Posted on 08/30/2009 5:06:05 AM PDT by library user
As a family physician caring for East Texans, I have encountered many patients and friends seeking my views on the health-care reform issues Americans face. This is my message for them and for our elected representatives who are attempting to make dramatic changes to the health-care system on which we all rely.
The United States truly needs a more cost-effective health-care system. The efficiencies that are needed are not likely to come from government. I am unaware of any service in which government leads in efficiency. The HR 3200 approach to reforming health care will result in an increased administrative and regulatory burden on medical practices already struggling under the current burden. With these administrative and regulatory burdens on medical practices, any price reductions of physicians' fees will lead to collapse of the private practice of medicine. If a government program is not more efficient, and price reduction and its consequence are not feasible, then rationing care is the only remaining cost-control option in a government program. The stage is set for rationing care for anyone in Medicare, Medicaid or any public-option program.---
In President Obama's inaugural address, he called for a new era of personal responsibility. This is the right direction for health-care reform, but somewhere along the way he got lost. One major problem with our current health-care system is that the government or an insurance company stands between the doctor and patient, interfering in a very important professional relationship. A patient-centered health-care system could be much more cost-effective than our current system and much better than an HR 3200 system. The current employer-based health-insurance system does not allow enough patient control. The health-insurance company has strong incentives to satisfy the employer who selects the policy, but little incentive to satisfy the needs of the patient. Health-insurance companies create many obstacles that must be overcome by patients and their doctors, in order to receive care. Many of these obstacles are constructed in the name of cost control. In a system in which patients have cost-control incentives, along with informed decision-making, many of the obstacles to care and their associated administrative costs could be eliminated. A cost-effective health-care system requires capable physicians guiding patients, who have cost-control incentives, through appropriate evaluation and care. These empowered patients will need the freedom to form health-insurance groups that are not constrained by the current regulations.
Presently, only government employees, union members and employees of large businesses can benefit from the negotiating power of large groups with insurance carriers. If trade groups, professional associations, churches, schools and other groups could benefit from the same negotiating power, then families could choose their best options.
Insurance companies would become more responsive to the satisfaction of patients, because patients would have choices of insurance. This would require substantial changes in health-insurance regulations that currently stifle competition. Tax-free contributions to health savings accounts would allow more options for families financing their health-care needs. The same tax advantages conferred in the current employer-based health-insurance system should be available to families making their choice of insurance. The whole idea is fair-market competition in insurance and freedom for families to choose that which meets their needs.
The uninsured have been keenly in focus during the health-care debate. I believe many of the individuals and families who are currently priced out of the insurance market would be able to find affordable, high-quality health insurance with the options I have offered.
For the poor, we already have a public option called Medicaid. For our seniors and the disabled, we have a public option called Medicare. Both programs could use some substantial improvement, but both exist, and I see no need to create a new federal program for these needs.
There are two major components to our present American health-care system. One is the health-care financing entities, mainly bureaucracies of the insurance industry and government. The second is the American health-care delivery system, the physicians, other health-care professionals, hospitals and out-patient facilities.
The American health-care delivery system is highly capable and the most innovative in the world. Technological advances in medicine and surgery are accomplished in the United States more than any other country. Physicians and other health-care professionals are trained and committed to caring for the patient, the individual with the most at stake. In a system of informed patients participating in choices regarding their care, our highly adaptive health-care delivery system responds to those needs. The Stark provisions in HR 3200 severely restrict private investment in health-care facilities. The Mayo Clinics and Scott and White Hospitals of tomorrow would not be possible.
The challenges we face are in health-care financing, and I believe the reform needed is in health insurance with improvements in Medicare and Medicaid. My greatest fear is that in a "reformed " health-care system — one in which choice no longer belongs to patients guided by their chosen physicians — the focus moves from patient care to regulatory compliance. I truly shudder, when I think of working or living in that type of health-care system. I invite all interested readers to the Texas Medical Association health-care reform information Web site, www.meandmydoctor.com for more on this critical issue.
Government Health plans..Medicare..Medicaid etc..are bankrupt. Now they want to bankrupt the solvent private market. I am amazed at how long they have been able to keep the Ponzi scheme going. They will not stop on their own. They must be stopped by the people.
Good stuff.
I think just one of many good points: [The doctor is] unaware of any service in which government leads in efficiency.
I remember seeing notices for doctors who would not take Medicare. Patients had to pay up front, and wait for the small reimbursement. Why don't we limit what lawyers can charge? We can live without lawyers much better than without doctors.
This doctor makes some good points, but he seems to be demonizing the insurance companies just as much as Obama et al.
One reason insurance is so expensive is because of the mandates that they provide certain coverage. I saw an article recently (can’t remember where) that showed how insurance rates go up proportionately to the amount of state-mandated coverage. Another reason for the expense is that people expect every routine/minor medical issue to be paid for by insurance. How expensive would car insurance be, if people expected every oil change and scratch in the paint to be covered?
I believe that shifting some of the costs directly back to the patient would do a lot to decrease the price of insurance. When the insurance company pays out $50, there are also administrative costs associated with that, so the actual cost to the patient is more than $50, that they pay in the form of insurance. Then they complain that insurance costs too much. Then they get the attitude that since insurance costs so much, they’re going to get as much out of it as possible, by maximizing visits to the doctor, etc., creating a vicious upward price spiral.
My Father-in-Law, a physician, has plenty to say when asked about what he thinks by his patients. And he has his lap top ready, and opten plays this short video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc&feature=player_embedded
And if they liked that one he shows them this one. After seeing this, they are ready to join us.
http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2009/08/wow-marine-goes-off-over-obamacare-at.html
Yeah, let's get the government involved in the market! And while we're at it, we can set a minimum wage so no one can be poor, and allow employees to bargain collectively but not employers, and we can force employers to pay time and a half whenever people work more than 40 hours, and ...
These morons in D.C. have stolen monies from the MediCare and SSI funds over the years for their other "I need to be re-elected" programs. And now they know that scam is coming to an end...and they have to find another way to skim money.
And taking over all the money in HealthCare is the way to do that....
fwiw-
Yep. They have to corrupt what is left of private health care to cover up the abject failure of the government programs. The Ponzi scheme continues.
When medicare first started, my aunt was with a lady who had to stop by her Drs office for some minor thing. While there my aunt decided to have him take care of her too, although she informed him she had a regular Dr. After he treated here, she told him she’d go ahead and pay him now and wanted to know what the bill was. He said 8 dollars unless you’re on medicare, then it’s 25 dollars. This is the way medicare has wasted money over the years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.