From: egreen@East.Sun.COM (Ed Green - Pixel Cruncher)
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles
Subject: Re: Re; Nat'l Health Plan (Was: Re: Lance
Date: 21 Jan 1993 14:47:38 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, RTP, NC
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: egreen@East.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: laser.east.sun.com

In article 1jjvphINN3e0@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu, ellert@v32.uh.cwru.edu () writes:
>
>I won't disagree with the above, but I think it is an oversimplification of
>the problem that doctors face.  If a doctor didn't offer the option of
>either x-ray or MRI, he is setting himself up for a potential suit. 

The doctor should *absolutely* offer *all* options, and what they cost
and what they can realistically be expected to produce.  My point is
that the consumer should be not be in a position where the $5K option
costs him the same as the $900 option, which is the case in the current
situation, where insurance pays the bills.

>Here's
>some other procedures which are controversial -- 1) CPR is administered
>successfully, the patient is revived and placed in intensive care.  If my
>sources are accurate, the chances of survival for that patient are extremely
>small, something like 10%.  Considering the cost of intensive care, etc.  is
>this procedure worthwhile?

Ask the one guy out of ten that survived.  Ask his family.

>2) Cardiologists are just about the best paid
>doctors.  Interestingly, once again relying on my sources, lifestyle changes
>play the most significant role in survival of heart-attack patients.  Not
>bypasses and angioplastys...are they even necessary?  Beats me, facts can
>be elusive.

Another reason why, when faced with the reality of paying for their own
health care, many people will opt for the cheaper lifestyle change than
the open-heart surgery.

>There is a point here.  Tell a person that they have a 0.1% chance of surviving
>if procedure A is done and they'll most likely take that chance.  Tell their
>survivors that there was a 0.1% chance they would have lived if they had done
>procedure A, but they had not been informed of procedure A...It's lawsuit
>time.

Again, I am not advocating removing choices from anyone, merely make
the cost to the consumer reflect the real cost, and quit giving people
the option to spend "the insurance company's money" on any procedure
they choose.

>I can tell you that the threat of malpractice has a significant impact on the
>medical fees.  I know for instance that the malpractice insurance to cover
>a friend of mine, a medical photographer, during surgical procedures alone,
>is more than twice what a good engineer with a few years experience makes
>per year.  The surgeons pay this insurance, i.e. patients pay for the insurance.

Yes, superfluous lawsuits are causing great inefficiency and loss of
value in the medical industry.  They are a very real problem.  I do not
agree that they are the greatest problem.  For every lawsuit, and for
every unnecessary diagnostic performed to cover the MD's ass, there are
5 doctors out there either selling medical services people don't really
need, or charging ridiculous fees for services they do need, because
the patient doesn't give a damn, the insurance company pays for it.  In
fact, people feel *better* when their bill is *bigger*, because they
feel like they are "getting their money's worth" out of the insurance.

>Again, I agree that somehow consumers have to be more responsible for the
>costs of medical care, but I don't see an easy solution.  

I doubt if there is an "easy" solution.  There *are* alternatives to
both socilaized health care and nationally mandated insurance.

One such alternative is a "medical 401(K)."  Instead of paying
insurance primiums, you and/or your employer make pre-tax contributions
to an investment account, which can only be used to pay for medical
expenses (yours or somebody else's).  Upon retirement, you receive any
funds left in the account.  You must also carry catastrophic insurance,
with a deductable of say $5K, which should be dirt cheap.  This makes
consumers directly responsible for the cost of their "normal" medical
expenses.  By spending their own money, they will shop around and the
competition will drop inflated medical expenses like a rock.  By
controlling their own investment, they will do a damned sight better
for the economy than the insurance industry's investors.

It's not a perfect solution, it's not an easy answer.  It is one of
*many* plans out there which make a lot more sense than anything I've
heard coming out of Washington.

---
Ed Green, former Ninjaite |I was drinking last night with a biker,
  Ed.Green@East.Sun.COM   |and I showed him a picture of you.  I said,
DoD #0111  (919)460-8302  |"Go on, get to know her, you'll like her!"
 (The Grateful Dead) -->  |It seemed like the least I could do...

Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles