Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
Medical Competition Works for Patients
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Health-care costs overall have been rising faster than inflation, but not all medical costs are skyrocketing. In a few pockets of medicine, costs are down while quality is up.

Dr. Brian Bonanni has an unusual medical practice. His office is open Saturdays. He e-mails his patients and gives them his cell-phone number.

"I need to be available 24 hours a day," he says. "I want to be there when a patient has questions, and I want to be reachable."

I'll bet your doctor doesn't say that. Bonanni knows he has to please his patients, not some insurance company or the government, because he's paid by his patients. He's a laser eye surgeon. Insurance rarely covers what he does: reshaping eyes so people can see without glasses.

His patients shop around before coming to him. They ask a question that people relying on insurance don't ask: "How much will that cost?"

"I can't get away with not telling the patient how much exactly it's going to cost," Bonanni says. "No one would put up with it. And the difference of a hundred dollars sometimes makes their decision for them."

He has to compete for his patients' business. One result of that is lower prices. And while the procedure got cheaper, it also got better. Today's lasers are faster and more precise.

Prices have fallen and quality has risen in other medical fields where most people pay for care themselves, like cosmetic surgery. Consumer power works -- even in medicine.

When government and insurance companies are kept away from the transaction, good new things happen.

A doctor in Tennessee I talked to publishes his low prices, such as $40 for an office visit.

Most doctors would say you can't make money this way. But Dr. Robert Berry told me you can. "Last year, I made about the average of what a primary-care physician makes in this country," he said.

Berry doesn't accept insurance. That saves him money because he doesn't have to hire a staff to process insurance claims, and he never has to fight with companies to get paid.

His mostly uninsured patients save money, too. Unlike doctors trapped in the insurance maze, Berry works with his patients to find ways to save them money.

"It's coming out of their pockets. And they're afraid. They don't know how much it's going to cost. So I can tell them, 'OK, you have heartburn. Let's start out with generic Zantac, which costs around five dollars a month.'" When his patients ask about expensive prescription medicines they see advertised on television, he tells them, "They're great medicines, but why don't you try this one first and see if it works?"

Sometimes the $4 pills from Wal-Mart are just as good as the $100 ones.

Speaking of Wal-Mart, medical clinics are popping up in Wal-Mart stores and in other similar markets. The clinics offer people with simple problems like sore throats and ear infections relatively hassle-free care cheap. Almost everything costs $59 or less. And the clinics are typically open seven days a week.

Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, a health-policy research organization, explains how these clinics thrive: "They're figuring how to do something faster, better, cheaper! They're responding to consumer demand because they see that they might make some money on this."

When consumers pay for medicine themselves, saving insurance for the big things, and doctors deal directly with consumers, doctors begin to compete. They start posting prices and work to keep them low.

And consumers gain more control of their health care. Instead of governments and insurance companies deciding for patients, patients decide.

Competition gives consumers more choices. And choice gives them power. Remember that when you hear a politician promise to make health case accessible and affordable through the force of government.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/ is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
And another thing not mentioned in this
article about those 'WalMart clinics' is that YOUR EMPLOYER NEVER HAS TO KNOW. Neither does anyone else. Think about it. Back to PRIVACY. Just between you and your doctor. No one else to say, "This isn't needed, but we must have that done."
NICE! Thanks Mr Stossel for a job well done.

Great article, Mr. Stossel !
Exactly. The free market always works, giving more people more choices and lower costs.

The Left
Must hate this. HillaryCare just cannot have it. No one one knowing about your Dr. visit? Unacceptable! You need to sign this release, sir! Health care is about control. Control of YOU! Much like our government school system, indoctrination is the norm. It is to bad that Dr. Bonnani is the exception rather than the rule.

soon
The left will find a way to make this illegal. If there isn't one now they'll make one

Hillarycare:
For those with very good immune systems and those who believe in faith healing. If you're not cured by the time you get your appointment, you may be dead and it won't matter.

only part of the story
John Stossel is looking at one small section of the whole picture — elective surgery that is not about a health-endangering condition and is completely optional — and draws a conclusion about the rest of health care from that.

The problem is that the forces at work in non-elective care are very different from the elective procedures like LASIK and cosmetic surgery.

And when it comes to competition among the non-elective care, hospitals tend to compete not on price but on reputation. And that means buying expensive machines they don't need (because area hospitals not in competition could share them). And these devices must be paid for somehow. Thus competition in the health care industry ends up driving up prices.

The Power in Choice
"Competition gives consumers more choices. And choice gives them power."

Whenever someone is not giving you a choice they are trying to manipulate and control you.

One must question the motives of those who do.

Freedom of choice is the greatest power you can have in life - don't just hand it over to a politician and become victim to his/her judgement - demand the choice for yourself.


purplestater
You miss the point - all health care is elective.

Accountability and Responsibility.

You seem to think that because something is AVAILABLE you have a RIGHT to it.

You have a RIGHT to purchase the product or service but you DON'T have a RIGHT to get it for free or low cost - the market will decide that by those that can pay and how much competition is out there.

You seem to think that being healthy is a RIGHT endowed to you, it's not.

Your statement reveals the nature of your thought process, which, like many in this world, think they are entitled to goods and services as a right given by our Constitution or mandated by being an American.

You have the FREEDOM to the pursuit of happiness.

Our Constitution gives you the RIGHT to make CHOICES for yourself in that pursuit.

Not the government.

Not the insurance companies.

Not the rest of society.

You - you must take care of yourself - both in health and finances.

If you can't afford it, you can't have it.

Simple as that.

Your financial situation is of your own making and the rest of society should not bear your burden because you made poor choices or were born with poor genetics.

We all exist on a continuum and must elevate our position each generation, when possible. But not through handouts and entitlement programs.

Through hard work, effort, and progress.

Our government has set up opportunity for everyone to have an equal shot at acquisition, it's up to us to pursue the potentials that are available.

Come on down off the cross, somebody else needs the wood.




Of SCHIPs and lifeboats
To learn more about the hypocrisy of the (D)s on the subject of SCHIP, read 'The "Not So Poor" 12 Year Old Who Rebutted Bush on SCHIP Veto'

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1907687/posts

(Major hat-tip to 'icwhatudo' on Free Republic).

Also, read "Of SCHIPs and Lifeboats" at

http://voice.townhall.com/

Purplestater,
Your remark "competition in the health care industry is driving up prices" makes no sense at all! In your example, every hospital buys fancy, costly equipment - but that would drive DOWN the price of the equipment (and the market price of the usage).

If you can't understand that, apply the analogy of airlines, which buy expensive equipment (jets) rather than 'sharing' among themselves.

In a free market, competition among airplane mfrs causes the cost of jets to stay relatively low. Competition among the airlines causes the cost of travel to come down.

Stossel uses LASIK as one example of the success of free-markets.

Since most other healthcare is covered by insurance, the consumer is disconnected from the costs of his/her choices. Effectively, free market forces are taken out of such a system - even if the players may themselves be operating in a mostly 'for-profit' mode.

And THAT is a major cause of the price increases in health care.

You may also want to read the above post by 'scooternyc'

Hospitals...
...When I was a kid,many years ago before the rise of health insurance,hospitals practiced "socialized medicine".When a person went to the hospital he was presented with a bill upon his discharge.The bill was itemized and the patient would see such things as "aspirin-$15.00".And he would say"WHAT! I can buy a whole bottle for .50 cents!!!".However,what was happening was he was paying for the cost of running the hospital.In those days the scourge of polio was devestating our kids every Summer.Hospitals had to get the very expensive "iron lungs" to literally save a child's life.No individual patient could possibly pay for it.So,what the hospitals did was spread the costs around and just included it on every patients bill,but it was not itemized.The janitors salary was not itemized,either.But that was a cost of doing business also.

All businesses operate this way.When you buy a new car,you are not just paying for that hunk of metal in your driveway.You are paying for the manufactures office staff too (plus a lot of other expenses).It is all included in your final bill and not itemized.

Govt is a Fat-Fingered Lummox
Another gem by Stossel, once again demonstrating that markets work without the fat-fingered lummox interfering.

No cost is too much to save my child!
That is the battle cry for all who want socialized medicine, but the reality is that there is a cost that's too much to save your child, and we've reached it.

I recall some years ago, watching a news spot about a young couple who were on welfare, with a child that was born with multiple defects, all severe, and all life threatening. The diagnosis was that if a massive amount of money was spent, and many, many surgeries were conducted, this child MIGHT live for "up to" 5 years. She would never be well, she would always have to be in the hospital, and most likely would never be anything but a vegetable.

Her parents response - NO cost is too much to save my child!

Well, that seems pretty unreasonable to me - Particularly since it's not YOUR money being spent to save her. This, in a nutshell is the problem with socialized medicine. There is absolutely NO cost - benefit ratio, and since there's no cost to the recipient, there's no reason Not to spend "whatever it costs".

I suspect if this couple were paying for it, they would be able to find a price that was in fact "too much" to prolong the life of this poor, doomed child.

This is an extreme example, but it applies across the board. What is too much to spend - on a cold? For me, it's $5. for OTC cold medicine. Others go to the Dr. and insist on prescription meds. Would they still, if they were paying for the whole bill? I suspect a large percentage would suddenly find that the OTC meds were acceptably effective, after all.

Just a thought.







Lag time - don't keep re-submitting
There seems to be some Lag time between your hitting "submit", and your post appearing online, so don't keep re-submitting the same post.

Sometimes this lag time is seconds, and sometimes minutes, but I suspect that's because the site has a refresh rate of some fixed minutes, and it just depends on when you happen to get submitted, just before, or after the last refresh.

Be patient, and wait a few minutes, then refresh your own page. Your post will show up eventually.

Of course....
Elective procedures can be affected by competition, but non-elective procedures cannot be. See: http://tinyurl.com/ynkkr6

Stossel ought to give up his pricey policy and go without, and see how he likes it. Oh, I forgot, he is rich and could care less.

government always drives up the price
What most folks fail to acknowledge in our current health care situation is that health insurance not only pays doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, etc. but supports the entire health insurance industry. See all those nice big buildings and fat salaries?

purplestater got it exactly wrong. The more hospitals buy their own copy of fancy machines, the lower the cost. What government run health care seeks to do is limit the number of machines. That will always drive up costs.

Do a little math. Stossel writes about a doctor who does office visits for $40 without insurance. The average cost of full boat health insurance for a family of 4 is over $1000 per month. If every member of the family went to the doctor once a month at $40 you'd still have 10000 left to spend on drugs over the course of the year. For the vast majority of folks, that is the kind of health care required. The number of people that require hospitalization and surgery is a pretty small percentage of the population. Wouldn't we all be better off with a cheap major medical policy with a high deductible and pay for our own office visits and prescriptions?

FYI ....
I work for a major drugstore chain. In the beginning of the flu season, we offer flu shots for $30 and pneumococcal pneumonia shots for $40.

No need to go to the doctor's office. Saves insurance $ on doctor's visit, cost of the shot, etc.

The lines of people are out the door, and some of our stores are taking people by appointment. This is a great value for the patient. It's also nice for the doctors, as they can schedule patients with other concerns without tying up additional appointments.

jlohman
The url you reference has a very nice article. All written completely without any basis in fact, no documentation and no actual statistics to back it up. It makes nice little statements like "health savings accounts add to the charade as they drain resources important to the success of health-care-for-all." In other words, people with health savings accounts are keeping their own money and not allowing it to be confiscated for some big-government, socialized health care scam. They make that sound like a bad thing when it is actually the best thing.

Mr. Right has it wrong!
Medicare does not use insurance companies and therefore does not drive up insurance costs. Thank the greed of the executives and CEOs whose salaries and bonuses are enabled by shareholder profits.

Also, hospitals buy excessive high-tech equipment because (a) they *CAN*, and (b) it drives up their profits. They can now employ their own physicians, and those physicians are responsible for ordering expensive tests and filling hospital beds, and their salaries and bonuses are determined by a "productivity bonus." So why wouldn't they build additional hospitals if they can drive the market.

This conflict of interest is credited to Newt Gingrich and the Republicans that lifted the 1989 Stark laws that prohibited such.

re: Purplestater
Competition does NOT drive prices *up*, that's a fundamental part of supply and demand. In the scenario you mention where hospitals are competing based on "reputation", that's largely because under today's system, most healthcare costs are being paid by a 3rd party (the government, HMOs, etc.).

Under a more individual-centered system, like health savings accounts for instance, a patient could decide for himself what was most important in choosing a hospital: pay more for the more prestigious hospital, or pay less and keep more money in his pocket. Even among hospitals with sophisticated equipment, there would be price competition.

Stossel's example of laser eye surgery is a good one in that performing that kind of surgery requires very expensive equipment. It also requires skill, and very few people want to take undue chances with their eyesight. Yet, in spite of the emphasis on having the newest, most sophisticated (and therefore expensive) equipment, laser eye surgery is very competitive and the price has come *down* on the past several years.

Competition works.

KM, you write...

No cost is too much to save my child!
Well, that seems pretty unreasonable to me - Particularly since it's not YOUR money being spent to save her. This, in a nutshell is the problem with socialized medicine. There is absolutely NO cost - benefit ratio, and since there's no cost to the recipient, there's no reason Not to spend "whatever it costs".

I think you're wrong about this, KM.

When the SCHIPS are down, Hillary will be the one to determine whose child's life is worth saving and whose child gets the "$1.99 Euthanasia Special"

jlohman
I'm not sure how you can cite the facts you do and draw the conclusions you do. You are about 180 degrees out of phase.

The fact is that Medicare drives up costs precisely because it is run by the government and does not have a competitive factor. By making free medical care available to all seniors it drives up demand and reduces the need for medical providers to compete for business so they charge whatever they can get away with because the government pays, not the individual.

Hospitals that buy excessive equipment will have that equipment stand idle, thereby negating the probability of profit. If every hospital has one they will have to compete on price to keep their machine busy while the other hospitals' stand idle. That translates into "price goes down."

If I have one apple and three hungry customers I can charge whatever I want. If I have 3 apples and one hungry customer, he can pay whatever he wants. If the government gets involved, I can have 10 apples, 2 customers and still charge whatever I want. The market always works that way, whether it is health care, apples, cars, plane tickets or whoopee cushions.

You need to get your medical information from a source other than Michael Moore.

jlohman
I'm not sure how you can cite the facts you do and draw the conclusions you do. You are about 180 degrees out of phase.

The fact is that Medicare drives up costs precisely because it is run by the government and does not have a competitive factor. By making free medical care available to all seniors it drives up demand and reduces the need for medical providers to compete for business so they charge whatever they can get away with because the government pays, not the individual.

Hospitals that buy excessive equipment will have that equipment stand idle, thereby negating the probability of profit. If every hospital has one they will have to compete on price to keep their machine busy while the other hospitals' stand idle. That translates into "price goes down."

If I have one apple and three hungry customers I can charge whatever I want. If I have 3 apples and one hungry customer, he can pay whatever he wants. If the government gets involved, I can have 10 apples, 2 customers and still charge whatever I want. The market always works that way, whether it is health care, apples, cars, plane tickets or whoopee cushions.

You need to get your medical information from a source other than Michael Moore.

To Mr. Right on HSAs
The web site does have a resource section that points you to the article below about health savings accounts, but there are many more studies out there that you can research. Obviously, if you are an HSA salesman, or you are young or healthy or wealthy and you benefit at the moment, you are not going to agree with those views.

http://www.thebell.org/PUBS/IssBrf/2007/08-HSAs.php

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=584662

My opinion article was not intended as a research paper, though generally HSAs are an employer tool to offload their healthcare expenses to employees. They go out of their way to convince employees that they are good, and some will indeed benefit as long as they remain healthy and employed. But don't lose your job and then need care. Life can be tough.

The biggest global problem I see with HSAs is that they drain the healthy people from the pool necessary to support a healthcare-for-all type of system. That is, until they age and start needing healthcare and now want into the system they have not supported in the past. As well, HSA users assume that when they really do need catastrophic care their HSA is not going to terminate them or quadruple their rates, and leave them with pre-existing diseases they cannot get covered elsewhere.

Jack Lohman
http://moneyedpoliticians.net


Legalize All Drugs
Much of the problem is that one must go to a physician to get a prescription for the medicine that will treat an ailment. This in itself is ridiculous. Allowing people to purchase all medicines will reduce demand for doctor visits and will in turn lower costs.

If someone has had a sore throat, was given an antibiotic that worked, he's going to have a real good idea what to get next time he gets the same kind of sore throat. He can also look on the internet (how do you think the doctors stay on top of all the drugs out there?).

Just about every drug that is now sold over-the-counter was once a prescription drug. And when a doctor prescribes a drug, he's taking his best guess at what will work; lots of times he will have to try several things before the drug works. So why should I have to burn half a day of sick leave to go get a piece of paper from someone who's going to make an educated guess on what to give me for what I need to treat my symptoms?

If I get sick enough, I will go to the doctor, but I shouldn't be forced by the government to get permission from a doctor to take a pill. It's my body, thank you very much.

Excuse the cross post...
.... but it seems appropriate here.



Where are our heads?

It never ceases to amaze me, the amount of energy that can go into a project just to avoid doing the right thing. The best, simplest, least costly, most effective thing we could do is expand what has been working so well for 50 years, Medicare. You get sick, you get care, and the caregiver gets paid. Nothing could be simpler.

Churchill had it right when he said that "Americans will always do the right thing, but only after everything else has failed."

Can you imagine having no police department, and everybody required to hire their own private security firm? Or their own private fire department contractor?

Some things are best handled be the government, and establishing one nationwide pool of patients is in the best interest of the country. Medicare is not perfect, but it far better than 1500 insurance companies we have, and the 15,000 variations on insurance plans.

Medicare uses the same private hospitals and doctors as everyone else, they have just eliminated the insurance bureaucracy that unnecessarily consumes 31% of the costs. For the same amount of dollars we are spending to care for 85% of the public, we could provide first-class care to 100% of the public.

But follow the money and you'll find why the politicians don't like simplicity. They receive $100 million per year from the industry just to keep the system inefficient and costly.

http://MoneyedPoliticians.net


jlohman writes
"HSAs are an employer tool to offload their healthcare expenses to employees"

Whose healthcare expenses?

HealthCare
jlohman writes: "HSAs are an employer tool to offload their healthcare expenses to employees."

Whose healthcare expenses?

jlohman
There you go again. The claim that medicare has worked for 50 years is a bold-faced lie.

I have an HSA. I am neither wealthy, particularly healthy nor a salesman. It works great. The notion that HSA's take young, healthy people out of the health insurance pool thereby raising insurance costs starts with pure fallacy. There is no rational basis for including everyone in any form of socialized health care.

If health care is an absolute right and as such must be mandated and controlled by government, then so is food, clothing, and shelter. To which government agency, jlohman, would you cede your choices of what, when and how much to eat, what you should wear and where and in what type of housing you will live? I choose to keep the government out of my business regarding food, clothing, shelter, and health care.

re: jlohman
One aspect of an HSA system is not just the savings account itself to pay for routine medical expenses, therefore providing the individual with the power of choice and competition, but also a high-deductible policy to take care of catastrophic expenses.

You hit on a good point though when you mention a person losing his job. We need to move from an employer-based system to an individual-based system. Give the individuals the power over their own respective health care so we aren't locked into a job merely because of a need for health insurance.

I trust an individual more than the government to make the best decisions for himself and his family. HSAs coupled with true insurance (a policy protecting against a catastrophic expense) are the best method for empowering the individual and using the power of the market to control costs.

jlohman is an idiot
Mr. Lohman, you reveal by your comments that you know little or nothing about this subject. Medicare does not work, it merely limits what doctors and facilities can charge MEDICARE PATIENTS. If a procedure costs $500, and Medicare allows the doctor to charge a medicare patient $350, where do you suppose the doctor makes up the shortfall ? By over-charging others, of course. Patients "aging" into medicare now face REAL challenges even finding doctors who will accept new medicare patients. Why? Most don't like to work for free, do you?
Regarding HSA's, if someone chooses to bear some of their risk by self-insuring the small stuff, shouldn't THEY reap the rewards? It is THEIR money, isn't it? Do you also feel the government should cover all of our food, housing, or transportation costs? Then we'd all drive a mercedes, live in a mansion, and eat lobster and ribeyes. Who cares about the cost, someone else is paying.
Get the gov't mandates out of healthcare and insurance, change the tax favoritism/bias away from employer-paid plans, and let people CHOOSE.
The constituition, bill of rights, and declaration don't mention gov't paid healthcare, nor education, nor free anything.

Anecdotal
I suffer from skin tags. "Suffer" isn't exactly the right word. They come up all over me and are unsightly. A few years ago I had 22 of them on my face and neck. I asked my doctor what it would cost to remove them. He said to check and see whether said removal would be covered by my insurance. SInce skin tags never, ever turn to cancer and their removal is considered a cosmetic procedure, I was not covered.

When I reported this to my doc, he said, "If I send you to a dermatologist, they will charge about $300 each. If I freeze them off, I charge $35 each. That's still too much, so let me go talk to my business manager." In a few minutes he returned and said we could schedule two sessions at a total cost of just $200!

I take this as a sign that few doctors can look you in the eye and say that a procedure that is very simple and will take a total of about thirty minutes to perform will cost over $750.

Another story. I also have sleep apnea and have been prescribed a C-PAP machine which I use when sleeping. Insurance bought my first machine for about $1500. By the time my machine wore out, I was on individual coverage insurance with a $2000 deductible. I called a local company to price a replacement machine. They said one would cost about $1500. When I told them about my high deductible, the young lady said, "Wait a minute." A couple of minutes later she was back on the line and said, "We have a used machine we could sell you for $200.

The absence of a big insurance or government payoff saved a total of over $2000, if you put these two incidents together. If I had shopped around a little, I might have saved even more.

Robb Hadley
Farmington, Ark.

HSAs
Mr. Right, healthcare is not a “right,” it is a common public good (if you believe in common public goods). And good for you on your HSA. Just don’t lose your job and then have a catastrophic disease or have a child. And we already do help poor people with food, clothing and shelter, though I believe they should be required to perform community services for same.

And John Galt, yes, catastrophic expenses if the insurance company doesn’t then choose to quadruple your rates or terminate your policy. Do some research on the Blues on the west coast who terminated contracts *retroactively* following the disease onset.

Sounds sort of like you want the 1900’s back, where all hospital and physicians were paid directly and we didn’t have insurance companies. Now THAT is self reliance.

jlohman & purplestater
Just have a look sometime at what your health insurance provider pays your doctor for a routine visit.
Do you honestly think a doctor would have as many patients (or as many visits) if they were paying out of their own pockets? I guarantee the cost of services would come down to what the market would bear.
We currently have a "managed care" insurance system that is artifically inflated and therefore corrupt. It's an outcome of hillarycareI, actually. The way to make it worse would be to remove all market incentives (put the givernment in charge).

re: jlohman
If individuals owned more control over their own health insurance, then there would be more competition. The current employer and government system stifles competition. More competition, and insurance companies would be less likely to screw over their customers.

Also, I'm not even saying that we *force* everyone into an HSA; for some people, that might not be the right or best or preferred choice. However, if we each had individual control, rather than our current government and employer controlled system, then the prices and programs would be out there for people to choose for themselves. If you looked at the various options and decided the most economical for you is an HMO, fine -- that would be your choice. However, at least then you'd still have HMOs competing for your business, and yes, some doctors might eschew the HMO system altogether -- their choice. All that information would go into making your decision as an individual for you and your family.

Every decision the government makes for us is a decision we don't get to make for ourselves. I trust people to make their own decisions more than I trust some faceless, pencil-pushing bureaucrat sitting in an office somewhere, whether he is working for the government or for an insurance company, to whom I am nothing more than a name and a number.

When I was born.....
my parents could tell you exactly how much it cost to have me.

Ask any new mother or father today how much it costs to birth a child and you get confused looks of wonder.

The key is back when I was born there was competition in medical care, and Doctors were responsive to their patients.

In my case I was born the day before the Memorial day weekend. When my mother went into labor it was the evening and my mothers doctor was on his way out of town for the weekend. Instead of sending another doctor to cover for him he showed up at the hospital, did his job, then went back to his vacation.

See if you get that kind of service today.

HSAs
jlohman,

I am not personally familiar with ALL HSA plans offered by all employers but the ones I have seen all had a high-deductible insurance component to deal with the catastrophic disease you are worried about.

Also why shouldn't the cost of having children factor into the decision?

I agree with the previous poster that we need to move to a personal rather than an employer based system.

Free Ride
It's amusing how others will attempt to invoke an emotional argument or statement to further their case, "it's for the children" in an attempt to circumvent, relegate and otherwise delegate responsibility to someone other than him/her self.

If you can't afford to have health insurance for your child, I'd suggest you not have a child.

If you have a job, get health insurance, have a child, I'd suggest you understand your options for health coverage for you and your child should you leave or get fired.

Once you have this information, you can then start to save your money which will cover your COBRA or whatever you have offered, until you find another job.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SECURITY. This is a fantasy in your mind, rooted in the denial of responsible choices.

You are NOT ENTITLED TO HEALTH CARE.

You have a right to purchase goods and services, nothing more.

If you can't afford health care, I suggest to you that you've made some very poor decisions in your life and YOU ALONE ARE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THOSE DECISIONS.

The rest of society should not be paying for your inability to make quality choices for yourself.

If that means your lineage dies off, so be it. Then NATURAL SELECTION is working and those that can survive - do! Why should we burden society with the inept.

Once again, people wanting someone else to "save" them because they want to be irresponsible.

Well, none of us should let you have that out.

None of us should absolve you of your responsibility.

None of us should be taking care of you because you didn't take care of you.

jlohman
Your post at 9:42am is irresponsible.

Our government should not be in the business of any business.

Schools, police, fire, emergency medical, are all aspects of society for the greater good of safety and education enabling people to pursue their individual happiness through choice.

You unmask the liberal socialistic idea of government taking care of people when people should be taking care of themselves.

That's irresponsible.

Jlohman is STILL an idiot
Healthcare is a Common Good? Like roads, bridges, law and order, or defense against invasion by foreign non-citizens ? Hmm, ask people in Minneapolis, or anywhere illegal mexicans congregate how well the Gov't is doing on those.
Re Hsa's-upon losing employer coverage, insureds can switch (within time limits) to individual, guaranteed issue but underwritten plans and use $ in hsa to pay premiums, deductibles and copays. Just insure the house BEFORE it's on fire, that's all.
The Blue Cross/Blue Shield programs are not insurance companies, per se. As non-profits they are exempt or "shielded" from regulations regarding guaranteed renewability, etc.
Again, remove gov't-imposed constraints and allow market incentives back into the equation and 90% of the problems in healthcare go away.
As for the rest, perhaps people shouldn't have children they can't afford to take care of?

Jlohman is STILL an idiot
Healthcare is a Common Good? Like roads, bridges, law and order, or defense against invasion by foreign non-citizens ? Hmm, ask people in Minneapolis, or anywhere illegal mexicans congregate how well the Gov't is doing on those.
Re Hsa's-upon losing employer coverage, insureds can switch (within time limits) to individual, guaranteed issue but underwritten plans and use $ in hsa to pay premiums, deductibles and copays. Just insure the house BEFORE it's on fire, that's all.
The Blue Cross/Blue Shield programs are not insurance companies, per se. As non-profits they are exempt or "shielded" from regulations regarding guaranteed renewability, etc.
Again, remove gov't-imposed constraints and allow market incentives back into the equation and 90% of the problems in healthcare go away.
As for the rest, perhaps people shouldn't have children they can't afford to take care of?

Personal Responsibilty
Scooternyc get it mostly right (the social Darwinism is a bit much). As a MD and HSA consumer I have a unique perspective. Jlohman is either incredibly foolish or deceitful in his attempts to diseminate the misinformation he has. His Medicare comments alone would make every physician I know double over with laughter.

As a HSA consume, I decided what the deductible and limits of coverage would be. I decided what the coverage options would be. I did this despite my employer offering traditional health care and still saved significant dollars. As a result I must accept the consequences of my decisions. I may choose to change the policy. I may choose to resume traditional insurance. Either way, I will choose, no one else.

As a result, I now have taken greater interest in my own health. I no longer drink, I don't use my cell phone while driving and I exercise more frequently. I have health maintenance visits twice a year as an out of pocket expense. I never saw a doc before because I was 'healthy.' Now I take several prescription meds which I pay for and look for the best prices.

This is what it means to be an ADULT. If jlohman chooses to live in his Peter Pan arrested adolescence into perpetuity, so be it. Just don't try to drag the rest of the self-respecting, responsible adults with you.

Thanks all
I lost my satellite connection and lost a brilliant post. Then I get back and find that scooternyc, ex-canuck and DocTony have all made brilliant points, obviating the need for more of my bloviation to jlohman.

I'd just point out to jlohman that I lost my job nearly 30 years ago and I've been self-employed at a variety of enterprises ever since. Even when a company decided they couldn't live without my services I would work only as an independent contractor so that I never got involved in the whole fringe benefit scam. I am now still young enough that I qualify for non of the government programs but I am in good enough shape financially that I work if I want when I want and spend the rest of my time playing on the farm. The biggest waste of money in all those years has been the FICA payments (which are double for self-employed) that Uncle Sam needs to misinform and buy the votes of folks like jlohman.

Fine... enjoy your HSAs
Folks, there is no such thing as price competition in the healthcare system. Never has been and never will be. Please read http://tinyurl.com/ynkkr6

Yes, we can go back to 1900 when everybody knew the cost of an office visit or having a baby. And life expectancy was 15 years lower and infant mortality double.

More than price, OBQuiet, wouldn’t you rather know the infection rate and infant mortality rate of the hospital, both of which are affected by their “low price”?

Scooternyc, can you imagine having no police department, with everybody required to hire their own private security firm? Or their own private fire department contractor? And all roads leading to your driveway are privately owned and accessible only via a myriad of tolls? Ridiculous all. THAT is irresponsible.

DocTony, you obviously know some unusual docs, because a recent survey of physicians in Minnesota showed over 60% support for single payer. And I expect that most healthy docs would opt for an HAS, just as I would expect most plumbers to forego plumbing insurance.

The Bell Policy Center had this to say about HSAs: “HSAs coupled with high-deductible health plans increase cost-consciousness among enrollees, but have little effect on overall health care costs.” Source: http://www.thebell.org/PUBS/IssBrf/2007/08-HSAs.php


Continuation

Also read (my words, their facts):

“A RAND Corp. study demonstrated that when hypertensive patients had to pay part of the bill, they had a 10% higher death rate. Certainly if people die earlier we will reduce our health care costs, but that sounds too much like a Philip Morris study I once read. We can do better.”

“Even partial payment by the patient can be counter-productive, like co-pays, which usually cost more than they save. It was shown in a Kaiser Family Foundation study that mothers in low-income families will too often forego their blood pressure medicine to put food on the table, and then they have a stroke or heart attack or, worse, die. This sounds neither compassionate nor conservative.” Source http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=584662

jlohman
The problem with all of your citations is that they come from left-wing think tanks and research groups that start with a pre-concieved notion and search for facts that back them up.

Your quote about the poor family was touching. Except for the fact that most poor people are poor because of choices they made. Choices to not get a good education, choices to have children without an intact marriage, etc. Starting with FDR and his ruinous social programs and escalating with LBJ and his War on Poverty and Medicare the government has created a permanent poverty-stricken underclass dependent on the government for an inadequate life at great expense to taxpayers. The cure is to eliminate the government involvement in peoples' day to day lives, not escalate it.

DocTony
Amen! That is my experience exactly. And here's the other thing, Mr. Lohman: I pay the same for my HSA plan as I would for the traditional plan that my employer (that would be me, in reality) offers to its/my employees. The difference is that that the difference in premiums is paid--pre-tax--into my HSA, minimizing my out-of-pocket, taxable expense. It works and it works well. If I could get the tax deduction for all funds going into the HSA, including those I pay "out of pocket," then I would fund my HSA to the enitre level of my deductible each year.

That would be the first step in true healtchare insurance reform: Give the tax break to individuals and not just corporations. Get the government out of the business of healthcare and watch how access and affordability increase without sacrificing quality!

jlohman
Your continued attempts to forego rational argument in place of emotional pandering foretells your obvious liberal philosophy that somehow YOU know what is best for the rest of us. Why not leave the ADULTS of this great nation determine which options will produce the best results? Is it because it makes you and yours feel good to take care of the rest of us? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Sound familiar.

For all of your "science" and reports, there are countless examples to the contrary. I have seen many 'systems' devised since Adam Smith wrote his benchmark book. They have each been subjected to the ash heap and yet capitalism and the free market continue to reign supreme. Do yourself a favor, arm yourself with some facts and a historical perspective. Then perhaps you can be taken seriously. Until then, live blissfully in your 'fairy tale world' and leave the rest of us adults alone.

DocTony
Having spent 35 years as a health care provider, I think I have a fairly good understanding of the industry (and physicians). I can live with my 'fairy tale world,' can you?

Medicare = Cost Shifting
My wife is a nurse in the hospice wing of a nursing home. She reports that most of their care is paid for by either charity or Medicare. In such instances, they officially have X number of beds available and can take on no more Medicare/charity patients. Occasionally, they will take on a patient who can actually pay for the care him/herself (or the family can). When the opportunity to take on a self-funding patient arises, even if the unit is "officially" full, the number of beds available suddenly increases. Seems the organization (a non-profit BTW) isn't getting enough from Medicare to fully pay for the services rendered, so it is necessary to pad the bill to the patients who can actually pay.

Medicare = Rationing
See previous post.

Jlohman
Did it dawn on you that perhaps part (if not all) of the 60% of physician you site prefering single payor systems prefered being paid by their patients? I doubt it stated they prefered being paid by the government as a single payor but that was the obvious concluson your clouded judgement drew.
As a Medicare provider, I would gladly give up the governmental hurdles, dimishing fee schedules and ever increasing beaurocracy for a single payor fee for service system. I will gladly put out my fee private ,schedule as well as my results so that patients can make informed decisions. I will be delighted to disclose my credentials and negotiate directly with the health care consumer (which we physicians still call patients). I will be glad to get the government's nose out of your health care business and in the process eliminate their need to know your diagnoses and treatments.
You don't even know what you have already given up and yet you are willing to take more from those of us who believe we can exercise greater control over our own lives. Don't worry about the healthcare issue. Eventually when you, too, become 65, you won't have any other choice than the one you are trying to force upon us now - MEDICARE. You think it's so wonderful, just sit back and wait for it to happen for you.
In the meantime, if you want to be a do-gooder, go down to the local library and read to the children, or volunteer to be a school crossing guard. Just get your hands out of my pocket and stop trying to treat everyone like the child you are. Some of are are adults and demand to be treated as such.

Jlohman
Gee, if what you say is true, you must already be experiencing (or be very near to) the eternal bliss of MEDICARE.

By the way, thanks for finally offering me a choice. Perhaps you are finally recognizing the point. Yes, I am very happy in the real, yet sometimes very difficult and painful, world.



Interesting
"Scooternyc get it mostly right (the social Darwinism is a bit much)"

You have an issue with Natural Selection because you're afraid YOU won't be the one selected.

Having an emotional attachment to outcomes is what creates irresponsible action.

Paid socialists are out in force?
When a person who has spent no time on TH shows up on a particular topic and posts propaganda all morning, taking all comers, I wonder whether they're part of a political campaign that has tasked someone to address the topic. Jlohman, are you paid? a member of a campaign staff? or are you just a faithful socialist doing your duty for the State?

You're correct, there is no competition in health care -- TODAY. Stossel's entire article, though, is aimed at demonstrating that medical care is no different from any other market commodity; and you have said not a single word to explain why you think that would not work in non-elective care. The distinction you draw -- elective vs. non-elective -- is an artificial one that exists only because it defines those areas where insurance will not pay. Stossel's point -- which, again, you have ignored -- is that when insurance is taken out of the equation, doctor and patient behavior changes in predictable ways.

Your approach, jlohman, seems to be simply to DEFINE health care as a public trust, and then sneer at anybody who argues instead for a privatized system: "You seem to want to go back to 1900."

It's really very simple; if the patient never sees the bill, and the insurance company will pay for synthetic antibiotics, the doctor will use synthetics -- and the entire bill will be 10 times what it would be if the patient saw the bill, and said "You know, I could just take generic E-mycin." And as a faithful socialist, you will never acknowledge that the 10x bill isn't "free". But there is no free lunch.

Stossel's right, sir, and you are simply a propagandist.

outfit a large RV with his office
I remember that 30 or 40 years ago one doctor I talked to was going to outfit a large RV with his office, and his equipment, and he would do only house calls.

Never heard another word about it, but often wondered what happened.

===========

By the way, I hope you posters who use long paragraphs did not say anything of value.

I don't have time to read long paragraphs, when I can read, scan, or ignore short paragraphs.

Look at what you wrote, do you want to try and wade though all of that?

scooternyc
Take a deep breath a re-read my post. I actually agree with you.

In the meantime, go back an reread Darwin's original publication On the Origin of Species, 1859. In it you will find none of the ridiculous Social Darwinism theory that the end of your post decries. Social Darwinism has long been discreditied, don't embarass yourself by trying to make it fit here. Your comments are well grounded on their own merit, they don't need discredited labels to substantiate them.

A suggestion
Well, maybe it’s because I first became interested in 1944 in the "pre-computer" business, and spent my pay-roll years helping put the men on the moon etc., but let’s make better use of the computers we have.

This may be of no interest to some, but I have found a way to spend my time efficiently as I read TH. I use ATT Yahoo Mail, and your system may be much different, but maybe you can find a way to do this.

First I click “View in descending order.”

Then I place the name of the day (Monday, Tuesday, etc.) in the Find box, then click Previous.

The first comment is at the bottom of the page, but for each additional click, the next comment is available to read, scan, or ignore, at the top of the screen. It works well for me.

Just one click take you from each comment to the next. Of course just click anywhere in the column, and you will start from there.

Any comments??

Hey John ....
If you're having a heart attack, do you get to choose which hospital you wind up in? You may like Hospital A because they're reasonably priced but wind up at Hospital B which your cheap and PRIVATE HMO won't pay for? I don't think Adam Smith works when it comes health care. Putting a price tag on everything -- now that's how conservative sheeple really think!!!

EQUAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL
From Mr. Stossel's article:
The eye doctor: 1) "Insurance rarely covers what he does." Sounds like we can get along without the health insurance industry.
2) "His patients shop around before coming to him." "How much will that cost?" Choosing a doctor based on how much he/she charges is foolish, I believe. Trying to develop a doctor---patient relationship based on competition over the dollar bill is nonsense.
"Prices have fallen and quality has risen..." How does Mr. Stossel know this? Sounds like business jargon rhetoric to me, designed to maintain the status quo of the health care economic market place.
The Tennessee doctor doesn't accept insurance and apparently his patients are happy with that.
Again, it sounds like we can get along very well without the health insurance companies.
Regarding the Wal-Mart medical clinics, which I call "the doc in the box", any doctor can open his/her office on Saturdays and Sundays to help his/her patients who work M-F. The advantage of this is that the patients (and the doctors) would be participating in the ongoing development of their own doctor---patient relationships, which will never happen in Wal-Mart. But, of course, if they wished to go shopping after the visit, they would have to make a separate trip to the Wal-Mart. Such inconvenience!
Health care is the doctor---patient relationship and competition for the dollar bill conflicts that relationship. Lack of the dollar bill makes that relationship impossible to start.
A properly run single payer could guarantee clear and equal access to sound, ongoing doctor---patient relationships for every patient in America. Then we could stop calling sick people consumers and once again refer to them as patients.
R. Garth Kirkwood M.D.
http://www.equalhealthcareforall.com
doctork@equalhealthcareforall.com

no bs artist
"I don't think Adam Smith works when it comes health care."

That's you libs' problem. You don't THINK it works. We conservative KNOW that it does.

Short enough for you Jim?

socialized medicine
Leftists push for socialized medicine, knowing that the fact that their parents - rather than entering emergency and having an operation that would most likely samve their lives, would have to wait 6 mos for an operation and most likely would die during the "waiting period". Thus, their inheritence would be much higher as their parents would have less chance to enjoy their retirement.

(Why are costs so high? Lawyers are seeking excuses to extort money from Drs. and with liberal judges, they are quite successful.)

A wonderful dream
doctork emmotes - "A properly run single payer could guarantee clear and equal access to sound, ongoing doctor---patient relationships for every patient in America."

Gee, Doc, that's a wonderful dream - from the standpoint of a doctor who would no longer have to deal with multiple insurance companies nor late-paying patients.

But, how is the money for all of this going to be collected from us taxpayers. As an upper-middle income sort, if it were to be collected from us as a percentage of income, I'm wondering if I won't end up paying more in healthcare tax than my current healthcare policy costs. And, what about those of us who are health-conscience-Americans? Should we be taxed at the same rate as corpulent-Americans? Shouldn’t our abstinence from unhealthy food, beverage, and lifestyle choice earn us some sort of tax-credit? Shouldn’t we get credit for the hours we spend exercising?

You know what? I want the choice to be “health insurance-pooled” only with other people who take care of themselves; the same way I’ve chosen to be “auto insurance-pooled” with other safe/good record drivers.

I could go to a high-risk auto insurance company, but, since I’d then be pooled with bad drivers, I’d have to pay higher rates. I’m concerned that the same thing is going to happen if I’m “forced-health insurance-pooled” with all those obese people who aren’t going to take care of themselves, and who will eventually cost a lot more to treat as they age.

Typical lib thinking
Only libs would argue that competition isn't good for customers of health care the same as it is good for customers of all other goods and services.

Today's health care industry is bound up in a tangle of regulation that hampers "start-up" hospitals and clinics, legislates against specialty hospitals, allows one competing hospital to impose a boycott against another, restricts the purchase of health insurance across state lines and mandates what kind of health insurance can/must be sold within individual states, and allows mergers of major health care providers under the false promises that they are "non-profit", will treat the uninsured inexpensively, and that prices will be lowered.

In reality all of these laws and regulations have accomplished is to frustrate health care providers and patients at the same time.

The liberal solution to the problems caused by over-regulation and too much government control is to impose MORE regulation and TOTAL government control.

Real bright.

DocTony
You embarrass yourself, pal.

It's not about "social darwinism", it's about understanding the process of natural selection.

Natural Selection is biological, not "social" as has been attempted to define. The biological surviving mode is the human being itself - which IS the organism, not just the "parts". Narrow of mind is narrow of understanding.

Again, emotional response to that which is merely observed action of life, will not advance your understanding of the theory.


Perfect, get to your next door poster
Mr. Right writes: Wednesday, October, 10, 2007 2:04 PM
Short enough for you Jim?

============

Perfect, now try to get the information to your next door poster,
-------
doctork writes: Wednesday, October, 10, 2007 2:01 PM
EQUAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL

He may have said something of interest, but I’ll never know as long as it is in long paragraphs.

scooternyc
Deep cleansing breaths my friend.

"The rest of society should not be paying for your inability to make quality choices for yourself. If that means your lineage dies off, so be it."

By definition, my confused friend, your comments have exemplified Social Darwinism Theory. I doubt that Herbert Spencer, himself, could have put it more clearly. The quasi-philisophical, quasi-religious and quasi-sociological theory was a vulgar misrepresentation of Darwin's ground breaking observations. Darwin's theory of 'evolution as transformation with adaptation' is based upon coded genetic survival advantages which have selective survival benefit. Unlike your course rhetoric suggests, his theory did not imply the ridiculous teleologic basis of your statement.
You seem to be a bright, albeit emotional fellow. That's why I recommend you re-read (that is if you ever read it to begin with) the original treatise as previously referenced. If you choose not to do so perhaps you or your lineage, too, might be naturally selected out because of 'your inabilty to make quality choices for yourself.' Though you said it, that must sound ridiculous even to you scooternyc.

Response to slwerner, a wonderful dream.
Thank you for your kind and intelligent commentary and question. The specific answer to your question, How is the money for all of this going to be collected from us taxpayers, is contained in chapter 3 of my book, EQUAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL. The title of the chapter is "Financing Our American Health Care System, Financing The Development, Maintenance, and Support of Doctor---Patient Relationships." It includes the concept of unhealthy choice taxes, just what you referred to. Those who indulge in unhealthy choices for food, beverage, and lifestyle will be taxed on those choices for the purpose of paying up front for their increased utilization of our health care system. There are several other ideas as well that spread the entire funding for a single payer system across all economic strata in our country.
Of course, collecting the money is only part of the answer. Controlling the outflow of money to health care businesses and professionals is the next step. (Chapters 4&7) This is not done by rationing health care, save "vanity" procedures and the like, but rather by controlling the prices paid to all health care businesses and professionals. These payment amounts can be generous, just not egregiously "over the top." For example, look at the salaries commanded by some of the hospital CEOs.
Other ideas in the book are mandatory advance care directives, medical identification cards for everyone living in America, and linking billing for services and product to a centralized storage system for all medical records. This linking provides ongoing access to quality assurance protocols.
Yes, my overhaul of our entire health care system is a wonderful dream, not just for doctors, but rather, for everyone living in America.
Thanks again; feel free to contact me via the website.
R. Garth Kirkwood M.D.
http://www.equalhealthcareforall.com
doctork@equalhealthcareforall.com

Socialized medical care.
For all those who want the government to run health care: name three things the government does well. Name one thing. (Spending vast amounts of money taken from people who work for a living doesn't count.)

When there is a single payer, that payer will always decide how much to pay and whaat they will pay for. When politics is involved, a few voters needing exxpensive procedures will always be a lot less important than a lot of voters upset about increasing tax rates.

And you will have no other option.

Socialized Medicine
Great idea. Combines the sense of urgency one finds at the DMV, the compassion one receives from the IRS, and the competence one finds in the public schools. Where do I sign up?

doctork
You paint a utopian picture. Socialism always looks good on paper. If socialism is so great, however, why do socialist regimes end up killing millions of citizens to coerce compliance? Because socialism serves no one, in the end. Utopia does not nor will it ever exist.

DocTony
I always find it hilarious when the "emotional" types want to label someone like myself, who refuses to engage in such irresponsible action, as emotional - projection is a form of denial - typically your own.

At least it makes me laugh.

Again - narrow of mind is narrow of understanding.

It is easily understood, if one contemplates, that the human species, is, in and of itself, an organism functioning within a greater space of life, etc. If you are a doctor I would think you could assimilate this understanding quite easily.

Allocating it to social Darwinism is attempting to just dismiss it as something radical, hijacking Charles Darwin's theory, which it isn't, nor does it adhere to such theoretical ideals laid forth by those who do contemplate social Darwinism. I'm referring strictly to the organism, that which is the living human species within a greater context.

It's not rocket science; it's just simple science.

Again, arrogance(an emotion) and emotion itself will not allow you to understand this scientific observation - you have to be able to step outside your emotion to understand it because emotion will override intellect.

And that, if you want to look it up, is located within the amygdala. Probably emoted from the past experience toward "lack of inclusion", which if contemplated, is natural selection - not everyone gets chosen based on certain qualities and functionalities.

So way off topic - the bottom line is personal responsibility. The facts are observable - not everyone is adept at managing their lives - this should naturally exclude those individuals who will eventually become extinct if people would just let it happen naturally.

taxation is a waste of health care costs
Stan writes: "For all those who want the government to run health care: name three things the government does well. Name one thing. (Spending vast amounts of money taken from people who work for a living doesn't count.)"

Stan is quite correcte. I might add, "What percentage of the money that the fascists (Democrats) confiscate from us under “taxation for medical treatment” is actually available for treatment for us?" The majority of citizens can do a far better job with the money that is “confiscated from citizens for medical treatment” than what the government does with it.

Another irresponsible idea
"Those who indulge in unhealthy choices for food, beverage, and lifestyle will be taxed on those choices for the purpose of paying up front for their increased utilization of our health care system"

This is like the scandalous taxes on those who choose to smoke.

Choice is the greatest freedom any individual can have in life.

Let a person eat or smoke whatever they want, they are responsible for whatever the outcome of those choices.

But NO ONE, NOR GOVERNMENT, should be doing anything to tax, thwart, impose or otherwise be involved in those choices - that includes offering ANY health insurance NOT paid by the individual who indulge such activities.

Your "touchy-feely" idea is attempting to be punitive in a societal manner - it's none of our business.

We won't care who is smoking or overeating if we're NOT the ones having to foot the bill.

Choice is freedom; your freedom ends at a cost to me.

Don't make me accountable for the cost and you preserve your freedom.

Scooternyc
Clearly we agree that personal responsibility and the willingness of a society to allow it is the best means to self determination.

You clearly don't grasp the concept that Darwin describes in his treatise and it is not my place to educate you. If you believe you get it, that's really no skin off my back. After you someday read Darwin, I would then suggest you read Herbert Spencer's attempts to bastardize Darwin's observations and apply them in the identical social meanner that you have done. You will be amazed at how similar your comments sound.

You ad hominen attacks only betray your insecurity regarding your comprehension of the topic. Your slogan based arguments are comical at best and illogical in their simplistic construction. But then again, I'm probably just an 'emotional denying organism in the strictest sense existing in a greater context who is narrow of mind and, alas, narrow of understanding.'

Uuuhhh, what?!?

Elective vs. Neccesary
So Mr. Stossel, when you get hit by a bus, I trust that you'll shop around to different ambulance services to take you in? And decide which ER you'd rather go to? And then make sure to pick the right ICU.

Elective eye surgery is quite a different beast from the majority of medical care, and your conflation of the two serves little purpose outside of supporting your ideological bias.

DocTony, inkling_revival
I am 70 and on Medicare already, and I love it. And it has not altered my choice one iota. I have not given up anything in the changeover. I see the same doctor and go to the same hospital as before. I even have the choice to change doctors, which some privates have limited in their plans. But as a physician you already know that, or should.

And when I was a health care provider and billed Medicare directly, I preferred it to private insurers then as well. But I operated an independent lab at the bottom of the food chain and not a physician at the top.

You and I know that those doctors that prefer the privates over Medicare do so because the privates do not have a fee schedule and will often accept invoices from physicians that are quadruple what Medicare would normally pay. That, even when the Medicare fee is fair. And if you are one of those overcharging the privates I can indeed understand your position, but you also clearly know that that gravy train is coming to an end.

Also be aware that the proposed “diminishing fee schedules” was mandated by Bush in his effort to kill Medicare and send it to his private insurance buddies, but the word I get is that the Dems are now reversing that threat and you’ll be okay with it going forward.

And to inkling_revival, no, I am not paid by anybody. You can see my blog at http://MoneyedPoliticians.net and disclosure on the About tab. Sorry to disappoint you. And I have indeed explained why I do not believe there is (or ever will be) competition in health care when you click on the above link. I will ne repeat it here.

jlohman
You again demonstrate your ignorance.

Over each of the last five years, medicare fee schedules have been reduced for my area of specialty. On average, Medicare sets the bar for private insurance fee schedules at 100-140% of medicare reimbursement. There are nearly no insurers that pay physicians fee for service based upon charges. In my practive, in a major metropolitan area, it is less than 1% of my billing. Don't even get me started with medicaid. Can you say a penny on the dollar?

As a result of your perceived Utopia, numerous capable contributing members of the medical community have retired early rather than put up with the beaurocarcy of governement healthcare at a shrinking reimbursement while costs/liabilties continue to increase. There is another large group of docs who refuse to be Medicare providers. Although it does not currently exist, you can bet your bottom dollar (or in your case your neighbor's dollars) that there will eventually be a two tier system of health care in this country. You benefit, as the Canadians do, because there is a private system still functioning in the US. You get to reap the benefits and have no accountability to it.
Be careful. You might just get what you wish for.

DocTony
A penny on the dollar??? Of course if you *billed* 100 times the worth of the procedure they'd pay you even less. But claim anything you want.

Medicare is borderline and Medicaid is extremely bad. But if all of a sudden you started getting paid Medicare rates for Medicaid and uninsured patients, I expect you'd do okay (though I expect that you'll deny that to).

But if things are really that bad, have you considered plumbing?

But before changing careers, you really should take a look at http://www.pnhp.org. You might learn something from your fellow physicians.

jlohman
Boy, how do plumbers get hired? How do they get paid? What government beaurocracy are they forced to deal with? My guess is that your plumber would likely be dealing with the same issues as your doctor does, considering you're full of s**t.
Hmm, 8 years post secondary school, 3-5 years of internship/residency, 1-5 years of fellowship training, entry level positions where you are paid less than a plumber with considerably greater overhead, liability and aggravation. Sounds like the perfect advertisement to reach the best and brightest of our generation.
But then again you perceive health care as a right bestowed upon you by some unknown entity. Those who provide that service should just shut up and take what the do-gooders say, because they know best. What's next? Are you going to decide who does what for a living next? Sounds alot like the do-gooders from the 60s and their War on Poverty. Since that time we've spent trillions and now have a permanent government reliant underclass to show for it. You must be very proud.

Simple math
My employer spends about $12000 a year on my health insurance. I'm currently in my 9th year at my job. That amounts to $108,000 over the course of my career. The total cost of all of my medical expenses paid by my insurance company in that time is approximately $3000.

If instead of buying me insurance for $12000, they had given me $8000 to invest in a HSA, I would currently have over $90,000 saved up for medical expenses (I figured a very conservative 6% over the past 9 years. My retirement account has grown at well over 10% in that same time period). Also, my employer would have cut their medical expenses to 2/3 of previous expense.

At the same rate, after 20 years (11 more from now), I would have over $300,000 in that account.

Now I can foresee two arguments:

1. Medical expenses will go up in the future. Is $300,000 enough?

My response follows in line with Stossel's argument. If the money is coming out of an account that I control, I will seek competitive rates and refuse unnecessary tests. Because the market will be competitive as all consumers with HSA's demand to know the cost of services, costs will likely go down in this system.

2. What about a serious, long term disability, injury, or illness?

What is to prevent a simpler insurance system for those services? Why can't there be insurance packaged for a variety of illnesses that would be unreasonably costly - cancer, brain or heart ailments, etc.?

You buy car insurance to pay for extreme situations. Everything else you pay for out of pocket. Health insurance should be done the same way. Imagine how much Valvoline would charge for an oil change if insurance companies were footing the bill!

Hmm....
... so why would free market competition work in all other commerce but not work in health care? That makes absolutely no sense, even if the stawman of emergency services is brought up.

It I (or John Stossel, as named in the above example), is hit by a truck and unconscious, obviously we're not going to be able to bargain with the ambulance driver or check prices on the hospital. But this is exactly what the catastrophic insurance is for -- a catastrophic event. I have auto insurance, but I don't use it for oil changes and routine maintenance; if I have a wreck (something catastrophic), I use the insurance. At that point, yes, I am paying for a service -- for them to negotiate for me on the large, catastrophic repairs required.

Because the catastrophic events are rare for an individual (most people don't get hit by a truck very often), it is worth pooling together with others to develop some leverage (in the form of insurance) to deal with the hospitals when a catastrophic event does occur.

That still doesn't change the fact that on the day-to-day matters (e.g., tuneups for my car or checkups for my body) I can look around and make my own choices. If I need a heart surgeon, there aren't as many choices -- there aren't many heart surgeons opening up shop on the corner. There's definitely an economy of scale involved.

One last point
One last point on why putting individual health care choices into the hands of individuals is a good idea. When we as individuals delegate the job of selecting and paying for health care to another body, be it an insurance company or the government, we are bringing more overhead into the picture. The doctor needs more people to handle billing; the insurance company or government agency needs people to handle the billing from their side. There is a certain residual cost to "pushing paper" no matter how simple the procedure, and then to make sure there's no fraud or abuse requires even more people. Each medical procedure has to build in the cost of all those workers. However, if I, as an individual, pay for a procedure myself, I cut out the residual cost of all those additional involvements.

One last point
One last point on why putting individual health care choices into the hands of individuals is a good idea. When we as individuals delegate the job of selecting and paying for health care to another body, be it an insurance company or the government, we are bringing more overhead into the picture. The doctor needs more people to handle billing; the insurance company or government agency needs people to handle the billing from their side. There is a certain residual cost to "pushing paper" no matter how simple the procedure, and then to make sure there's no fraud or abuse requires even more people. Each medical procedure has to build in the cost of all those workers. However, if I, as an individual, pay for a procedure myself, I cut out the residual cost of all those additional involvements.

John Galt
I guess we think alike.

Thanks for explaining my car insurance analogy better than I did.

As an Ayn Rand fan, are you a Rush (Canadian rock group, not radio host) fan, as well. Neal Peart was a Rand fan, and 2112 is analogous to her book Anthem.

"Live for yourself - there's no one else more worth living for."

For ALL of you who took jlohman to task
I give you a round of applause! Unfortunately it appears that jlohman is only interested in arguing (that's a lib for you!) rather than learning anthing new than repeating the same old, worn out liberal mantras.

We like our HSA. Our only regret is that we did not do it years ago, before throwing away tens of thousands of dollars on traditional health care insurance which we paid dearly for but rarely used.

We like CHOOSING how or if we spend our accumulated HSA dollars, we like the tax benefit of putting money (equal the deductible) each year in our HSA account, we like the interest our HSA account earns, and we like paying for the small things (even some of our prescriptions which are not so small) ON OUR OWN while reserving insurance for a hospitalization or something major. About a year ago our insurance company had a hissy fit over clients who had the nerve to apply prescription costs towards their high deductible. So they began telling us what drugs could be used when, for how long, and how often they could be refilled. We STOPPED going through the controlling insurance and just pay the club price now. So much less hassle!

What we would like even better is that when we go see our doctors we could simply pay cash without having the doctor/provider "submit it to insurance first" to end up paying the "official" contracted amount. WHY doesn't the doctor just TELL us what that amount is, let US pay it, and BYPASS the insurance company all together? The funniest thing is when we pay the doctor BEFORE receiving an actual bill in the mail (but we have received the explanation of benefits form from the insurance, so we know what we owe by then) the office staff is completely thrown off balance that someone would actually do this. Imagine if all health care were like this? Well, John Stossel described it perfectly.

From inside the industry
Lets figure out the losers in the HSA world.

Insurance Companies. They have a complete generation overinsured in prepaid healthcare plans, and very few understand the nuance of how they work. HDHPs change the math equations enough to have Insurers to start opening banks to handle accounts. Some carriers have been barriers to enrollment with bad plan design and overpriced HDHPs. This transition to market based health plans will financially hurt them and may not be totally behind the transition.

Hospitals inefficient non-competitive monopolists. When insurance companies pressure hospitals in the same market, hospitals merge and the corresponding costs of care increase dramatically. Someone mentioned earlier that hospitals don't make money, wow that dog won't hunt, where I live there isn't a hospital that isn't expanding or haven't improved facilites.
The demands of market based competition will require increases in the levels of service and quality.

Insurance brokers, selling HDHPs result in less commission for the broker. I have had them tell me personally that they do not sell that type of plan because they pay less.

re: Larry
I actually think hospitals and insurance companies would *benefit* from an HSA-oriented plan. Why? Because it would help make them more efficient and get them back to spending more time doing what they do best. For hospitals, that means treating patients; for insurance companies, they could get out of the hassles of dealing with all the small stuff and concentrate on administering the catastrophic things. It would sharpen the focus for all.

The only people who would be "hurt" by an individual-centric, HSA-type plan are the pencil pushers & paper handlers. But even then, that's only if you consider the labor market a zero-sum game; a more efficient system with competition would spur innovation, creating more jobs down the line.

Larry, none of your
negatives about HSA's flys with me, since the positives are so much better. As for the agents not selling HSA's, well so what? Their job as an agent should be to get you the product you want, not the one that makes them a bigger commission or one that benefits the insurance company who employs them. But if they don't want to do it people will find an agent who does (we did.)

Pretty much anymore people can go online direct, bypassing the agent completely. Your claim is similar to agents only wanting to sell whole life insurance versus term life insurance. That didn't stop up from buying term life and saving bucketloads of money in premiums. We care about the money we spend enough to educate ourselves and be proactive about our choices.

Getting pregnant is not an accident
I am sick of people talking like it is not their fault they cannot afford to pay for their children. If you cannot afford something that you do not have to have, what part of me HAVING to help pay for it makes sense? I gotta go throw up. Someone buy me some medicine.

from Bill Curry -
After seven years of war, gluttonous pork barrel spending and massive tax cuts, Bush saying we can't afford health care for our children is like a father coming home to say there's no money for groceries because he spent it all on drinks or at the track. Thus the need for a second argument, that the bill is 'European' or 'socialist.'

If this were a movie it would be funny. Until Bush held them up at the border, seniors flocked to Canada for lower drug prices. They'd have swum to Europe if it weren't so far.

As for socialism, we have it now. Government pays the lion's share of health care costs and gets less for it every year because it can't tame the insurance industrial complex. Bush cries 'free market' but his pork fest of a Medicare drug bill stifled competition and guaranteed industry profits. It's called corporate socialism and Bush is its Lenin.

We pay twice what any other country pays for overhead, as much as 30 cents of every health care dollar. "Socialist" Canada is second at about 16 cents. Until voters find out that Aetna charges 20 cents to do what Medicare does for a nickel and that federal law guarantees their right to go right on doing it, real change will elude us.


A show of hands please
Hey medically ignorant sheeple--a show of hands if any of you socialized medicine hating shnooks are currently receiving some kind of medicaid or medicare benefits? How about your family--is Mom and Dad getting medicare? Do you think either you or your loved ones would be here if it weren't for that? Oh and we're still too unenlightened for socialized medicine--Original Medicaid only covers basic coverage for hospitals and outpatient services. You're on your own with vision, dental and hearing.

Why are you listening John Stossel? I bet he has a great health plan!

re: sonofsam
Couple of problems with your theses, although you're absolutely correct about Bush's free-spending ways. The S-CHIP bill was not just about poor children's health insurance -- it covered people who aren't children and who aren't sick. Also, the $35 billion price tag over 5 years was misleading; it would cost a lot more beyond the 5 years unless the benefits were severely cut. Having given people benefits, government is unlikely to ever cut them off.

I'm not sure if you're numbers are correct or not on overhead costs, but regardless of what the actual numbers are, individual-centric programs would reduce the need for them without rationing of health care that occurs under government programs. Give the power to the individuals to decide, not a bureaucrat, not a politician.

sonofsam and no bs artist
I agree with you sonofsam. Bush has been no fiscal conservative. That's why he's tring to pass off an increase of $5 billion onto the already ridiculous non-means tested SCHIP program which already doesn't even meet the objectives the do-gooders set out for it. But in typical liberal fashion, they asked for $35 billion in increases and expansion of the program to cover people at as much as 400% above poverty. Let me guess. I'm supposed to be happy about paying for this. Oh, no. That's right it's supposed to be paid for by smokers. That's the same group that the same Libs are trying to make extinct. So when there aren't enough smokers to pay for the increase, guess who's pockets do-gooder sonofsam will be reaching into?

No BS Artist: Medicare is an obligatory government entitlement. Mom and Pop don't have a choice. Remembering what you Libs did when the concept of personal retirement accounts were raised as an elective opportunity instead of social security, I doubt there is a single politician willing to look at, let alone touch, that third rail. No problem. As messed up as social security is, Medicare is an even bigger financial mess. It's only a matter of time. It's like the old FRAM oil filter commercial says :'You can pay me now, or you can pay me later.' Your liberal fantasy world doesn't exist no matter how many times you say it. Move aside and let the adults of this great country use the exceptionalism of its citizens to craft the solution.

Let's Say The Gov. Pays My Healthcare
If I am a beneficiary, I am tempted to quit my job, which will be actually be paying me a lot less money, due to all the people I will be helping to pay health care costs. Also the long lines at the doctors office will be easier to get through if I do not have to go to work. I will go to the doctor for the least little thing because I do not have to pay(I do not understand how people get away with that now, because I am not permitted past the receptionist without proof I can pay, but I am not an illegal alien, I guess.) I may even call an ambulance for a ride. I will insist on name brand meds, and every possible test. I would not worry about how many women I get pregnant. Of course I would not give in to these temptations, but I know people who DEFINITELY will. (Come to think of it, they already do.)
If I am a doctor, I would be tempted to sluff my way through school, because there will be a big demand for doctors, no matter the quality, due to the best candidates getting a better paying, and more appreciated line of work. I will be less than thorough in my work, due to the rampant misuse of the system, and the huge increase in patient load. I will be tempted to give patients generic and bill the government for name brand, because my freeloading patient insisted on name brand, so they can sell them for more money to people they know who do not have time to wait in the intergalactic size lines to get in to see me. I gotta go throw up.

BS Artist
"Hey medically ignorant sheeple--a show of hands if any of you socialized medicine hating shnooks are currently receiving some kind of medicaid or medicare benefits?"

We've already answered these charges under other columns. Repeatedly.

It's time for you to think up a new shtick. This one has gotten old.

Very Pro HSA
Gentlemen

I am in the industry.....

In other comments I have mentioned that hsa's are the most tax advantaged account ever created for the public.

I am very pro HSA. I talk to businesses and people everyday. We are talking about huge changes in the way healthcare is delivered and those changes should be embraced.

But keep in mind there is a tremendous amount of money being made in this ineffecient highly bureaucratic system. Think of the premium collected on traditional plans, sitting in the coffers of the insurance carriers and rolled over night to night at the fed funds rate. If you overinsure the market with traditional plans you are talking millions of dollars in interest being lost in the transition for traditional HP to HDHPs.

Read Regina's book on healthcare for the Hospitals role in this.

By the way I have helped enroll 800 groups into these type of plans. Believe me it isn't as easy at it should be. I have seen a free healthcare plan in the guise of a fully funded HSA be turned down because people wanted co-pays.

re John Galt
"Give the power to the individuals to decide, not a bureaucrat, not a politician."

If one cannot afford health care, he has NO choice.

Besides, why should health care dollars go to subsidize corporate greed/inefficiency?

Its time to hold corporations accountable for our dollars, just as we hold govt accountable.

re: sonofsam
Health care is more expensive than it should be, largely due to the fact that there is no price competition -- a third party pays most health care bills directly (the majority of the time, that third party is the government). Institute some free market principles, and we'll see prices go down. Give individuals the tax advantages for insurance and control over their own insurance, and they will be able to shop around; competition will lower the price of insurance. Tort reform that prevents ambulance-chasing lawyers from sucking dollars out of the system will further lower prices.

Institute those things, and then let's see who really *can't* afford health insurance.

I'll turn your question around on you: why should health care dollars go to subsidize government greed/inefficiency (and I would add: corruption)? I have no problems with business enterprises making profits; it is the profit incentive that drives innovation and competition. The government, however, has NO incentive to be efficient, successful, or innovative, to provide customer satisfaction, to keep costs low. A business competing for the dollars of consumers -- persuade people to spend their dollars with you or they will go to your competitor -- has incentive for all those things that a government monopoly could never have.

Why are you so against individual choice? Why should the government be in charge? And, most important but rarely discussed, where in the Constitution is the federal government given the authority to force me into a government-run healthcare system?

I'd be interested
in Mr. Stossel's thoughts on "concierge" or "boutique" doctors and care. For an annual flat fee, a patient has unlimited visits and personalized care from the doctor. I know of a handful of doctors in my area that accept such patients.

The NYT ran a piece on it a while back. They were not really happy about the concept. (what a shock).


re: Bess
I can't speak for Mr. Stossel, but it sounds like a fine idea to me -- IF a person wants to choose such a service and the doctor is willing to provide it, that's just consenting adults engaging in commerce. And, such a system would fit nicely into an HSA program as well -- the patient could use the HSA to pay the "concierge" doctor fee.

sonofsam
Could you clarify what you mean by "can't afford health care"?

Do families that choose to own cars (instead of taking public transportation), choose to get cable TV, have multiple cell phones, buy overpriced clothes (when there is a cheaper alternative), etc. fall into your category of those who "can't afford health care"?

Do the uninsured people who go to the emergency room to get mandatory care without paying for it fall into your category of those who "can't afford health care"?

Would it be more appropriate to refer to the majority of these people that you want us to feel sorry for as people who don't put a high value on health care? Or, people who don't choose to afford health care?

I have another simple solution to someone with health care needs. Join a church. I assure you that members of the congregation will be more than willing to raise money for excessive bills (and it won't even require government intervention!) for a member of their church family.

I don't understand how our country can be filled with so many charitable organizations, and yet, some people still feel the first answer for those with needs is government handouts.



Larry, your last post
"I have seen a free healthcare plan in the guise of a fully funded HSA be turned down because people wanted co-pays."

That is because people did not understand how HSA's work and because they have been under the impression (real or imagined)for too long that their health insurance should cover everything from minor to major. Once people truly understand the concept of HSA's they see how traditional copay insurance is not the way to go.
Then once they have an HSA and they see the value plus THEY make decisions for their own health care, it all comes together.

But people with HSA's need to understand that they must be disciplined about putting the money aside each year in their HSA account (just like savings) so that they will have the money to pay the high deductible should it be necessary or build up their HSA account. This can be hard, (especially if they have run to the doctor for every little cold or cut) because on top of putting money aside in the HSA account they have to pay for ALL their medical expenses under the deductible amount first. For many people, especially given our society of "I want it now, I deserve it now" attitude, this is a major attitude adjustment.

re bporter
"Could you clarify what you mean by "can't afford health care"?"

From Time -
It turns out, however, that not everything about the Frosts' life pops up on a Google search. While Graeme does attend a private school, he does so on scholarship. Halsey Frost is a self-employed woodworker; he and his wife say they earn between $45,000 and $50,000 a year to provide for their family of six. Their 1936 rowhouse was purchased in 1990 for $55,000. It was vacant and in a run-down neighborhood that has improved since then, in part because of people like themselves who took a chance. It is now assessed at $263,140, though under state law the value of that asset is not taken into account in determining their eligibility for SCHIP. And while they are still uninsured, they claim it is most certainly not by choice. Bonnie Frost says the last time she priced health coverage, she learned it would cost them $1,200 a month.

The above snippet from Time perfectly illustrate why single-payer health care is really the answer to the health care problem in the US.

1.) Notice the Frost's already priced insurance. At $1200/month, the Frosts would be looking at $14,000/year in payments. That's 32% of their income. That assumes those are all the medical costs the Frosts would pay which simply isn't true. My guess is the $1200/month policy would have some type of deductible, co-pay structure etc.... Considering the Frosts overall situation of two children needing expensive medical care, medical costs could easily become 40%-50% of their annual expenses.

re John Galt
"Why are you so against individual choice?"

I 100% for choice.
I 100% against economic discrimination and corp greed hiding behind "individual choice"!

An example of phony "choice"; employer benefits only offer those corps that the employer "cut a deal" with.
Let the employee choose any plan he wants, he can pay everything after the employers contribution.


re John Galt
"Why are you so against individual choice?"

I 100% for choice.
I 100% against economic discrimination and corp greed hiding behind "individual choice"!

An example of phony "choice"; employer benefits only offer those corps that the employer "cut a deal" with.
Let the employee choose any plan he wants, he can pay everything after the employers contribution.


sonofsam -- Employer Paid Insurance
sonofsam: "Let the employee choose any plan he wants, he can pay everything after the employers contribution."

Good -- but not good enough.

Let the employee choose any plan he wants, including NO plan, and let the employer just pay him the difference. I.e., there should be ZERO "employer contribution." Instead, the employer should pay the employee the money, and the employee can buy insurance with it if he wants to. Or he can contribute to his Lottery Retirement Plan, whatever -- the point is, it becomes the employee's choice, not the employer's not the government's.

I mean, where do people suppose the employer gets the money to pay for employee insurance? Out of profits, of course. Eliminate that expense, and the employer will have more profit -- which he will use to either improve his business, expand, reduce his debt obligations, hire more people, or pay his existing people more.

Whichever choice he makes, the overall effect is the economy will improve. And people who believe they need health insurance will shop around for the best deals, which will bring those prices down, again, improving the economy.

not ashamed
Hurrah. I more convert that gets it

Larry,
What?

Great article
"And consumers gain more control of their health care. Instead of governments and insurance companies deciding for patients, patients decide.

Competition gives consumers more choices. And choice gives them power. Remember that when you hear a politician promise to make health case accessible and affordable through the force of government."

Those two paragraphs sum up the importance of the free market in medicine.

The free market works in just about every situation, if given a chance. However, with politicians and big government advocates always trying to scare people to death, that they won't be taken care of unless big government steps in, the free market sometimes isn't given a chance.

Individual vs. company
In MD where I live, I am currently looking for insurance. Now my employer will pay for the whole thing, however, I am looking at the group plan and finding out that because of the age pool the insurance for the individual is over 700 dollars a month. If I go with an individual plan outside of the employer provided insurance it is only 250 per month. My employer has agreed to pay for either plan I choose. I'm going with the cheaper one because if I am with the more expensive one, I have just given up any chance of getting a pay increase for the next several years. I'd rather have the extra 400 or so a month in my pocket sooner. So excuse me for wanting to get heath care that's affordable for me...I know that there are trade offs. I'd rather have the cash than have unnessicarily high insurance premiums paid for by my boss. Plus the individual plan is an HMO which works better for me. With my boss's plan, I would be dealing with a PPO which I don't like because I'd rather pay more in premiums than in out of pocket expenses -- but that is my choice.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.