From: egreen@East.Sun.COM (Ed Green - Pixel Cruncher)
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles
Subject: Re: Re; Nat'l Health Plan (Was: Re: Lance
Date: 22 Jan 1993 14:09:16 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, RTP, NC
Distribution: world
Reply-To: egreen@East.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: laser.east.sun.com

In article 93Jan21163837@porky.sono.uucp, mayer@sono.uucp (Ron Mayer) writes:
>
>This entire discussion only came up *after* I refused to sign a form
>stating something like "I agree to whatever procedures the doctor
>decides is best for me, and I don't need to know about the risks
>involved in these procedures." 

Hmm, was that the same form that said, "I waive my right to sue and
agree to arbitration as the my sole legal remedy?"  I didn't sign that
one, either.

>The problem IMHO is that our system states that only a doctor is
>qualified to make health care choices.  

People lose all sense of reason when it comes to doctors.  If a lawyer
tells a client something he doesn't like, most clients will go to
another lawyer.  Same with tax accountants, architects, and motorcycle
mechanics.  Show them a doctor, though, and they drop to their knees
and accept his announcements like gospel.

A far greater percentage (like, 100%) of bus drivers "hold the power of
life and death in their hands" than do doctors, and further, your
average bus driver will take out 10-50 people at a time if he fucks up,
doctors can only kill people off one at a time.

>>Make consumers personally financialy responsible for their health
>>care choices, and the aggragate cost of health care will drop like a
>>motorcycle on ice, and it will happen overnight.
>
>Make patients personally financially responsible in our current
>system, and you'll still have doctors trying to get as much money as
>they can out of the customers; 

Until some enterprising young doctor sets up shop across the street
charging $.10 on the dollar, and buys his Mercedes on sheer volume.
Would you pay $10 for an asprin if it was your money?

>and you'll have a lot of patients
>selling their homes and souls for unnecessary medical procedures.

When people pay for their own way, there will be very few "unnecessary"
procedures performed.  Sure, they will be there, just like there are
currently auto mechanics who will replace perfectly good transmissions
for the $$$, because the customer doesn't know any better.  Such
business generally don't last, either through poor reputation or
criminal investigation, and the fact that some are indeed around is
hardly a condemnation of all auto mechanics.

Catastrophic insurance, with extremely high deductables, will be very
affordable since it is rarely used, and will cover the "sell your
house" magnitude of legitimate expenses.

>Make doctors financially for the health care they provide (The doctor
>is payed only based on what problem he solves, and he has to pay for
>the MRI, etc, and whatever expences arrise from the treatment he
>provides), and the cost_of_health_care_motorcycle you mentioned will
>crash through a hole in the ice you mentioned and sink to the bottom
>of the icy lake (obmotorcycle:-)).

This is the idea behind HMOs, which, IMHO, are far from a shining
success.  In my experience, they do the absolute minimum which will
cover their legal asses.  It is possible to get good quality care from
such organizations, if you get pushy and demand it.  Not everyone has
that personality, particularly around doctor-gods.

>IMHO the solution is that the insurance shouldn't pay for whatever one
>doctor/patient combination they choose.  Instead, they should consider
>the patient's condition, and if they don't like the doctor's
>"estimate", they'd send out some their own insurance-adjustor doctor
>to make his own estimate.  They then give the patient however much the
>estimate says the problem would cost.  

This is the idea behind the "resonable and customary" clause in your
current insurance.  The insurance company won't pay a particularly
exhorbant fee *now*.  That's not the problem, the problem is that what
is considered reasonable and customary is too high.  Giving the
insurance adjustor veto power is not going to introduce competition,
and competition is the only proven way of establishing the "true" cost
of anything.  The assumption, which I believe is valid, is that the
true cost of health care is FAR below what is currently being charged.

---
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