Text 35707, 88 rader
Skriven 2009-09-06 05:22:54 av Bob Ackley (1:300/3)
  Kommentar till text 35646 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Universal health insurance
==================================
Replying to a message of Robert Bashe to john guillory:

 RB> john guillory wrote to Robert Bashe on Thursday September 03 2009 at
 RB> 20:04:

 jg>> Our local "Charity Hospital" recently started a few policy changes
 jg>> that shafted me so bad, I refuse to go back...

 RB> I haven't quoted the long story, but agree with you that this kind of
 RB> situation is scandalous. It's precisely what a national health care
 RB> policy should and must - if it deserves the name - quash.

 RB> The idea of a hospital or doctor simply refusing to honor health
 RB> insurance is preposterous

Actually it isn't.  In this country insurors contract with providers for
services.
Most insurance plans include a list of participating physicians and hospitals,
and they also make provisions for care if someone happens to be outside their
normal service area.  HMO plans require that the patient first see or contact
one of their primary care physicians before going to a hospital (medical
emergencies
are usually excepted).

In this country we have (or had, anyway) something called freedom.  The freedom
to participate or not participate in a contract is included in that.  That is
why many
providers are quietly dropping out of the US Medicare system (not accepting new
Medicare patients).  Medicare doesn't pay the bills and never has, plus there
is
considerable bureaucratic hassle dealing with the Medicare system and providers
simply
get tired of dealing with that hassle, with underpayments and slowness of
payments
(120 days past due is not unusual).  With fewer providers available,
particularly in rural
areas, the problem of finding a doctor that will accept you as a patient (if
you're over
age 64) is getting worse.

In this country it is (or was) illegal to treat a Medicare eligible person
outside of the
Medicare system - (including providing treatment for *free*), even when that
person is
filthy rich and is perfectly capable of paying for the treatment up front in
cash.

Now, a couple of decades ago it usedta was that health insurance was generally
limited to 'major medical' expenses; routine, preventive, continuing (long
term)
care were not included, nor were minor problems such as colds.  I don't think
anybody markets 'major medical' policies any longer, as most people seem to
think
that everything should be covered - whether it is or not.

 RB> and should lead to loss of the license to
 RB> practice medicine. Let people who think this way sell used cars -
 RB> that way they'd do less harm.

 RB> The story does, however, point out the shortcomings of the system
 RB> (such that it is) very nicely and gives the lie to people who rant so
 RB> emotionally against universal health insurance (which would be worth
 RB> the name and would be - must be - accepted by all medical
 RB> practicioners).

So practitioners find another line of work.  What do you do when you can't
*find* a physician?  

If it's free - which is the goal of those who want "universal health insurance"
- demand for health care is infinite.  Health care resources, however, are
limited.

A perfect example is the military medical system in this country, everything is
covered and everything is (or was) free.  Junior scrapes his knee, mom's off to
the emergency room with him to have it treated - when that happened to me 
when I was a kid mom washed the scrape, put mercurochrome (later merthiolate)
on it and a band-aid on top, but then I wasn't a military dependent.

The hogwash about health care being a 'most basic human right' necessary for
life
is exactly that, hogwash.  Air, water, food, shelter and clothing are *all*
more
necessary to life than health care - and of those only air is free and nobody
is
caterwauling about making the others free.\

--- FleetStreet 1.19+
 * Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)