The government Medicare system reimburses hospitals to cover the actual cost of services the Hospital provides. However, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, hospitals receive anywhere from 93.1-94.1 cents for every dollar spent treating Medicare patients. This is because the government’s actual cost of providing services doesn’t include costs for investing in advanced medical technologies. Hospitals use profits from the private sector to fill this gap. If a public option exists and hospitals continue to invest in cutting-edge medicine and technology, its reasonable to conclude that another gap will develop in the hospitals budgets.
Which technology worked and which didn’t would be the government’s decision. Either way, the government would effectively refuse to invest in new technologies that haven’t proven to be more effective. But what if those seemingly worthless investments funded one that actually worked?
Here’s the big question: If you were dying of cancer, and there was a drug or procedure available but the government said there was a high likelihood that it would not work, therefore refusing to pay for its actual cost, would you want it anyway?
Additionally, in the public option, would you support a provision that permitted risky investment in technology meant to cure life-threatening illnesses? The provision would effectively be asking the government to continue subsidizing innovation in medicine, procedures, and technology that could save lives. In this way, innovation would be focused on curing life-threatening illnesses.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The 'Honest' Question
Would it be possible for a public option to make the private sector ‘honest,’ or would a public option simply cause the private sector to go bankrupt? The very purpose of the public option is to force lower prices by interjecting a leaner, cleaner, operating machine that gives the insurance tycoons a run for their money.
The ‘honesty’ goal is causing some confusion. The public option will offer medical insurance at a lower price, therefore drawing in Americans who currently can’t afford medical insurance. Only those individuals without affordable employer-provided insurance and small businesses that can’t afford their own reasonably priced plans would qualify for the public plan. That means that most insurance company customers, who are affording their plans, would not be eligible for the public option. So how will the public option force the private sector to lower prices?
At the same time, new legislation will prevent insurance companies from denying customers with preexisting conditions. This is good news for the insurance companies because they will get more customers. If most people won’t turn to the public option, and health care reform increases business for private insurance companies, then how would a public option force the private sector to be ‘honest?’
I answer may lie in contradicting data. Even though many people will not be eligible for the public option, it is estimated that over 100 million Americans may leave private plans for government health care. In fact, the purpose of the public option itself implies that the government is betting many people will turn to government health care thereby forcing private companies to lower prices or file bankruptcy.
The eligibility requirements for the public option would serve as the governments leash on the private sector. The harder the government makes it to be eligible for the public option, the less competition threatens the private sector. So the next question is this: what are the public option eligibility requirements that will make insurance companies ‘honest’ without forcing them into bankruptcy?
The ‘honesty’ goal is causing some confusion. The public option will offer medical insurance at a lower price, therefore drawing in Americans who currently can’t afford medical insurance. Only those individuals without affordable employer-provided insurance and small businesses that can’t afford their own reasonably priced plans would qualify for the public plan. That means that most insurance company customers, who are affording their plans, would not be eligible for the public option. So how will the public option force the private sector to lower prices?
At the same time, new legislation will prevent insurance companies from denying customers with preexisting conditions. This is good news for the insurance companies because they will get more customers. If most people won’t turn to the public option, and health care reform increases business for private insurance companies, then how would a public option force the private sector to be ‘honest?’
I answer may lie in contradicting data. Even though many people will not be eligible for the public option, it is estimated that over 100 million Americans may leave private plans for government health care. In fact, the purpose of the public option itself implies that the government is betting many people will turn to government health care thereby forcing private companies to lower prices or file bankruptcy.
The eligibility requirements for the public option would serve as the governments leash on the private sector. The harder the government makes it to be eligible for the public option, the less competition threatens the private sector. So the next question is this: what are the public option eligibility requirements that will make insurance companies ‘honest’ without forcing them into bankruptcy?
Health care reform and deaf ears
Ideas about health care reform have been tossed around for some time now. After going from a year without insurance to paying more than $1200 for a shoddy plan through school, in addition to exorbitant tuition, a public option seemed too good to be true. And so it was. Today folks are saying that the public option is dead. If it is really off the table, it’s a damn shame.
The problems with the current health care system are numerous and complicated. Costs of health care are astronomical, even for the most basic procedure. Millions of people- young and old- are uninsured; and those who are lucky enough to have insurance, often find themselves stuck with hefty bills as well. While people find themselves taking on insurmountable debt just to stay alive, insurance company shareholders and executives are becoming richer and richer. Allowing the free market to dictate a price on health does not work for many reasons. But that’s not what this post is about.
For most people, a good amount of time and research are needed to grasp the many issues at stake in the health care debates. It is even harder to understand the proposed solutions as so many future predictions are involved. Almost immediately after Obama proposed a public option for health care, people were screeching about the irreversible harms it would lead to and every other cataclysmic ending that would ensue. This boggles my mind. How is it that these people understood so quickly 1) what Obama’s public option entailed 2) how it would affect the current healthcare system and 3) the costs and benefits involved.
The importance of free speech can not be overstated. It is wonderful to see the number of Americans who came to the town hall debates to voice their own concerns about health care reform. Yet I can’t help but feel slightly nauseous when I watch the protesters and their ilk piously chant the baseless talking points created by the insurance lobbies and conservative celebrities such as Palin and O’Reilly. Willful ignorance to promote one’s own agenda is inexcusable and only slows the process of reaching the best solution.
There is nothing more frustrating than trying to reason with the unreasonable. Whether with an irrational lover, a manipulative boss, or a roommate who lives in his own world, the experience is uniformly disheartening. No matter how clear and coherent the explanation, the unreasonable will come up with anything to avoid conceding another’s victory and their own loss.
How do we reach these people when they chronically misconstrue arguments, compare the incomparable, and jump to extreme conclusions instead of giving each proposal open-minded consideration?
When it comes to passing much needed health care reform, how can people be convinced if they won’t even turn off Fox news or Rush Limbaugh long enough to listen?
.
The problems with the current health care system are numerous and complicated. Costs of health care are astronomical, even for the most basic procedure. Millions of people- young and old- are uninsured; and those who are lucky enough to have insurance, often find themselves stuck with hefty bills as well. While people find themselves taking on insurmountable debt just to stay alive, insurance company shareholders and executives are becoming richer and richer. Allowing the free market to dictate a price on health does not work for many reasons. But that’s not what this post is about.
For most people, a good amount of time and research are needed to grasp the many issues at stake in the health care debates. It is even harder to understand the proposed solutions as so many future predictions are involved. Almost immediately after Obama proposed a public option for health care, people were screeching about the irreversible harms it would lead to and every other cataclysmic ending that would ensue. This boggles my mind. How is it that these people understood so quickly 1) what Obama’s public option entailed 2) how it would affect the current healthcare system and 3) the costs and benefits involved.
The importance of free speech can not be overstated. It is wonderful to see the number of Americans who came to the town hall debates to voice their own concerns about health care reform. Yet I can’t help but feel slightly nauseous when I watch the protesters and their ilk piously chant the baseless talking points created by the insurance lobbies and conservative celebrities such as Palin and O’Reilly. Willful ignorance to promote one’s own agenda is inexcusable and only slows the process of reaching the best solution.
There is nothing more frustrating than trying to reason with the unreasonable. Whether with an irrational lover, a manipulative boss, or a roommate who lives in his own world, the experience is uniformly disheartening. No matter how clear and coherent the explanation, the unreasonable will come up with anything to avoid conceding another’s victory and their own loss.
How do we reach these people when they chronically misconstrue arguments, compare the incomparable, and jump to extreme conclusions instead of giving each proposal open-minded consideration?
When it comes to passing much needed health care reform, how can people be convinced if they won’t even turn off Fox news or Rush Limbaugh long enough to listen?
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)