*Flash news update, July 22,2009*
Back in March, I suggested a Health Care Plan that wouldn't bankrupt our country, could be supported by both parties, and would be a path towards ending some of the biggest problems facing the uninsured. To my suprise, Rush Limbaugh suggested the exact same idea on his show today, July 22, 2009.
To quote Rush Limbaugh himself from his "Stack of Stuff",
"By the way, I mentioned earlier that what ought to be really insured -- talking about health insurance here -- is catastrophic care. If we're going to have a health care program and we're going to have reform, let's just do that and have people in the free market buy whatever other insurance policies they want for the day-to-day trip to the doctor, tonsillitis, whatever it is. But catastrophic stuff that could wipe you out. "Well, let's have insurance." Okay, let's do that."
Me and Rush on the same page. HMMM, maybe I am leaning too far right. H.C.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Catastrophic insurances sounds all fluffy & nice, but in a medical industry that is set-up for preventative medicine, it's essentially letting certain peoples acquire advanced stages of illnesses when those very illnesses could have been prevented, or @ the very least treated early, in the first place. It also fails to address the speed-in-treatment required for certain illnesses that many uninsured/medicaid patients currently aren't given the option for.
-n
Hey Nic,
Actually it doesn't sound "all fluffy and nice." It sounds like a compromise between nothing (Republicans) and covering abortions and illegals (Democrats). I understand what your saying and I think we could handle some of that by state-run and federally subsidized clinics. That way we could have the option, in tough times, of pulling back a little with the state funding without destroying the current medicaid/medicare systems. Remember, you could still supplement your coverage by buying additional coverage. I'm deeply afraid this is going to be a repeat of Hillary's mistake of wanting more than the public (or even some blue dog Dems) were willing to give. If we start from catastrophic, at least we'll be assured of getting something that we can add onto later. The path we're on now is going to lead to less support and nothing in the end. The Reps are already using the "divide and conquer" very effectively
But the point is that catastrophic coverage is a horrible place to start. This isn't just my opinion, but that of nearly the entire health-care insurance industry as a whole, which in a large part is why preventative medicine has become the norm in this country. The logic is that by paying the small costs of preventative care for a large population, not only will it be cheaper than paying for catastrophic treatment for a few, but many of those catastrophic illnesses will be either outright prevented, or detected early (& thus be even cheaper to treat). The whole abortion/illegals/etc. aspects of this shouldn't even be an issue @ this point. While I've stated previously that I had no idea where to start when it came to the mess of health-care reform, I'm going on record now stating that we start here. Give people coverage for the basics (office visits, medications, treatments, etc.) now, & debate the BS (any elective procedures, including abortion) later. As a nation, even w/ the bureaucracy, we've accomplished much greater things.
I can't help but wonder if we stripped our Senators & Representatives of their tax-payer supported health-plan if this ball would get rolling a bit faster?
-n
I'm not certain that I was entirely clear on a point, so allow me to clarify.
If two populations of equal size, one covered by preventative care, the other only catastrophic, the health-care cost of the preventative care population will always be lower, & additionally will always result in a lower total of "catastrophic" incidences.
Take Medicaid for example, which allows for one mammogram screening every 12 months, one colonoscopy every 24 months, and additional screenings for (insert medical ailment here) every whenever. Imagine that Medicaid suddenly quit covering these screenings, saving the government roughly ~$100/mammogram & ~$700/colonoscopy.
Now, the exact price of Cancer treatment varies depending on a variety of factors, but it is always substantially more than ~$700, sometimes more than 10-fold, depending. Couple this w/ the fact that "Study results indicated that not having had a screening mammogram for one to three years prior to diagnosis was associated with 52 percent of late-stage breast cancer cases & as many as 92 percent of late-stage breast cancer cases in the United States could be diagnosed and treated earlier", it's a no-brainer (& we're only talking boobies @ this point & disregarding every other cancer or "catastrophic" illness).
Disregarding the humanitarian aspect of this issue (sigh) & considering statistics only, preventative is always cheaper, & always leads to less deaths, & therefore should be the starting point.
-n
Hey Nic,
O.K. I get your point. I'm sure there are examples of procedures like mammograms that are indeed, as you correctly state, worth the investment. If they are worthy and can demonstrate the savings via some uninvested third party studies (I'm a little worried about siting insurance company studies, since they obviously have a vested interest)then I would be 100% behind adding that to the program. But, you see, this is exactly as it should go. You get the coverage, then the arguments begin as to how to improve the system and make it less costly. I know it sounds strange but people view things on a very simplistic level. People who may not support full coverage (like Rush's dittoheads) may support catastrophic even if it doesn't really make sense to me or you. They would feel like they were doing something in small phases. Think about it, catastrophic coverage costs less to buy from a private insurer than full coverage, Major Medical at the University is about 2/3 the cost. Most people know that and equate it with being cheaper no matter the long term results. I don't know how successful we could be at getting issues like abortion or illegals out of the equation. I would agree with you that I would like to see it dealt with later but I highly doubt it will happen. If we don't find a way to get a far pared down version or get a grass roots movement behind someone else's idea I fear we're going to experience Deja vu of the last time around. I swear I'm starting to feel like this is a big dog-and-pony show with both sides in on it. I think the difference between how me and you view this issue is that I'm trying to think of a way to get something, anything, to build on, and your thinking of what would be the best health care at the best long term cost. I'm worried your approach will be a harder sell to simple minds.
Post a Comment