Why not a health care plan that eliminates insurers?
The article, "One doctor breaks free from grip of insurance companies," by Albert Fuchs, M.D. (April 20), raises an issue I've tried to get the presidential candidates to address, without success.
Every candidate's solution to the health care crisis includes insurance companies. No one has even considered a program that eliminates insurance companies as payers. Yet Dr. Fuchs writes, "Insurance doesn't make routine care affordable; it makes it more expensive by adding a middleman." It has been estimated that, in North Carolina alone, insurance companies add more than $100 million to health care costs.
I wrote to every presidential candidate (eight at the time) to generate a discussion on health care without insurance companies. I haven't received a satisfactory answer from any of them. I fear the insurance lobby is very powerful.
For the first time in years, the North Carolina primary will be meaningful. What I couldn't accomplish, the News & Record could easily achieve. A strong editorial on the need to discuss a non-insurance company medical solution would do it. I don't have the solution to the health care crisis, but I'd like to see a non-insurance company solution at least considered.
Earle Bower
Greensboro
Comments (8)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
"Why not a health care plan that eliminates insurers?"
Great idea, Mr. Bower. But if we really want to save $, why not a health care plan that eliminates government?
Posted on May 5, 2008 6:53 AM
I agree that insurance has simply allowed prices to rise. Any system that isolates the consumer from the provider will cause prices to do things that would not happen if the consumer actually paid directly. I would prefer direct payments to providers, as this would make people more careful in their health care decisions and would bring prices down as doctors could eliminate the army of employees it takes to file all that paperwork and jump through those insurance hoops.
Posted on May 5, 2008 8:16 AM
Why haven't the Feds just passed a law mandating a 40% reduction in illnesses? That would obviously save untold billions in medical costs, and it's as easy as putting pen to paper.
It's how they approached the CAFE standards, after all, with the same disregard for reality or technological limits, and it was praised as a great accomplishment. Why aren't they legislating illnesses as well? Don't they care about us?
Roger
Posted on May 5, 2008 8:43 AM
Mr. Bower seems to be long as a problem identifier, but a short on being a problem solver. When he says "I don't have the solution to the health care crisis, but I'd like to see a non-insurance company solution at least considered.", all he means is that somebody outta do something.
If we take insurance companies out of the mix, then it seems that what we are left with is 1) government replacing insurance companies, or 2) buying health care directly from the health provider. So, which path is the most cost-effective, Mr.Bower? I have little faith that #1 would be an improvement, and do we all want a pay-as-you-go system for health care?
Posted on May 5, 2008 8:51 AM
Pay as you go could work for those who can afford it. But when something big comes up pay as you go is less feasible. Who here has $50 or $100K laying around for a major surgery?
I like the idea of catastrophic insurance, lower premium, higher deductible. Insured pays provider directly for routine stuff but the safety net is there for more expensive situations. That coupled with tax free medical savings accounts to pay for the routine care and deductibles.
Leaving insurance companies out on routine care would indeed save money in the long run. It would also prompt the patient to shop around for services and force providers to compete.
Posted on May 5, 2008 3:37 PM
Catastrophic insurance: lower premium, higher deductible. Insured pays provider directly for routine stuff but the safety net is there for more expensive situations.
add:
Procedures with a clearly high ROI - routine screenings, etc - required of all. (Not sure how to pay for it - perhaps my best argument for Nationalized Health Care, 'cause the Nation pays the uninsured anyway, the Nation might as well reap the rewards of preventative care.)
add:
Let the old die and get their reward in Heaven. After all, ya weren't told to go pray for nothin ...
An old joke I like:
Wife tells old man they need to start living healthier - they stop smoking and start eating bran muffins. They die 20 years later.
At Heaven's Gate, St. Peter asks what kinda home they'd like, the wife wants simple, but St. Peter offers a mansion, with maids and cooks and butlers - the whole package. Wife say's "How we gonna pay for this? St. Peter says, "This is Heaven - all free".
St. Peter what how they'd like to spend their time. Old man say's "Well, we like to golf". St. Peter offers then Augusta national one morning, Pebble Beach the next, with an endless list beyond that. Wife say's "How we gonna pay for this? St. Peter says, "This is Heaven - all free".
Old man turns to wife and say's, "We could been here 20 years ago."
Posted on May 6, 2008 2:28 AM
... and a sick variation:
American woman suffers brain damage and become dependent on a feeding tube. Hubby spends the millions won in a legal case trying to help her, all to no avail. After 18 years with no success, husband wants to remove her feeding tube. Activists - including her parents - opposed this and spend 7 years and millions of insurance plus public dollars continuing "life-prolonging measures". After 15 years, American woman dies.
Decades later, her parents die and joins in heaven their daughter who has now full rejuvinated by God. Mom and Dad rush to her side crying "TERRY!" ... Daughter hits them along side of head and says, "I could been her 15 years ago."
Posted on May 6, 2008 2:38 AM
You could be there now. Just saying...
Posted on May 6, 2008 9:08 AM