Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Atleast I wasn't the only one...
Exposing your thoughts, feelings, and opinions to the world for scrutiny can prove to be difficult, if not, outright painful. One such occasion was the assertion that the current Health care Reform Bill is basically a Ponzi scheme. The angry replies bombarded my email after this blog post.
Steve Rosenbaum illustrates in a Huffinton Post article that we are already in a state of "pay it forward" in hopes that our health care will be there when we need it. Meanwhile, the art of denying claims and excluding high risk patients has infiltrated every insurance company and in my opinion, the leading offender: Medicare.
So what's the solution?
A bigger, broader, unconstitutional mandate to require health insurance in a massive bill that will not take effect for 3 years or more.
Rosenbaum presents these solutions:
Doctors Lead Care: Rosenbaum states "doctors seem to be the ones who have the least say in the system. They've got huge risks in insurance claims and their own legal exposure. At the same time, they appear to have less and less of a voice in decisions about how they treat their patients and how they can provide proper care."
Unfortunately it's important to note that the AMA and other organizations protect their own. The old 80/20 rule applies here: most of the abusers of the system and malpractice claims are a minority of repeat offenders.
I agree the physician needs to have more control of care without regard to "what is covered" or having to run unnecessary tests to "cover their behind"
Health Care Court: Rosenbaum suggests creating "a court that can mediate and rule on conflicts between patients and insurance companies"
Rosenbaum presents an argument laced with good intentions but isn't true TORT reform. "Medical Necessity" has been highjacked by Medicare's cost control panels and the recent Mammogram treatment program illustrates how the government will manuever to cut benefits.
Faith in the "record of precedent" within the legal system is admitting that there's a slippery slope of judgments and lawsuits. We'd be moving the problem through more red tape even though the premise sounds good at first.
Choices and Options: "While people may be against the 'public' option that sounds like health care provided by the post office or DMV, the reality is that private options are narrowing, not expanding."
Yes. Rosenbaum's assertion is accurate, but this reform bill will escalate the problem NOT fix it. The caps on premiums, pre-existing coverage requirements and other regulation will spell the death of many small carriers.
Rosenbaum scratches at the surface: catastrophic health care -- but we need to couple this focus with HSA (Health Spending Accounts) and enable more competition to allow interstate commerce to lower prices.
Whether arguing that the current plan is a "pay-it-forward" system or that the current bill is a large scale Ponzi scheme, one thing is clear: the system needs major changes.
As stated previously, this just isn't the bill to fix the problems. The bills in the Senate and the House are just precursors to a one-payer government controlled health care plan.