Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Where is the Entanglement?
Our health care system is obviously not failing just because of poor health care providance. So where do you think the entanglement is? Would you say that we our biggest problem comes in the educational outlay or would you say that health care is struggling due to an overexhausted economy? Or is it something else? Open up your mind to a broad thought process and tell us where you personally think we are failing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I believe that the biggest problem that our health care system has is the ability to sue doctors without consequence and limits. By having unchecked, fradulent cases and no limits on the maximum amount of money that people are able to receive, it has put a big strain on the doctor's malpractice insurance, which in turn is passed on to patients costs. I think that if we will limit when people are able to sue, limit the maximum amount awarded, thus reducing the overall liability of doctors, the health care copays and premiums will be reduced across the board.
I think that one reason our healthcare system is failing is because of the lack of people willing to make a change. It seems just like the educational system that no one is willing to compromise or make the changes necessary to make significant change. People are too compliant to keep the status quo. It all comes down to money.
I suspect a big part of the problem is unfettered greed on the part of the insurance companies. Often the decision as to whether a patient gets necessary care is in the hands of an insurance adjuster rather than in the hands of a physician. Not too long ago, when one of my doctors was presenting me with two treatment options, he mentioned that "they pay me more for this one" ("they" being the insurance company, and "this one" being what he deemed the less effective treatment in my case; he seemed bemused by the discrepancy). As long as insurance companies can hold patients and doctors hostage, I don't think we are going to see a decrease in health care costs that will allow low income families to afford the care they need.
Malpractice suits are certainly an issue, and there is no doubt that the costs are passed on to patients. However, a certain percentage of these suits are very legitimate - of course, I have no idea how high or low that percentage is. We just have to be careful about the possible negative effects of limits on malpractice suits.
Although I agree that malpractice insurance probably adds to health care costs and that there should be limits on these suits, I suspect that the threat of malpractice litigation keeps doctors in line. I imagine that today doctors are more careful in their surgeries, their diagnoses, and their day-to-day care of patients. On the other hand, maybe their fear of malpractice suits inhibits doctors. Possibly they are too frightened to take bold, dramatic, potentially life-saving actions. The fear of a malpractice suit may make them overly conservative in their care of patients.
As usual, I've thought myself into a contradiction.
While there are always lots of stories about lawsuits out there during election time, I don't think that lawsuits are the main problem. Rather, I think that the main problem in healthcare is the same as in education and government in general: all three are systems that react to problems, rather than planning ahead to prevent problems in the first place. Most people I know who are in good health go to the doctor for regular checkups. However, I also know people who haven't been to the doctor in years, until something goes horribly wrong. The cost of medical care for those individuals is high because problems were not dealt with early on. I think of it like a car: if you go in for an oil change and check every 3000 miles, you do have to pay let's say $50 each time, three or four times a year. Yet, this $150 - $200 each year is worth it because little problems are often fixed before they become big problems. If you waited to take your car in until something beig went wrong, the cost would be much higher. I have a few family members who have needed small procedures for problems that were encountered during routine physicals, and one family member who only goes to a doctor at a "free" clinic (read - taxpayer supported)when he gets really sick. His overall cost is higher total (for ALL OF US), because treating major problems after they've spun out of control is very expensive. I guess my bottom line is this: I have no problem requiring that people buy health insurance. Car insurance is mandated, as is house insurance. If people are not required to be insured, some will choose not to get insurance and therefore will not go to the doctor for regular checkups. And as much as some people want to say "Oh, then they will pay for their lack of foresight," I say, "No, you will pay because who ultimately pays when somebody gets sick, loses his job and ends up needing governmental assistance? All of us through taxes!!!" We are all going to pay somehow anyway, so why not pay a little up front now instead of a lot later?
Being a physical education teacher, I believe one of the biggest problems we have in our society is the lack of education on health. Preventative measures make a HUGE difference in life quality. With a small change in diet and exercise we can get rid of many heart disease problems - which is the leading cause of death in the U.S.
I agree with Anne that many people choose not to make these changes. Why??? It frustrates me to no end when I observe people making consistently poor choices for themselves and thier families. As parents we are responsible for what goes into our children's bodies and we need to be as educated as we can about the health needs of our youth. Not only are the dietary needs so important but the lack of activity in our youth is sad. Where are all of the kids playing? Why are playgrounds empty? Where are the kids playing kickball, soccer, street hockey? I don't see it very often. Not everything has to be an organized activity. As a society, we have our children so scheduled and organized. Where is the creativity, the fun, the "being a kid?"
Well said, Amanda
The entanglement seems to lie in the convergences of a "perfect storm" of factors. An aging population that is living longer and requiring more of the health system, the huge number of baby boomers who will now demand access to Medicare, new technologies (though highly beneficial) that have skyrocketed costs for the patient and the health system, a growing gap between rich and poor in this country, an increasing rise in diabetes, high blood pressure, and obesity, and a government that has been largely unresponsive to the growing problems, have now converged to create a crisis of tremendous proportions. The solution(s) will require local, state, and federal governments to work together, businesses to share access to coverage with one another, individuals to band together to gain access to cheaper coverage, and support of doctors and hospitals who treat those with poor coverage or no coverage. Personally, I believe that it is a great tragedy of this republic that health care is accessible for those who have the money and difficult (at best) to get if you have no money. Those who have no health insurance use emergency rooms for treatment that is often sought when the problem is too great to treat. We need a candidate who is creative, willing to think out of the box, and has an ability to work with all the forces in play.
Post a Comment