Government Is Wrong On Healthcare
Posted by Mitch Mitchell on Mar 2, 2007
There, I've said it. The federal government, and, for me, the New York state government, is wrong on healthcare. Not totally, but they're both further off than many people know.
Here's the main issue. Both governments think that the way to fix healthcare is to reduce funds and close hospitals. Now, I will acknowledge that costs have skyrocketed. Our population over the age of 65 has increased much faster and greater than anyone ever thought possible, which is a good thing if you ask me.
However, there isn't enough coming back in to the government so that they can continue paying higher and higher rates, because the cost of healthcare has gotten steeper. It costs a lot of money to test drugs so they can be sold as pharmaceuticals, and those companies have a very short life of profits for themselves before they lose their exclusive right. That, plus some of the things they come up with are for a relatively small group of people, so they can't make their costs up in numbers like with something like aspirin, as an example.
Also, the cost of technology that makes things such as surgery not only go smoother, but in some cases eliminates it, isn't cheap in researching either. Many exploratory surgeries have been eliminated with scopes and camera pills, but all of that still costs money. Knee surgeries that can be done in a couple of hours and have the patient back home before dinner, replacing long stays in a hospital, shows amazing progress, but it doesn't always reduce initial costs.
But let's look at the other side. In New York, many private physicians won't see Medicaid patients because New York state will only pay around $15 for an office visit. As a point of reference, hospitals, for close to 20 years by now, still only get reimbursed $9 for a regular two view x-ray, but the costs for providing those have easily gone up. What else in America has stayed the same cost since 1987?
Also, there are studies, like the Berger Commission, that determine that struggling hospitals or hospitals in some remote areas don't need to be there, and that will save money for the government. That's illogical, though, because those patients have to go somewhere, so they'll just go to another facility that's probably struggling monetarily and have to pay them instead. Where's all the savings?
Here's my point. Hospitals are struggling; insurance companies are not. Not to pick on one in particular, but let's look at Excellus Blue Cross. For 2005, it's net income was around $197 million; in 2006, it was $151 million. Their reserves, cash they're sitting on, is $1.1 billion. If they took just half of one year's worth of net income and spread it around the hospitals that they actually contract with, all the hospitals in the area would be living life very well, and there wouldn't need to be any conversation on whether one had to close or not. And that's only the Blues; think about how nice life might be if some of the HMOs let go of their profits also.
That wouldn't solve the Medicare and Medicaid issues, since both are more social than healthcare related, but it would be a good start. If governmental leaders can figure out a way to get insurance companies to make sure they're being fair in their reimbursements, then we can have a legitimate discussion on curbing healthcare costs.
Why do you pick on the insurance companies out of all of them to fix the problems?
Why should they be demanded, let alone be asked to share their cost with hospitials? Why would insurances even be in the “busniess” in the first place?
the problem with healthcare is cost, and that is the final solution. you said so in your argument at the beginning and should have ended it there.
NO ONE wants to cut costs, if you ask the insurance to share proftis, they are only going to ask higher and higher premimus with less benefits to us.
And if they have less baragainig power, I promise you will see less good results from a doctor cause he will not have to work as hard to be contracted.
Greetings DM. First, thanks for the comment. Second, let me just ask you this question. If you have a terminal illness, wouldn’t you want to not only be able to go to the hospital for treatment, but have your insurance company pay for it? That’s why it’s incumbent upon insurance companies to work more with hospitals as far as making sure the reimbursements to hospitals and physicians is fair. The alternative, which I know you’d be firmly against even more, is for hospitals to NOT accept the payments insurance companies dole out as payments in full, with or without copays and deductibles, and bill patients for full balances, which is starting to happen at some hospitals across the country. Not many hospitals have that kind of leverage, but some do, and if more hospitals get together and decide to do just that, will you then say that the hospitals have the full right to demand that all their costs be paid by the people, regardless of whether they have insurance or not?