn't give a fuck. They light cigars with $100's and when those run out they just get more from the government which means us. So we loose either way.

So a single payer system sucks because at the end of the day they ration care and their is absolutely no incentive for the monolithic state health aparatus to be efficient, timely or generally do anything well. Our current system is rapidly going from bad to worse.

While I do have a few ideas on how to make things better (streamline real tort reform, refuse to pay more for meds than other countries, crack down on various fraud/ waste/ abuse, and a couple others) these are sort of like the lady argueing over getting 12 cents off peas and 87 cents off tortillas when she has $200 in groceries in the cart. They will not really change the overall financial situation of the thing.

For every possible plan there are strengths and weaknesses. I suppose finding a plan that is most tolerable to as many people as possible and completely intolerable to as few as possible is the best we can possibly hope for.

Lets look at this like an 'Adult Novelty' store. There are many different products some of which are fairly mild (r rated birthday cards, playboy, etc) and others are very extreme with everything in between. The common denominator of every product in the store is that in some way or another (if only symbolically) someone definitely gets fucked.

So basically we are all screwed.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just a few comment's on this.What if the single payer cost was based on age or income?
Say,up to age 25,most injurie's are probably broken bone's due to youthful activity,so they pay less.Over 25 pay a bit more,as life style or genetic problem's occur.Over 50 pay more due to geriatric's.
Imagine what a car would cost if we could eliminate the overhead from white collar management alone,then health cost's.
Imagine what your 401 would be worth if the CEO didn't make 20 billion.
One other point.About 2 year's ago,there was a 12 year old girl in california that needed a kidney transplant.The insurance company denied it as being "experimental"!!
After being taken into the new's media,they suddenly changed they're position,but she died a few day's later.....
Dean in Az

Mayberry said...

TOR, you're in the military. You know first hand what this is gonna be like.... I don't know what it's like now (well maybe I do after the Walter Reed fiasco), but back when I was in, under Slick Willie, it sucked hard core....

Long waits, zero personal interaction... Shuffled through like cattle. Told what to do, what drugs to take, what vaccinations to get... All I got to say is "NO THANKS"....

If folks really want to fix healthcare, do the catastrophic thing like you said, have plans for those with chronic problems, get the lawyers and the government out of it completely, and let the free market do it's thing. It worked just fine prior to WW II. Before the "entitlement" mentality became mainstream....

Sam said...

I have a theory about why the gov wants to control health care services. Once upon a time Social Security seemed like a good idea to most Americans, then that money went into the "general fund" and has since been spent on thousands of things few of us would support. Fuel tax (once earmarked for infrastructure maintenance) went to the "general fund" too, and now our bridges are falling down (BUT now we know all about the breeding habits polar bears, instead). And now the gov wants to straighten out medical costs? Good Lord!
Just yesterday I ranted that its about the money, not health care. Gov will very soon limit who gets what care. Some faceless bureaucrat will decide that the older we get the less care we get, because we contribute less to society (which also means those denied health care will DIE). Thus the gov will save medical monies by NOT giving medical care to the elderly. However the costs will NOT go down. All the money now going into medical insurance (many billions) will then go into the "general fund". Medical efficiency will quickly be in ruins of course, and it will be George W's fault.

Here is an excellent article on this subject, including historical information on England and Canada's public health care systems.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Turtel/joel161.htm

Anonymous said...

I do however have a real problem with many conservatives who think our medical system is working just great.

I don't know that anyone is saying there aren't problems. The fundamental issue is that everyone says they want 1st-class healthcare, but they don't want to pay for it.

People are content to drive the biggest POS vehicle every made. They'll eat fast-food garbage all day long and finish it off with a Marlboro of two.

But when it comes to healthcare? "Oh no, only the BEST for my family..." (Just don't ask me to roger-up the cash when he bill comes due)

Health care has NEVER been cheap, and it never will be. The best answer is to live your life as healthy as possible and save for a rainy day.

Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg

The Other Mike S. said...

I don't want a bureacrat deciding what my life is worth.

If I'm old, why spend the money in trying to cure the illness? Just give 'em some pills so they're comfortable. They've only got a few years left, so why waste the money? Send 'em home, all doped-up, to die so a hospital bed isn't taken up.

If I'm a baby, is it really worth spending $1 million on a heart operation when that money could provide a preventative health screening for 10,000 people? Or $1,000 in medicine for 1000 people?

Socialized medicine by definition must be more concerned for the hive than for the individual.

The family of the girl mention in the first comment still had the ability to sue the insurance company after her death. Do you think you'll be able to sue Nanny when they withhold the same operation?

And of course there's the BIG question: If this is such a peachy-keen idea, why aren't Congress, the White House and all of government required to be on the plan as well?

Bryce said...

Good thoughts. I recently had to drop my insurance because my premuiums shot up by another ~$200 a month. That would have put my insurance premium at about 130% of my mortgage payment. To make matter better, my wife is currently pregnant, so it's useless to bother even applying anywhere until the new one gets here. Good thing we were already planning on paying birth costs ourselves (no reasonably priced plan includes maternity care - or if it does, it's a $5,000 deductible. Yikes)

Anyway, I'm of the opinion that things need to change, but making congress in charge of health care cannot be the answer - they screw up everything they do.

I'd be happy with a high deductible health plan with a heath savings account.

And does anyone know why you can't have an HSA without a high deductible health plan? Other than the fact that it's mandated by law?

/end rant

Anonymous said...

some things perhaps not considered:

medical insurance is often costly because medical care is EXPENSIVE.
insurance first came about as a means to avoid catastrophic expense. now, people expect that they should have cheap insurance that pays all the bills. that ain't gonna happen. imagine what your car insurance mught cost if in addition to insuring against losses by collision it was also expected to pay for all auto maintenance costs - it would be unaffordable for most. .gov exacerbates the problem by demanding for example obesity surgery for lazy gluttonous slugs, or sex change operations.

yer acquaintances with chronic health problems make the unwarranted assumption that all would be great if only there were a single (.gov) payer. what they conveniently neglect to consider is that the only way cost can come down is by ELIMINATING the care that the chronically ill receive. why do folks in canada & the uk come to the us for needed treatment now? you think that just because the kenyan bastard is in control that would magically change?

as i see it there are two core problems which will not be addressed in any of the "health care" debate. the primary problem is that .gov is involved in medicine at all - from licensing practitioners, limiting hospital beds and equipment to regulating care - it is regulation by .gov enforced monopoly that drives the cost of health care. problem two is that as a result of having insurance most people who would if they were paying out of their own pocket, simply make cost of med care not a factor in choosing and using care - in other words, the sky is the limit when someone else foots the bill.

"America's health-care problem is not that some people lack insurance, it is that 250 million Americans do have it." - John Stossel

Commander Zero said...

The solution isnt to drag *everyone* down to a mediocre level of healthcare, which is what this will do.

We can already agree that out current medical infrastructure is a bit stretched, yes? Emergency rooms that have waits measured in hours, having to wait a month for a dentist to have an appointment available for a crown, etc.

Now, lets suddenly make medical care available to over 300 million people. People who suddenly can go to the doctor because they no longer worry about the cost. Might be a bit overwhelming on the system.

This 'solution' is going to prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage and raising rates on people who are high risk. The only way the insurance companies are going to be able to stay afloat will then be to jack everyones premiums up to cover these people who they normally wouldnt touch with a ten foot pole. So now people like me who can afford good insurance will be forced to pay more.

There is no way this is going to work out to be a good deal for anyone. The insurance companies will suffer, quality of care will suffer, medical infrastructure will suffer and the economy will most certainly suffer.

Brass said...

I agree with Mayberry. Get the State out of healthcare completely. I don't know if he'd go as far, but I mean every aspect of it, including the FDA. Whatever someone wants to put in their body is fine with me. I don't think using cocaine and weed for getting high is moral, but the State has no say in it. Same with gay "marriage." The State has no say on who may or may not live together and do what to each other.

Back in the late 1880's to the early 1900's, there were something called "mutual aid societies." Immigrants, in particular, participated in them. They were financial and moral support groups. The Knights of Columbus was a society that provided very affordable life insurance to immigrants and others.

We don't need the State at all. As Harry Browne said, "the government is great at breaking your leg, handing you a crutch, and saying 'You see, without me you couldn't walk.'" Get the State out of it, whatever "it" is, and the market will take care of people. If people really want and/or need something, the demand will be met. If something systematic can only be accomplished by sticking a gun in someone's face and taking their money, whether personally or by voting, that is something that simply has no place being done at all. Period.

looking4aline said...

Guys and Gals,

You really need to look at this bill before having ANY conversation about it! This MAY work for some but only if you are healthy. When you need it, the government gets to decide if you should get care and what it will be even to the point that you can be youthenized! Yes, it is in the bill. Things like being able to deny special needs people. Please do us all a favor and look at it before going any furtherer. Think about this: If our current Medicade/Medicare system is bankrupting us how do you fix it? The only way to add 40 million plus is to ration and that will be harsh! This site has a review of the bill and is were I am starting:

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/

Stephanie in AR said...

British & Canadian citizens come to the US to get the care their governement health systems deny, if the US joins the socialized bandwagon I guess we'll all get passports to India or some other Asian country.

Anonymous said...

"...EXCEPT that it will hurt our economy."

Our economy is already being hurt by our current so-called health care system. I don't know the exact stats but something like 60% of all bankruptcies are medically related. I'm one of those stats. Believe me....it's hard to recover from a medically-related bankruptcy. You're treated like a second class citizen for years afterwards by a variety of people and institutions.

Personally, I think every legal citizen should be entitled to basic medical coverage (i.e. broken bones, stitches, basic anti-biotics, once a year check up, etc.) If people want something above basic medical coverage then they have to pay for it out of their own pocket privately. A private plan would be for people who want a second or third opinion, an elective surgery, a visit to a specialized hospital 1,500 miles away, 25 sessions with a private shrink, a super expensive name brand drug that hit the market 6 days ago, a visit to the drug rehab center for a fifth time, etc. I would let ANY company sell a private plan, but only the government could dish out basic health care coverage.

"have catastrophic health care coverage"

After my hubby lost his cushy job at IBM we tried to buy catastrophic coverage but our (stupid) state doesn't sell it. We were forced to pay enormous amounts of money each month for COBRA benefits. We could barely pay our basic bills each month.

"streamline real tort reform"

Could you elaborate on that point? The wording is vague. Every time I hear someone bring up "tort reform" my blood starts to boil. Blood starts gushing out of my ears when I hear people say, "There should be caps on how much victims can receive. Money grubbing ambulance chasers are the sole cause of high health care costs." The people who say stuff like that have no idea what it's like to be gravely injured by an incompetent doctor. How do you put a price on an arm, an eye, or a life? Also, there are MANY factors driving up the cost of health care. Lawsuits are just one small piece of the giant puzzle.

Okay....I gotta go....my blood pressure is getting up there. I feel curse words coming on.

Overall, good discussion. Keep it up. Maybe Obama will swing by and read our insights and suggestions. Te he he he ....

Al The Unbound One said...

Howdy! Now do you see why I have copies of _Where There Is No Doctor_ and _Where There Is No Dentist_? I may get me a Merck Manual and an update subscription if I can afford it. Hopefully, I can establish a barter relationship with a like-minded sawbones Doctor who can help me implement the treatments in these works. Meanwhile, three words: Don't get sick.

John said...

I like your blog and have read it everyday since i found it. You blogged one day about health care and i left a comment about how the American system as i've seen it. I also wrote about our system ( Canada ). I listed some of the good and bad. The main point i was trying to get you and the people that read your blog is that you need to look at others systems and find the best one for the people and copy it or take the best parts of systems and make them your own.

The response i got from you was " we can quote horror stories from both systems" So that tells me that you haven't really looked at any other system at length.

You want to fix health care in the US? Get rid of "for profit". All the greedy bastards will find a way to screw you over.

Health care here is free for everyone and if you choose to buy extra coverage for things like dental, glasses etc you can do so through an employer or privately. They compete for your business so if the employees don't like the coverage or think it's too costly, they can pick a different company.

You have been bullied by the government telling you that socialized health care is so bad that you throw your arms in the air everytime you hear it. Until you realize that as a nation of people you have to tell your government that your system is a total mess and that you demand the best....you are screwed.

John

theotherryan said...

Dean in AZ, That could work but I think we both know that what people day is going to be based on government picking winners and losers not the expense of a given person. As for the car analogy do you want a car designed by someone who makes 50k a year regardless of how long it takes to design the car, how safe it is or its reliability? I remember that case also.

Maybery, While it is a pain my interactions with the military medical system haven't been that different from those with HMO's. Since my folks insurance wouldn't let us go see our close friend the small town Doc it has all gone down hill. As for the pre WW II comment I would observe that most people before then who got real sick or got a complicated medical condition died.

Sam, I don't think that is a theory. SS is a great example of how a noble if misguided idea can morph into a big ugly thing.

Snoop, I think a lot of people have no issue paying for it. However for some others who are currently getting a voice far beyond their proportions you have a good point. I have no tolerance for people who make good money, choose not to purchase medical insurance and bitch if they get a big bill. If those folks have kids then I hate them even more.

theotherryan said...

TOM, Everyone knows they are special. The lack of being able to bring civil suits would sure be an issue. I concur that having a bureaucrat who is basically charged with controlling costs by rationing care between me and my doctor is not something I want.

Bryce, Purchasing health care as an individual is often not possible because of insane costs. Stole part of what you said for a quote of the day.

theotherryan said...

ANON, Interesting points. I think in principle insurance is a good thing for people but it has gotten so far away from its original intent.

Rationing care is the only way for socialized medicine to control costs. In a perfect world some discretion makes sense (spending $10 million to keep an 80 year old alive another month, etc) but we all know that our world is not perfect.

Commander Zero, Not sure I disagree with you. Those who can afford good health care currently are probably going to pay more to get less. I disagree however that this will not be a good deal for anyone. Some people particularly those who make little money or have very poor coverage will see their access to routine and preventive care increase. Matter of factly the winners and losers will be picked not be their means or abilities but how politically popular it is to be their champion.

Brass, Some very minimal oversight such as preventing Phonies from harming people under the guise of being a medical doctor is a good thing. Other than that I agree the states role in medicine needs to be minimized.

theotherryan said...

Looking for a line, Our health care system is working fine for healthy people. I really am not a fan of anything you mentioned. Shoot me a link to the specific post you were referencing, I am curious to read it.

Stephanie in AR, It is amazing what private citizens and the free market can do.

12:12, Interesting perspective, can't say that I agree entirely. Competition makes EVERYTHING better. Want to wait 10 hours to get stitches? I do not and would rather go to my doc. As for 'basic care' what about simple stuff like seeing the expert to treat your brain cancer?

We matter of factly do need tort reform. Run away juries and endless litigation drags up the cost of health care for everyone. If you think that WE DON'T PAY FOR THAT you are fooling yourself. Those costs are passed onto the consumer.

As I noted tort reform will not fix our problem. I think we are all screwed it is just a question of who and how bad it is going to be.

Al theunboundone, Fair enough. Get to know your small town doc NOW if that is your plan.

theotherryan said...

John, I vaguely recall that. Sorry I kind of blew you off. I won't do that this time. As for your comment today....

Picking and choosing great pieces of different systems is an interesting proposition. It might be like trying to piece together a new truck from a 4 cylinder Toyota, a 76 International and a diesel Chevy. Combining different plans directly might be impractical but using effective pieces to inspire the pieces of a new system could be interesting.

I would say that your system does not give everyone free health care. Because you do not pay for something directly doesn't mean it is free. The soda that comes with your burger basket isn't free. Maybe peanuts or the chex mix they put out at bars is a better example but you get my point.

I don't know about us being bullied into thinking socialized medical care is bad. Looking at how well the government has run social security and medicare is enough to make me think letting them be in charge of everyone's medical care is probably not a good idea.

Thanks for the interesting points and conversation.

Brian said...

TOR - I have thought long and hard about this "Health Care - We are all screwed no matter what happens", and the only comment I can give you is, "we are all screwed no matter what happens." I have come to the conclusion that those in the halls of .gov don't give a darn what I think, want, or believe. They will do whatever they want with the Health Care system. My vote or opinion is worthless to them. So, I will continue to eat right, exercise and pay my health care provider until I am told otherwise. As a survivalist, I am trying to take care of myself the best way I can. I could rant all day about health care, but my representatives in Washington really doesnt give two sh*ts about me or anyone else! It is all about $$$ they can legally steal (tax) from me. /end rant/

The Hermit said...

I liked this analysis. It's dispassionate and free of all the vitriolic parroting of the Big Business adds against government health care with names like "The Little Guys against Government Health Care."

I think there is no workable solution. There are too many people, too many tests and treatments and medicines, and not enough money to pay for all of it no matter what you do. Jesus Christ couldn't solve this problem.

The Other Mike S. said...

John from Canada: You've got it all upside down. You have to remove all socialism from health care. You've clearly got the socialist mindset that "we have a right to health care."

Really?

What else? Food stamps? Public Housing? Public Education? Public Retirement?

Tell me just one of those that has turned out for the betterment of mankind. All of them started out as highly honorable ideas, and have all slid into horrible over-costly, under-performing bureaucracies.

Why? No profit motive. There is no incentive to improve performance because there is no competition.

I want capitalism to run my health care. I want my doctor to be the greediest bastard on the planet. If true capitalism is allowed to flourish - not this government-controlled bullshit - my doctor will make sure he is able to provide the best health care, and can charge the highest prices for delivering it.

If not, I'll take my business elsewhere.

The same goes with the insurance companies. We have a contract. If they break the contract, I can sue them. Can't do that with Nanny.

I want LESS Nanny, not more. More profit-motive, not less.

theotherryan said...

Brian, All you can do is make the best choices you can for you and vote for people who you think will do the same.

Hermit, I tried hard to frame this as a discussion of real options and solutions. You may have a point about there being no workable solution. I certainly don't think that treating more people and bringing costs down is realistic. As Thomas Sowell said "it is a fallacy to assume we can afford anything collectively that we canno't afford individually". Realistically they can treat some more people and bring costs down for some people. I personally am not a fan of letting the government pick winners and losers.

TOM, Everyone knows liberals are judged by their intentions not the results of their programs. Good points. I just don't know. Almost every option to 'fix' things is just shifting who the winners and losers are. Getting the government involved pulls the power of the free market out of the equation which rarely ends well. In fairness I don't think what we have now with big drug companies, HMO's and the government involved has much to do with capitalism. I think we are all screwed.