Thursday, August 06, 2009

WRONG, BUT FOR ALL THE RIGHT REASONS

From an editorial in our local newspaper:

Denise Oppenhagen, the editorialist, “supports universal health care,” believes that such will lead to “healthier communities,” argues there needs to be “a buy in of all parties,” and that it should be “fair.” Sounds reasonable enough. Then there’s this:


Right now, insurance companies charge a set price for everyone that gets insured. That means it costs the same for a company to insure the young, healthy, health-conscious worker as it does the older, sedentary, smoking worker .... [T]he insurance company is doing is having the healthy person pay for the unhealthy one [which isn’t fair].

Umm ... does Ms. Oppenhagen realize that that is exactly the purpose of insurance – to spread the risk? Otherwise it isn’t insurance; it’s prepaid medical care. Prepaid medical care was the rationale for health maintenance organizations (HMO’s); which have mostly crashed and burned.


[And then there’s] Canada [which] does have universal health care. Do I want to go the Canadian route? Not a chance. While it’s great that everyone gets coverage, there is a long wait to get seen for the most routine of matters. [T]alk of universal health care goes hand in hand with talk of rationing .... I cringe at the idea of rationing health care. [I]s it fair that someone with the financial resources to pay for medical services on their own gets treated for a disease that someone without the resources would have to do without?

“Long waits” are a form of rationing. Is it fair to deny medical care solely because someone can afford to pay? And is it fair to force Ms. Oppenhagen to pay for someone else’s care (e.g., via taxation) and thus deny herself care that she could otherwise have afforded?


All the talk of expanded coverage for health care ignores one critical aspect: personal responsibility.

Well, something I can almost agree with – but doesn’t personal responsibility include the responsibility for paying for one’s own health care?


There is no reward system in place for being healthy. Insurance companies are starting to acknowledge personal responsibility in that some are paying for gym memberships or weight loss services for the overweight.

So the solution for personal responsibility is coercion (by the government) or bribery (by the insurance companies)?

So what does Ms. Oppenhagen recommend?


First, reward general practice physicians. That would create a greater supply of doctors providing basic care.

But if we’re all personally responsible and healthy, doesn’t that obviate the need for general practice physicians?


Then, insure everyone at a basic rate. Include in that rate the cost of an annual physical and routine screenings for blood pressure, cancer and diabetes — the things that a perfectly healthy person would need to stay healthy.

But the cost of an annual physical and routine screenings is peanuts in the grand scheme of health care. And mostly unnecessary.


Reimburse the doctor at a rate that allows them to spend time with their patient. That should make premiums low enough for everyone.

Huh? Paying doctors more lowers premiums? Not in any economic system I’m familiar with.


Then add a surcharge, if you will, for unhealthy habits — smoking, alcohol abuse, obesity, etc. This way the people who will statistically use more services are paying their fair share.

And I’m going to go to my doctor and say I’m a fat, smoking, drunk; I want to pay more? Again, Ms. Oppenhagen misses the difference between insurance and prepaid medical care.


And if someone is overweight, for example, the insurance company can offer incentives if the person agrees to engage in healthier activities, such as paying for a dietician to follow an eating plan.

See above; coercion and bribery.


This column has nowhere near enough space to discuss all the little nuances that would be involved. It is also one that the government needs to spend time on doing right, not just doing for the sake of doing.

At least the last sentence is right.

Look, it’s health insurance, for chrissake. Insurance. You pay a fee in order to reduce the risk of something catastrophic happening and pray the money paid is wasted. Routine stuff you pay out of pocket.

That’s the responsible approach - and it doesn't involve the government.

No comments:

Post a Comment