It just occurred to me that maybe health insurance is bad for the consumer. The way I'm starting to see it, health insurance insulates us from the real cost of medical and drug services. I wonder what would happen if everyone had to pay the full cost of all medical services and drugs. For one thing, we would finally see what the true charges are for everything. I think this would be a shock to many people. I also believe that it's this insulation of real cost that shelters the providers of our services and drugs from accountability. Much of these costs are for-profit, so costs could (and would) be lowered if people knew what they were really paying, because the transparency might lead to competition. As I have read elsewhere:"Drug companies market heavily to create a demand for the product and charge as much as possible, because it's usually paid for by insurance anyway. Medical providers see as many patients as possible, and charge as much as possible. There is no concern over keeping costs down, because patients don't compare prices and it's usually paid for by insurance anyway."
This doesn't mean that Karl is off of the Medicare bandwagon, it just means that health insurance in its current form is part of the reason costs are so high. The thing that is so unfortunate about health care is that it's an essential service - skimp on your health services and you die. So if we agree that the government owes us a universal system of health, equally accessible by all, what should they do to prevent costs from spiralling out of control? I don't particularly like Alberta's solution, which seems to be stop spending money on necessities - like staff and equipment.
While we're on the topic, what do we do about doctors leaving Canada because some other countries [cough that sounds like 'America'] pay so much better? We can't just force them to stay here. I have an idea though. One of the biggest obstacles toward training new doctors and their financial well-being once they go into practise - is their student debt. I suggest the government subsidize or downright eliminate their debt if they agree to stay in Canada for 10 years. Let's go one better, for 10 years, they should practise in places where they are needed, even if that means rural areas. You work where we tell you, your debt is forgiven. I think that's fair.
Comments?
3 comments:
Thinking out loud here...there should be a reasonable limit to the number of check-ups and visits, per year, dependent on age. Once a person reaches that annual limit, they must pay for their visits. However, if a person who has taken care of himself (maintaining a healthy weight, not smoking, avoiding consumption of legal or illegal mind-altering substances) ends up being diagnosed with a medical condition that reqires ongoing treatment, that person should have full access to see their doctor when required. Should I have the right to go see any doctor, as many times as I like, about any little concerns that I have, without having to pay or at least know what I'm costing the system? Maybe we should all be allotted a certain dollar amount per year and if we don't use it we can carry it over to the next year. Maybe people would be more careful how they spent those dollars and would save them up for when they really might need them. No more going to the doctor because you have a blister on your toe or a pimple on your butt!
I tend to agree with you in principle. We focus very little on preventive strategies, which could save the system billions. But there is a potential for abuse linking lifestyle to health. You mentioned consumption of mind-altering substances. Consumption in moderation of (mild) drugs and alcohol has presented no evidence for effects against good health. In the case of weight, the government tried to create a measuring stick for healthy weight range called BMI, which in the end proved to be impractical as a means of indicating healthy weight - even though it is still used today.
The only problem I have with the allocation of health dollars per person per year is that if someone actually needs continual care and monitoring, they are less likely to seek the attention they need for fear of going broke. What if you get cancer? That requires visits and treatment every week for years. You would use up your entitlement in 3 months or less. Regular folks could never afford to pay their cancer treatment bills.
Thinking out loud......
Maybe there could be exceptions or a different category for Cancer and other such ailments. The real drain on the real system comes from people who go immediately to the doc after one sneeze!
Post a Comment