Skip to main content

Health Care - The Manic Approach

.
Are you up to your eyeballs with opinions on health care? I certainly am. It's time to make some decisions and get this matter established on a realistic road. The 2,000 page monstrosity cobbled by Democrats and Republicans is complicated beyond the point of usefulness. There have been too many political fingers in the pie. Personally, I don't think people like Barney Frank, Thomas Dodd, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are capable of writing health related legislation, or even understanding our national health care problems. It is inconceivable to me that Barbara Boxer, Lorretta Sanchez, and John Murtha can cast a vote that decides on a vast new health care system. In addition to my concern over the  competancy and motivations of these politically biased people, I keep returning to the fundamental question; is our federal government capable of managing such a huge and critical part of our lives?

The alternative isn't all that compelling either. The system is now at least partially controlled by government regulation (or lack of regulation) of the pharmaceutical industry and the medical insurance industry. These are two of the most powerful lobbying groups that operate in Washington. Their influence has become so large as to be staggering. They control a significant number of votes in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. These two groups have had a long time to get it right, and they have, for the most part, failed. It is important to understand exactly what they have failed to do.

The insurance industry has not provided special arrangements for those who are mentally or physically handicapped, nor has it provided for people that have "pre-existing conditions". The majority of Americans look to our national government to assist in these circumstances.

The insurance industry has been subjected to legal decisions favoring ridiculously high penalties in malpractice lawsuits.  The majority of Americans look to our national government to protect Doctors, Hospitals, and other health care workers from extravagent penalties.

The insurance industry has not found a way to protect hospitals from the misuse of emergency care by indigent applicants. Uninsured, homeless, and very poor people use emergency rooms at hospitals as if they were a Doctor's office. The hospital must absorb most or all of the costs of treatment.  Those that can not do so and remain fiscally sound - fail. When they close their doors their regular patients and the entire community loses a primary source of medical care.

The pharmaceutical industry may be the worlds largest confidence game. They are able to finance years of productive and unproductive research by pricing their saleable products at hundreds, or even thousands of times the cost of making a particular product. No one really knows or controls the relationship of production costs to research costs to selling price - but the pharmaceutical companies are rarely unprofitable. Of course that is a good thing. Without profit a company fails. The question seems to surround just how much profit is reasonable. Free market competition doesn't work very well in this industry. 

Pharmaceutical products are typically "blind" items. There is no way a consumer or competitor can tell if the price is too low or too high. The typical result of this problem is that the pricing is established too high, the consumer is abused, and the drug producer can pay employees exorbidant salaries and still make a terrific profit. Most Americans think our government should find a way to better control the pharmaceutical industry and to bring it's profitability into line with other industries.

The point is made, is it not?  Most Americans expect our government to play a larger role in the health care industry. At the same time they are reluctant to have partisan politicians manage health care. In my judgement, we are trying to find some compromise that will improve the availability of health care, insure those who are now uninsurable, and reduce the overall costs of health care. 

I have read only several individual pages of the current health care legislation being proposed. I find it to be contradictory and overly complex.  It does not appear to  satisfy any of the above concerns - or if it does they are well hidden in mumbo jumbo verbiage. Everything imaginable, from hangnails to headaches,  has been thrown into this bill with the government deciding the level of treatment rather than insurance companies and Doctors. This is not good legislation. Almost no one including the politicians who must vote yea or nay, have read it or understand it's provisions.

End

Comments

Rain said…
Well keep in mind that the same arguments were used against Medicare and Social Security without which not too many seniors would have much of a life in their 'golden' years. Until they added in a drug provision under Bush, Medicare was doing pretty well in covering its costs (it's overhead runs 5 or 6%) and might have even then if they had kept the power to bargain for lower prices on those drugs like the VA does. As it stands, it just gave a lot of money to pharmaceuticals and threatens all of Medicare if costs aren't brought down. Why they didn't allow bargaining is beyond me as insurance companies do it all the time. The price of some drugs are not the same for what your insurance company pays vs. what you would have to pay if you bought it yourself.

To me, the whole system is so corrupt, that I don't have a lot of faith in it being fixed either.

Popular posts from this blog

Intellectual / Incompetent / Liberal

We all know that there are serious problems with ou American political system. The federal government and national media have been telling us that we continue to lead the world in just about everything. Unfortunately, we do not. Measuring our status against other nations is difficult as it entails comparison of different attributes and characteristics. Comparisons are, at best, crude.  Surely, if we look, it's clear that America is no longer dominant among the world's communities. 


For decades following the 1929 economic depression, America has enriched foreign industries at the expense of our own. We have subsidized foreign military powers while allowing the depletion of our own. We've defended other nations borders while, at the same time, not defended our own. We've spent trillions of dollars to subsidize unworthy governments, and let our own infrastructure to fall into disrepair. 

The use of our economic power as a diplomatic tool may have been the correct thing to d…

Cruel and Thoughtless . . .

A disheartening situation has hit our family. A cousin, one that we don't know very well, has reached 93 years of age. Most of the Chapman family made it to the mid 80's, but Mary Lou Chapman has managed a few years more. And, she's not gone yet. Mary was unmarried her entire life. She grew up in a good home, was well educated, has always hd a good job, and has enjoyed pretty good health - until just a few years ago. While she is still very much alive, I sometimes speak in the past tense as if she had already died. Mary is either confused or in her own little world now. She began losing some of her sparkle a few years ago. At first it was mild memory loss, and then mild hearing loss, and then drifting in her speech as she lost track of what she wanted to say. Her Doctor said it was a mild dementia coming on with old age, and nothing to worry about yet. A few month's passed by before she began to have problems driving herself to the market and appointments and so forth,…

Mark Turner - Another Look

MARK TURNER.  I'm an interested ex-corporate exec., now retired, and have little to contribute to this. Perhaps you can help? At first I thought Mark's story was so complicated it couldn't be true. I discovered later that  Mark's business may indeed have  generated as much money as he said it did. His story is long and complicated, but regardless of his guilt or innocence, there is definitely  something wrong with the legal process he encountered. Maggie Thornton says his business dealings were honest. I'm not thoroughly convinced, but she may be right.  There is no question that he was improperly sentenced in one court, and deserves an appeal process in another. 


I have received several comments from a blogger named "Anonymous". He (or she) has chosen to remain unknown but clearly has an inside track to information about Mark's problems. I have removed my original speculations from this blog and regret there were so many errors. Sorry folks, my fault…