Some Health Care Issues
Health care is about to come front and center into American political life and the “AARP Magazine” has an article by Karen Cheney entitled “8 Myths About Health Care Reform.” I certainly don’t intend to plagiarize, but I thought that I would try to put the gist of some of the topics here, and use direct quotes (in quotation marks) from the article when necessary. I’ll also make some comments here and there; after all, this isn’t called “Pontificating Randy” for nuthin’. It is not my intention to cover all eight topics, and to be honest, some are vague, and will continue to be vague until actual proposals are set down in Congress, giving us more things to argue about…I mean discuss.
The article says that Americans will “spend ….an estimated $2.6 trillion in 2009,” on health care. That works out to “around $8300 per person.” While the article notes that “forty-five million Americans have no health insurance,” I’ve seen figures elsewhere that puts the figure at about 46 million, and though it may seem that I’m quibbling over a million, if YOU’RE one of those people, it matters!!! For those currently covered by some form of health insurance, the article makes it clear that it doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ll have that insurance in the future, as thousands of companies have dropped insurance for employees just “from 2000 to 2005.” Further, the article notes, those still covered, on average, have had their premiums increase “in recent years…nearly eight times faster than income.”
As to the rapidly increasing costs of medical care, Ms. Cheney cites Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, who attributes new medical technologies, like “MRIs and CT scans,” and their extensive use, plus the “fee-for-service payment system,” where “doctors are paid by how many patients they see…and treatments they prescribe, rather than by the quality of care they provide.” The general gist is, that this system has led to “over treatment.” This part also ties in with a couple of other parts of the article, in which the author says that having “access to lots of doctors… and treatments doesn’t mean you’re getting good care.” And that there’s been a tendency for doctors “to prescribe newer, more expensive medications for high blood pressure when studies show that older medications work just as well, if not better.” Further, the author notes that with so many uninsured, that these folks don’t have good access to preventive medical care. I think this is a really good point.
As to objections by some that health care reform will cost more money, presumably meaning the upfront costs, the author compares this to our changeover from older, less energy efficient appliances to newer, but more expensive ones. Yes, the newer models cost more to buy, but over time they save considerable amounts of money in energy costs, more than paying for themselves. She cites The Commonwealth Fund, a foundation that supports research on health care policy, which says that “health care reform will cost roughly $600 billion to implement, but by 2020 could save us approximately $3 trillion.” To be quite honest, I’m always skeptical about such numbers, since my crystal ball is a bit cloudy today, and because at this time, we don’t know what exact details will emerge from reform. Further, the article cites the Congressional Budget Office as saying that without reform, “our annual health cost will escalate to $13,000 per person by 2017.” (Remember, the 2009 cost is projected to be $8300 per person.)
The author also makes mention that some people will claim that we’ll have “socialized medicine.” YIKES!!! I can see it now…doctors and nurses wearing little red pins on their lapels and carrying around copies of “Das Kapital.” Doctors will pay dues, not to the AMA, but to the SDA, the “Socialist Doctors of America.” Doctors’ offices will be closed for Lenin’s and Mao’s birthdays. Wow! Are we in for it! As Archie Bunker might say, “I don’t want no pinko, Commie-loving doctor putting his cold stressoscope on my chest!” Folks, for those of us old enough to remember the Medicare debate, we’ve heard this nonsense before. Further, I’ve already seen television advertisements that claim, “The government will now come between patients and their doctor.” I’m for discussing all of this stuff, and I’d like to know what the hell that means? What if others were to say, “Insurance companies are coming between patients and their health care?” Or that, “Insurance companies are driving up health costs.” Remember, with insurance companies involved, they’ve got to make a profit on their role in the system.
This is just a little personal story, and I don’t want to say whether its typical or not, I don’t really know, but its worth telling. In 1999 I came down with pneumonia from what started as a sinus infection. I’d seen my personal physician on a Thursday or Friday, when it was still just a sinus infection, but my condition deteriorated over the weekend, and rather than go to the emergency room, I went to a local urgent care center (I drove there on my own). There, the doctor on duty took my temperature, listened to my breathing with his “cold stressosscope,” told me I had pneumonia, prescribed antibiotics, and gave me a bill for about a hundred and fifty bucks. I paid the bill myself, with the idea that I’d be reimbursed by the insurance company. After I returned to work, I filed the claim, and it was denied. The insurance company said that the urgent care center I used had not been approved by them and that I should have gone to the emergency room. (The insurance book I had listed the center, but the insurance company had changed their “approved list!”) So, this was the worst of all worlds. A person with a pretty serious condition going to a local treatment facility and then being told that he should have gone to an emergency room that cost several times as much. How’s that for “holding down costs,” especially when the introduction to the insurance book told people to take personal responsibility to help control costs. (I finally did get reimbursed after I used some language that I can’t use here. “@#$%^&@#$%!!!!”)
Word History:
Audit-This seems to go back to the Indo European root "awiz," which had a meaning of "perceive, make evident." The Latin offshoot was "audire," which meant "hear," with the notion of "hearing" something makes it "evident" to a person. From this came Latin "auditus," which meant "a hearing," from the participle form of "audire." Many centuries ago, accounts were examined and the results given orally, and thus were "heard." It seems that English acquired "audit" during the 1400s. The closely related "auditor" came to English via French "auditour," which meant "a hearer of accounts."
The article says that Americans will “spend ….an estimated $2.6 trillion in 2009,” on health care. That works out to “around $8300 per person.” While the article notes that “forty-five million Americans have no health insurance,” I’ve seen figures elsewhere that puts the figure at about 46 million, and though it may seem that I’m quibbling over a million, if YOU’RE one of those people, it matters!!! For those currently covered by some form of health insurance, the article makes it clear that it doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ll have that insurance in the future, as thousands of companies have dropped insurance for employees just “from 2000 to 2005.” Further, the article notes, those still covered, on average, have had their premiums increase “in recent years…nearly eight times faster than income.”
As to the rapidly increasing costs of medical care, Ms. Cheney cites Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, who attributes new medical technologies, like “MRIs and CT scans,” and their extensive use, plus the “fee-for-service payment system,” where “doctors are paid by how many patients they see…and treatments they prescribe, rather than by the quality of care they provide.” The general gist is, that this system has led to “over treatment.” This part also ties in with a couple of other parts of the article, in which the author says that having “access to lots of doctors… and treatments doesn’t mean you’re getting good care.” And that there’s been a tendency for doctors “to prescribe newer, more expensive medications for high blood pressure when studies show that older medications work just as well, if not better.” Further, the author notes that with so many uninsured, that these folks don’t have good access to preventive medical care. I think this is a really good point.
As to objections by some that health care reform will cost more money, presumably meaning the upfront costs, the author compares this to our changeover from older, less energy efficient appliances to newer, but more expensive ones. Yes, the newer models cost more to buy, but over time they save considerable amounts of money in energy costs, more than paying for themselves. She cites The Commonwealth Fund, a foundation that supports research on health care policy, which says that “health care reform will cost roughly $600 billion to implement, but by 2020 could save us approximately $3 trillion.” To be quite honest, I’m always skeptical about such numbers, since my crystal ball is a bit cloudy today, and because at this time, we don’t know what exact details will emerge from reform. Further, the article cites the Congressional Budget Office as saying that without reform, “our annual health cost will escalate to $13,000 per person by 2017.” (Remember, the 2009 cost is projected to be $8300 per person.)
The author also makes mention that some people will claim that we’ll have “socialized medicine.” YIKES!!! I can see it now…doctors and nurses wearing little red pins on their lapels and carrying around copies of “Das Kapital.” Doctors will pay dues, not to the AMA, but to the SDA, the “Socialist Doctors of America.” Doctors’ offices will be closed for Lenin’s and Mao’s birthdays. Wow! Are we in for it! As Archie Bunker might say, “I don’t want no pinko, Commie-loving doctor putting his cold stressoscope on my chest!” Folks, for those of us old enough to remember the Medicare debate, we’ve heard this nonsense before. Further, I’ve already seen television advertisements that claim, “The government will now come between patients and their doctor.” I’m for discussing all of this stuff, and I’d like to know what the hell that means? What if others were to say, “Insurance companies are coming between patients and their health care?” Or that, “Insurance companies are driving up health costs.” Remember, with insurance companies involved, they’ve got to make a profit on their role in the system.
This is just a little personal story, and I don’t want to say whether its typical or not, I don’t really know, but its worth telling. In 1999 I came down with pneumonia from what started as a sinus infection. I’d seen my personal physician on a Thursday or Friday, when it was still just a sinus infection, but my condition deteriorated over the weekend, and rather than go to the emergency room, I went to a local urgent care center (I drove there on my own). There, the doctor on duty took my temperature, listened to my breathing with his “cold stressosscope,” told me I had pneumonia, prescribed antibiotics, and gave me a bill for about a hundred and fifty bucks. I paid the bill myself, with the idea that I’d be reimbursed by the insurance company. After I returned to work, I filed the claim, and it was denied. The insurance company said that the urgent care center I used had not been approved by them and that I should have gone to the emergency room. (The insurance book I had listed the center, but the insurance company had changed their “approved list!”) So, this was the worst of all worlds. A person with a pretty serious condition going to a local treatment facility and then being told that he should have gone to an emergency room that cost several times as much. How’s that for “holding down costs,” especially when the introduction to the insurance book told people to take personal responsibility to help control costs. (I finally did get reimbursed after I used some language that I can’t use here. “@#$%^&@#$%!!!!”)
Word History:
Audit-This seems to go back to the Indo European root "awiz," which had a meaning of "perceive, make evident." The Latin offshoot was "audire," which meant "hear," with the notion of "hearing" something makes it "evident" to a person. From this came Latin "auditus," which meant "a hearing," from the participle form of "audire." Many centuries ago, accounts were examined and the results given orally, and thus were "heard." It seems that English acquired "audit" during the 1400s. The closely related "auditor" came to English via French "auditour," which meant "a hearer of accounts."
Labels: AARP, English, etymology, health care, Latin
posted by Randy at 3:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home