Bait and Switch?

Posted Friday, June 26, 2009 12:00 PM by Joe Napalm

Do we really need healthcare reform or do we need insurance reform? The reasons I hear for forming a national healthcare plan are really based on the problems caused by insuring the inevitable.

What I mean is this: I have car insurance to cover accidents which are very few and far between. I have home insurance to cover catastrophic damages. But I have to have medical insurance to cover the inevitable like physicals, sicknesses and other maladies which are -- in the grand view of things -- fairly common.

So I hear politicians on TV and the radio who go on and on about corporate cost burdens and the problems caused by distorted incentives. Costs have increased significantly in part because we say, "I'm paying high medical premiums so I might as well use it." And if we're using it, then doctors know this and can charge more. This is a problem because, unlike auto or home insurance where we hope never to have to make a claim, with medical insurance we are incentivized to extract the value. And then these politicians go on to explain how then we need nationalized healthcare.

I can't help but get the feeling that we're getting the old bait and switch.

Comments

# re: Bait and Switch?

Friday, June 26, 2009 4:29 PM by Bahnsen8

Health insurance companies are businesses run by businessmen to make a profit for themselves and their stockholders, just like any other business. In fact, the money these health insurance companies spend on patient care is called the "medical loss ratio." The sooner Americans realize that health insurance companies are committed first and foremost to profit, the sooner Americans will make the wise choice and get their money out of health insurance companies, and put it someplace where the first and foremost motive is taking care of sick people. Am I against profit as a motive? Of course not. But, the typical American big business profit maximization model cannot be melded with health care, without harming patients and squeezing doctors into payment schedules that force them to rush through each patient encounter. That is why I give my health care proactive prudence dollars to Samaritan. It is not an insurance company. It is a health care cost sharing program where about 15,000 American families, under covenant with one another, support one another with cash when needed. Samaritan publishes the needs on a monthly basis. THIS is a beautiful thing, and if American patients and doctors could get together in a system like this, it would be a powerful step forward so we could return to the good old days when doctors were professionals who really cared about their patients, took time with their patients and were fairly compensated via direct communication with the patient. Both patients and doctors were much happier. 'nuff said.