Did Anyone Bother Asking?

There’s a lot of flack going on now about healthcare, with one side saying that government intervention will be the DOOM OF HEALTHCARE, and the other side saying it will be the SAVIOR OF OUR HEALTH. Lots of soundbites, lots of talking heads. But there is one fact among all the rhetoric that stands out.

No one - neither side - bothered to ask me (or, dare I say it, YOU?) my opinion.

All right, assuming there is a problem, what would the solution be? (You have to assume a problem first before solving it. This does not mean there actually is a problem.)

For the sake of the argument, if there is a problem, then it means that there is health care for a chosen group, some are denied, and some have to pay too much for too little. With no rhetoric, lets look at the issues.

–only for a chosen group. This is true. Every insurance company providing health coverage does so for groups that meet their criteria. This is called free enterprise, niche marketing, and so on. They offer a product for a certain demographic, you are free to chose or reject the product. If they can’t make money on the product, they change the items offered. Again, you can accept or reject. And yes, it costs money. They are wanting to make a profit - nothing wrong with that.

– some are denied. This goes back to the chosen group concept. If a company wants to provide health insurance for coal miners between the ages of 18 and 48, they can do so, so long as they provide equal coverage to all in that group. If you are 17 or 49, sorry, you don’t fit that group. But I’m sure they have policies to fit you, as well.

– some have to pay too much for too little. True. Insurers, like every other commercial business, work on the law of averages. Every one. If you own a hardware store, your average is that a certain number of people will enter your store and buy your product. For an insurer, they aim for the highest profit group, consistent with federal laws governing their business. The highest profit group also means the greatest number of clients willing to purchase their product. They will sell to others, but the terms have to be different. Otherwise a law of nature comes into play: they go broke.

So, understanding this, what can we agree on (were we asked!) as a solution. Well, here’s my list.

Tort Reform - if a doctor or hospital screws up, they should make suitable amends. If they are clearly negligent, they should pay for the impact their incompetence caused their patients. But should they be responsible if the patient is incompetent to understand their clear instructions? I don’t think so. As it is, most doctors practice in fear that some disgruntled patient is going to hit them with a suit. What happened to "I’m sorry; let me make that up to you"? If my doctor is treating me for a condition, and makes an honest mistake, not from negligence, I am more concerned that he make it right. Why bother the courts if reasonable people can arrive at a reasonable solution. My mechanic does this; why shouldn’t my doctor.

Indigent Health Care - first let’s define indigent. I DON’T define it as anyone not covered with health care regardless of ability to pay or national origin. If a person is breaking the laws of my land and needs to see a doctor, I am not responsible to pay for them. "But they are poor!" So am I. No one pays for my care except me. "We should take care of those less fortunate!" Go ahead - with your own money, not mine. I chose to whom I donate time and money. My acts of charity are ultimately known to two people - me, and my God. Even my wife need not know, unless it is a gift we both provide. I don’t mind helping people out, and have done so in the past. But, I repeat, it is my choice. It should not be forced on me by the government. If it is, it’s not charity, but taxation.

Care of Uninsurable Conditions - here’s a crux. If an insurance company specifically excludes a condition, it should be easily found in their policies. Often it isn’t, or is buried in a pile of legal terminology. It should be clearly stated. I happen to believe that if a company is going to provide health insurance, it should provide coverage for some of the diseases and conditions they exclude. Often, it’s a matter that a treatment is available, but it is expensive. Well, that’s why they were investing the premiums of millions of people - to cover losses. If it is not a crime, it is at least morally deplorable to allow someone to suffer and maybe die because the insurer doesn’t want to pay. This is not right, never mind legal. If an insurer opts to provide coverage after a certain length of time, this is fine, but to deny a claim despite years of premium collections is reprehensible.

So, if the government want to work on health care tort reform, increase tax write-offs for charitable giving, and require insurers to allow for patients with greater health care needs, I’m for it.

Not that they are likely to ask me!