So, everyone is talking about it (and some are SCREAMING about it)
The “it”, of course, is health care-and as emotions rise, so too does the rhetoric on both sides (are there only two?)
Everyone has a solution-and I am no different.
First, I should disclose that my knowledge of the health care industry is on a par with my knowledge of, say, MOLECULAR PHYSICS. Anyone not intimately involved with the health insurance business or hospital administration (about 99% of the U.S. population) that tells you THEY know what they are talking about is either:
a) lying
b) crazy
c) delusional
d) all of the above
Now that we have that established, it seems to me that the health care problem is one of simple math—albeit on a massive scale. First of all, we are ALL paying for the uninsured via sky high costs, passed along to us by an insurance industry all too willing to look the other way as health care providers give us a financial enema.
One of my employees needed to call an ambulance after having chest pains. The emergency team arrived, worked on him outside of One City Center-and then transported him to the hospital for tests. He spent the night in the hospital.
The bill? Almost $10,000! Yes, TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS! $1,300 of which was the less-than-one-mile trip via ambulance.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Call me a dummy, but can we please create a price range for goods and services-WITH PLENTY OF PROFIT built in (to create incentive) without GOUGING?
I applaud the President’s efforts-if only to bring to the forefront the horrid mess that our health care system is. Opponents tossing out scare tactic language like “socialized medicine” are having their intended effect-frightening people into a position of defending a status quo that even they don’t like at all-and may soon not be able to pay for.
When the CEO of a health insurance company has his bonus based on denial of claims, he is essentially robbing the system of premium dollars meant to pay for health care-NOT for padding the profits of the companies who are holding all of the cards.
Let’s try this:
1) Create a value (cost) for each and every medical procedure/test/material expended in the administration of health care. Its value must incorporate the true cost of manufacture or amortization of medical equipment or value of services based on REASONABLE expectations in a free-market economy where competition MIGHT exist (which it doesn’t now-at least not at the consumer level)
2) Multiply these items/procedures/tests/services values by the number of them performed in the United States in a one year period.
3) Take this number and increase it by 50%-the expected reasonable increase in medical demand if all Americans were insured (and were thus not inhibited about seeking health care as cost would not be an issue)
4) The figure you are left with is the TRUE COST OF HEALTH CARE FOR ONE YEAR FOR ALL AMERICANS. If a panel of experts feel that a 50% increase in demand/costs are either aggressive or conservative, let them adjust the figure upward or downward accordingly.
5) Work up an insurance premium structure that is inclusive for ALL AMERICANS given the TOTAL COST of HEALTH CARE in #4 above. This premium structure should allow for a healthy margin for risk-taking insurance companies and should also include a sliding scale for cost of living adjustments (COLA). Increases should be tied to inflation or a true increase in the cost of manufacturing an item or delivering a procedure. The problem is NOT the total cost of health care. It is the disproportionate distribution of these costs. They are being borne by insured consumers-subsidizing those who are not using (and this is key) a COST STRUCTURE which is a MYSTERY. Why does a bed pan made of plastic cost $35? Its intrinsic cost is less than a dollar-yet the price can be anything-because we have no control.
6) Discounts for non-smokers, healthy lifestyles, etc could be incorporated into the system as incentive for people to save on health care costs by adopting healthy lifestyles. Thus, premiums could be more affordable if we make changes in our habits that promote health. Our current system chases the horse after it has already left the barn. How about a system that rewards HEALTH?
Who loses in this scenario?
Well, insurance companies make less in profit. Medical facilities like hospitals also earn less, but their costs are covered. Fraud is prohibitively retarded by exposing the complete chain of costs from supplier to consumer. So far, I see no one shedding a tear.
People choose their doctor, their procedures, their hospital. Insurance companies compete for business based on their efficiencies, much like car insurance. People are REQUIRED to carry auto insurance, but the government doesn’t dictate the company you use or the service bonuses you may elect to. All that is “dictated” is the MINIMUM coverage (which for health care should include catastrophic)-just as auto liability minimums have had a positive effect for drivers injured by previously uninsured motorists.
100% coverage.
100% accountability.
100% choice for consumers.
Am I missing anything here?
Don’t tell me that government shouldn’t “interfere” with the free market system.
Rubbish.
If our recent economic near melt-down taught us anything, it is this:
Capitalism without regulation is simply not an option. The same profit motives that created “derivatives” and shaky mortgages not backed by equity demonstrate that an industry left to itself will serve its own self interest-and if it fails, the U.S. Government will bail it out. The Securities and Exchange Commission exists to protect investors. The FDA exists to protect consumers from companies that would bring their products to market without sufficient safety testing. The FAA exists to serve travelers and institute minimum safety requirements. There would not have been a NEED for an Environmental Protection Agency if “free market capitalists” factored in social responsibility. The fact is that they didn’t. They polluted the air and water. Financial institutions polluted our economic system. And the health care industry has corrupted our access to affordable, quality health care.
Just as the SEC will impose new safeguards to prevent a recurrence of predatory lending (with the enthusiastic support of Americans everywhere), Uncle Sam will eventually have to reign in the companies who control access and cost for health care.
Let the debate begin! The ONLY thing I am opposed to is the RUSH of Congress to get SOMETHING passed. A bad bill may be worse than none at all. And no one knows how better to screw things up than lawmakers, working on emotions and political pressures rather than common sense.
Mid-term elections will affect the process-and the quality of whatever emerges from Congress, which is sad. I am hopeful, however, that progress will be made. There is simply too much at stake.
No videos today…this thing was long enough. If you’d like my blog in your box, let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Here’s to your health!
No comments:
Post a Comment