Friday, May 26, 2006

WHY WE NEED NATIONAL HEALTHCARE - AN EXAMPLE

The Seattle Times fleshes out the no-win dilemma that hit Boeing employees earlier this week:

“Regence faces union fallout”

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003019914_regence26m.html

The Select Network Plan, billed as a means to provide Boeing employees with a “high-quality, cost-efficient” medical insurance plan option, has decided to exclude approximately 500 previously included physicians… Regence will not release their selection criteria, but, according to the Times, “it appears that Regence is more concerned with how much doctors cost than with whether they give good health care. Many patients said highly competent doctors were excluded.

It is admitted by Regence “the ratings are based only on billing data, because "that's the current best available method to do this analysis."”

High-quality, cost-efficient… An oxymoronic lie like that could only come from a salesman or a politician…

More Chinese fire drills with health insurance… The whole idea of an insurance poll is to average the total cost across enough individuals to prevent accidental and incidental costs from ruining any one individual… Enter the chiselers, who give some of the pool a break if they will patronize Dr. Low Budget.

It’s another aspect of the race to the bottom, and it can have only one effect: The erosion of the overall quality of available medical services…

As long as there is a dime of profit in the medical insurance industry, there will be chiselers trying to manipulate it.

National Health Care NOW.

Comments:
Tell that to the Canadians that have to come to the US for decent timely healthcare.

Or take a good look at the disaster of National Health Care in Britain.

Letting the government run health care is NOT the answer. Lowering health care costs is.

But you can only lower costs when there is real tort reform, and the constant stream of nuisance malpractice lawsuits dries up.

Oh, and in a Nationalized system, you can forget suing a doctor for killing your Uncle Ted by leaving a scalpel inside when he closed up. Which is one of the GOOD examples of a malpractice suit.

And let's not forget, that if the government is in charge of your healthcare, they will be within their rights to deny treatment (or put you at the back of the line) if you have "unhealthy" practices. Like smoking, drinking, or eating fatty foods...

Yeah, Insurance company bureaucrats suck, but at least most of them are competent, to a degree, unlike most government stooges.
 
You don't like chiseling? Well then don't get Nat health care. Cost/person will triple and quality will nosedive. I'd write a long explanation, but frankly I don't have it in me - and Canada, England, and every other state health country has proved it for me.

This is coming from a person who pays for his own health insurance. Costs me $500/month for fairly skimpy coverage. Add up all the costs including actual doctor visits and drugs and you have about $1,000/month. Big bill. I'm not thrilled about it. But I don't want to sacrifice quality for quantity. I'd rather see states be forced to loosen regulations and open the insurance market to competition. The good companies would rise to the top, just like any other industry.

In other words we'll all have our coverage through Costco and WalMart in the future. In house doc's to go with their pharmacies.

And of course there's medical malpractice lawyers. Stomp out these vipers and you'd bring back the viablility of family practice doc's. They could afford to do business. Until Costco put them out of business of course...
 
Wait a second - Are you seriously saying that if we have national health care, costs will go down and quality will go up? That would certainly be a first. One aspect to consider though is it does leave Canadians out in the cold, where would they go for health care then?
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?