So, I was thinking what my objections are to this new healthcare plan. I think there are 3 things that have bothered me so much about it, and most of it, at least two of the things have very little to do with what was actually in the bill.
1. The way it was done. This is my biggest gripe, and if anything "scares" me about this thing, it is how it was done. Or, perhaps to clarify, it was congress seeming to completely ignore us, there constituents. It was deal making to buy votes, rather than representing the people. I feel like I was totally ignored, that any hesitations or reservations about the bill were ignored as well. It was almost like a "we know what is best, so stop bothering us with your opinions." I firmly believe, and I think most polling will back this up, that people did not want this bill to pass, whether you thought it went too far, or not far enough, most people tried to tell their "representatives" (and I use that term very, very loosely) to reconsider and vote against this bill. But, a few promises of money to states, and some heavy peer pressure helped congress to forget who they answer to, and it is not Nancy Pelosi.
2. The cost of the bill. Does healthcare need to be reformed? YES. I said it, it does, despite what people think, I oppose this bill, but also think reforms need to be made in healthcare. But to be this drastic about it at a time where the national debt has tripled in one year, more than Bush ever thought of spending, is disconcerting. I have heard arguments that if not now, when? When we have money. Basic budgeting guidelines for businesses and regular people dictate that if you cannot afford it, you do not buy it, no matter how much you want it. You make do. I am just asking that we be able to pay for it now, not print money to do so. We just can't spend money we don't have, and the government shouldn't either, because ultimately they are spending our money. One day the debt will have to be paid, and that will come through our kids and grandkids having to pay over 50% of their money in taxes to clean this up.
3. I think this bill just made things worse. I am already paying a lot in premiums, and my premiums are going to get higher. If I had a million bucks, fine, so be it. But I don't, and am scraping by as it is. Higher premiums is going to take more money that I don't have out of my pocket. Also, I don't want that much government intrusion in my life. Mandates? Forget it, I don't like the government telling me I have to buy something. Merely telling everyone they have to buy insurance does not solve the problem of unaffordable healthcare any more than telling homeless people to buy a house solves the homeless problem. All this was was a big shoutout to the insurance companies, so they wouldn't fight against the bill.
I think ultimately the problem we have with healthcare is not the doctors and nurses, it is not the hospitals or clinics. It is the insurance companies. They have become a middle man, inflating costs and burdening health workers with extra paper work. I think that if we were to get rid of insurance for routine and basic things, such as checkups, colds, small infections, a lot of money could be saved, and more people would have access to care. If you absolutely can't afford a $20 dr.s visit, then perhaps there could be some help there. But I personally think entirely waay too many people go to the doctors every time they get a sniffle, and that costs the insurance company a lot. Now, let's have insurance for serious illnesses, and expensive surgeries and procedures. I am ok with that, but I think the first step would be to stop covering routine checkups. Let's get some tort reform in there to lower the doctor's costs of having malpractice insurance and the habit of ordering every test known to man to avoid potential lawsuits. That would help lower a doctors overhead, while also cutting down on frivolous procedures. Deregulate some prescription drugs. There are plenty of harmless medications out there that are unnecessarily regulated. Remember claritin? used to be prescription only, but now OTC. Why was it prescription only? if you can self diagnose and buy it yourself now, why couldn't you then? Amoxicillian? can you die taking amoxicillin? Sure. But you could also with OTC Claritin. Some of us are big boys and know our limitations. Why do I need to waste a doctors time, and my money so I can have them prescribe antibiotic eye drops for pinkeye? I know what pinkeye looks like. Is the .4ML in the eye drop bottle really enough for someone to ingest and die? Perhaps it is habit forming? I think making a lot of these prescriptions OTC could help lower costs as well.
Well, lookee here, I just lowered the costs of healthcare without adding to the national debt or degrading the quality of care anyone receives
Peace- I'm Out!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Danny, first of all, it took me three times sitting down to read your post before I finally ended up having anough time at one sitting to read it. Geez, man.
Second, Amoxicillan is an antibiotic, and there's a huge problem with resistant bacteria cropping up due to the overuse of antibiotics. That's why they're regulated. It has nothing to do with their cost. If you have a prescription, you can buy Keflex for less than 20 bucks without insurance.
Anyway, I agree that there are things that would reduce health costs that weren't addressed in the bill (tort reform, prescription regulation)and I agree that it wasn't a perfect bill. I was getting really tired of legislators on both sides grabbing the headlines by throwing a tantrum every few days about one part or another.
My question is: which constituents should these guys be listening to? You? The guy that says something needs to be done, but less than this? Me? The guy that says something should be done, just more than this?
I think health insurance by its very nature is an ammoral industry. In order to be profitable, they have to not provide what they are supposed to provide. And I'm sorry, but as inefficient and annoying as the federal government can be, it couldn't possibly be more annoying than having to call Aetna EVERY MONTH to remind them that Medtronic diabetes supplies are an in-network expense. EVERY MONTH.
I'm stopping.
"My question is: which constituents should these guys be listening to? You? The guy that says something needs to be done, but less than this? Me? The guy that says something should be done, just more than this?" - Yes to all of the above. Our representatives can listen to both sides, and then decide what they are going to do. But what I saw was them listening more to party leaders rather than their constituents. This is the issue I have with it. When the Democrat Party or the Republican Party are more important to a representative than his or her constituents, there is a problem.
To your second point- antibiotics- I absolutely agree they are overused, but apparently having them be a controlled substance has done nothing to stop the overuse. So why not make them OTC- yes they may only cost $20 for the actual medication, but factor in cost of seeing doctor, and the cost could be (depending on the doctor) over $100, more if you factor in time off work or having to take all four kids in.
Your last point- I absolutely agree insurance companies are the problem. They have become a middle man that has hyperinflated the cost of actual health care. We've all seen and heard insurance companies being charged $20 for two aspirin. Or telling doctors they cannot prescribe a certain drug that would clear up Dad's infection so he could move on in his cancer treatments. So we are agreed that the health insurance is the big problem. But for me, that doesn't mean we give everyone gov't run insurance. I'll stop too.
Umm...so you're saying that you, and people that are less educated than you, should be allowed diagnose themselves for diseases that even doctors get wrong sometimes, and prescribe themselves antibiotics? Hmm...
I think a more realistic way to improve health and control costs is to allow poor people to go to those $100 visits at a primary care office, obtain decent preventative care, and avoid getting so sick that they end up being admitted to the hospital costing hundred of thousands of dollars.
But selling dangerous pharmaseuticals like M&Ms might work too.
Ummm- yeah, self diagnosis happens all the time. That is why we have Walgreen's. OTC medication would not exist unless the medical community was comfortable with a certain amount of self diagnosis. I am not suggesting ALL prescription drugs be deregulated, nor am I suggesting people self diagnose and attempt to treat heart disease, or pnuemonia, or cancer, or any number of diseases. I am suggesting weak antibiotics and medications that have a low potential for abuse and are relatively mild such as penicillin, or amoxicillin, or ofloxacin (pinkeye antibiotics)be available OTC. If we can self diagnose allergies (claritin)and, acid reflux (zantac),all medications that ten years ago were prescription only, then why can I not self diagnose pinkeye? Or an ear infection?
The reason we have strong antibiotics is because the weak antibiotics are working less and less.
I'm sure, Danny, as an accountant, you're more than capable of telling the difference between pink-eye and a corneal abrasion, or deciding whether or not an ear infection can be treated with antibiotics or tubes, and I'm sure no one would ever misuse any of those prescriptions (Just like no one ever uses too much aspirin and winds up with ulcers, or too much tylenol and winds up with liver failure). Good idea. Let's do it. You pick the drugs. And while you're at it, go pick your heiney.
Ok, let's just pull all the OTC drugs off the shelf, because they all have the potential for misuse. If I get a headache,i should go see a doctor because it could be neurological, perhaps a brain tumor. Or if my kids have a runny nose and a fever I should rush them to the doctor before I give them motrin and dimatapp to make sure they don't have SARS. Let's eliminate common sense for the 85% of Americans that are capable of tying their own shoes, just so the dum dum 15% don't get an ulcer from taking too much aspirin.
I guess the fundamental philosophical difference here is I think people should be responsible for themselves. It is impossible to protect people from themselves, as much as we would like to try. And you can pick your own heiney, thank you very much.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't have free will or the right to treat their kids when they get sick. If we kept people from doing anything that ever harmed themselves or their family members, most of the people in our ward would be in jail for stuffing their faces with too many cheeseburgers.
I'm saying that the FDA has some very good reasons for making sure that drugs don't get used by anyone who wants them. You've heard all those ridiculous lists of side-effects on the drug commercials? Well, those are all things that can happen to you when you take those medications and why an individuals reactions to the medication needs to be monitored by someone who is (theoretically) capable of making the right decision.
You seem to passionately want optic antibiotics. Well, the guy who's kid has sickle-cell anemia really wants vicodin without a prescription. I want insulin. Lady with the hyper kid wants ritalin. Which drugs are safe? Which people are smart enough to be trusted?
By the way, I started my you-inspired blog.
http://jonsshallowthoughts.blogspot.com/
Gee whiz, Dan, you just fell victim to the oldest liberal trick in the book... avoiding discussion of the main point by hijacking a supporting argument. Keep these idiots on point. They never answered your point that if the insurance company is the problem then why did we just guarantee their existence?
Post a Comment