Second Opinion
This is a US discussion, but helpful info from citizens of other countries is more than welcomed.
Do you want the US health care system to change?
If so, how?
What problems have you had getting medical care in the US?
Another other slant on this issue that you have is welcome too.
I have been seeking the right article to start this discussion, and have found it with Bob Herbert's editorial , "A Second Opinion," published today in the New York Times. Bob is reporting on the abysmal state of the health care system in the US, but without blaming either party more than the other. Apparently, in a study done of the health care of 13 developed nations, the US ranks at or near the bottom in every category, and there is no sign of improvement, rather the reverse.
If you are young, chances are your interactions with the health care system are minimal, and limited to yearly visits to the doctor, or occasional visits for the usual array of common illnesses and broken limbs and so on. As you age, and watch your loved ones and yourself fall into the jaws of the system, however, the view changes substantially.
The first view that something is wrong is your first visit to the emergency room. It is crowded with people who have no insurance, who have problems. Even if you have insurance the shear volume of people who are in the emergency room seeking care impairs the care you get, because there are triage delays while the staff tries to figure out who is deathly sick vs. who can wait. (If you really need an emergency room, my advice is "Call the Ambulance First".)
The second view of the problem is when the first person that you love develops signifcant medical problems without actually dying. Private insurers do not insure burning houses, nor are they forced to insure chronically ill people. The coverage your loved one needs will mystically end, either by being unaffordable, or in the worst cases unobtainable.
You may still at this point feel that you are covered. At one point, my husband felt very secure. He had his IBM insurance, my IBM insurance, VA coverage and Medicare. All are now in a struggle to deny coverage one way or another. Be aware, if you are sick, no one wants to sell you insurance. Even Medicare and the VA now use what is euphemistically called, "Demand Control." This is a method of making it harder to obtain care, so that people will avoid getting it, resulting in an imagined saving. The saving is imagined, because often treating a problem late is much more expensive in the long run.
And the way it is in the real world, is that if you don't die immediately of a heart attack, stroke, or accident, you will spend some time in your life sick. When you need it, your insurance will disappear.
This is one reason why the other countries are healthier, and why they were all right--people need Universal Health Care of some sort.
And Herbert is right-here we are with a treatment and coverage problem, and what is going on is the doctors and the lawyers are arguing about tort reform. If you look at the actual source of malpractice insurance rises, there seem to be three to me:
1. Losses due to bad investments by companies when the market crashed
2. Complete lack of regulation of the malpractice insurance industry
3. Too few insurers- (CT has only 2 malpractice insurers. Of course this has the same result as any monopolistic situation in a capitalist economy-runaway price increases.) An example is a local obstetrician with 18 years with no malpractice suits ever filed against him, paying $100,000 a year for his insurance. He is considering leaving the business.
Another issue of course is the fact that America is fat. This changes the age you get sick, but being thin will not keep you from dying. And the most expensive outcome, in terms of medical care, is most likely to get old and spend 5 or 10 years in a nursing home, which is quite typical for people who have cared for their health. After all, nothing could be cheaper to a health insurance system than someone who drops dead of a heart attack while relatively young, for example.
However, the life expectancy items, which are some of the health parameters in the article, are surely affected by the fatness of Americans.
So do weigh in with your opinions! I would prefer if like Bob Herbert, we did not try to blame the problem on one political party or the other, but focussed on the nature and extent of the problem, and how it can be fixed.
This is a US discussion, but helpful info from citizens of other countries is more than welcomed.
Do you want the US health care system to change?
If so, how?
What problems have you had getting medical care in the US?
Another other slant on this issue that you have is welcome too.
I have been seeking the right article to start this discussion, and have found it with Bob Herbert's editorial , "A Second Opinion," published today in the New York Times. Bob is reporting on the abysmal state of the health care system in the US, but without blaming either party more than the other. Apparently, in a study done of the health care of 13 developed nations, the US ranks at or near the bottom in every category, and there is no sign of improvement, rather the reverse.
If you are young, chances are your interactions with the health care system are minimal, and limited to yearly visits to the doctor, or occasional visits for the usual array of common illnesses and broken limbs and so on. As you age, and watch your loved ones and yourself fall into the jaws of the system, however, the view changes substantially.
The first view that something is wrong is your first visit to the emergency room. It is crowded with people who have no insurance, who have problems. Even if you have insurance the shear volume of people who are in the emergency room seeking care impairs the care you get, because there are triage delays while the staff tries to figure out who is deathly sick vs. who can wait. (If you really need an emergency room, my advice is "Call the Ambulance First".)
The second view of the problem is when the first person that you love develops signifcant medical problems without actually dying. Private insurers do not insure burning houses, nor are they forced to insure chronically ill people. The coverage your loved one needs will mystically end, either by being unaffordable, or in the worst cases unobtainable.
You may still at this point feel that you are covered. At one point, my husband felt very secure. He had his IBM insurance, my IBM insurance, VA coverage and Medicare. All are now in a struggle to deny coverage one way or another. Be aware, if you are sick, no one wants to sell you insurance. Even Medicare and the VA now use what is euphemistically called, "Demand Control." This is a method of making it harder to obtain care, so that people will avoid getting it, resulting in an imagined saving. The saving is imagined, because often treating a problem late is much more expensive in the long run.
And the way it is in the real world, is that if you don't die immediately of a heart attack, stroke, or accident, you will spend some time in your life sick. When you need it, your insurance will disappear.
This is one reason why the other countries are healthier, and why they were all right--people need Universal Health Care of some sort.
And Herbert is right-here we are with a treatment and coverage problem, and what is going on is the doctors and the lawyers are arguing about tort reform. If you look at the actual source of malpractice insurance rises, there seem to be three to me:
1. Losses due to bad investments by companies when the market crashed
2. Complete lack of regulation of the malpractice insurance industry
3. Too few insurers- (CT has only 2 malpractice insurers. Of course this has the same result as any monopolistic situation in a capitalist economy-runaway price increases.) An example is a local obstetrician with 18 years with no malpractice suits ever filed against him, paying $100,000 a year for his insurance. He is considering leaving the business.
Another issue of course is the fact that America is fat. This changes the age you get sick, but being thin will not keep you from dying. And the most expensive outcome, in terms of medical care, is most likely to get old and spend 5 or 10 years in a nursing home, which is quite typical for people who have cared for their health. After all, nothing could be cheaper to a health insurance system than someone who drops dead of a heart attack while relatively young, for example.
However, the life expectancy items, which are some of the health parameters in the article, are surely affected by the fatness of Americans.
So do weigh in with your opinions! I would prefer if like Bob Herbert, we did not try to blame the problem on one political party or the other, but focussed on the nature and extent of the problem, and how it can be fixed.