I met a lawyer the other night who is fairly new in town, and so he takes all kinds of cases at this point. One aspect of his practice is to go after insurance companies for patient claims. So instead of using hospital resources to treat patients, the hospital is paying an attorney to make insurance companies (the profiteers) pay claims for their customers, the patients. How ridiculous is that? He, being left leaning himself, says he would be happy if he could vote himself out of that particular aspect of his practice.
So, if we went to universal health care, we could eliminate having this aspect of lawyers' practices, not to mention accountants, insurance clerks, claims adjusters, and half of most medical staffs. Wow. And if we didn't have to pay all those people, plus profits for the insurance company, how much less would health care cost? As a percentage of our GDP?
Read The Rainmaker, John Grisham. Fiction, yes, but if you think it doesn't happen you are fooling yourself.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
What gives?
One of the arguments made against universal health care, single payer, is that it takes a long time to see a doctor. Another is that the government is going to be making your health care decisions for you, instead of the doctor. To both of these, I offer an example:
A friend of mine hurt his back a couple of weeks ago. He was taking pain medicine but it got worse, so he went to an orthopedic doctor (he had to wait a day or so for the appointment). The ortho doctor told him he needs an MRI to find out why he is in all this pain. The doctor said the radiologist would call in a day or so to set up his appointment. That's all fine. But the next day the radiologist's office called. Because of my friend's insurance, he couldn't get the MRI yet. The insurance company, which is in business to make a profit (see previous post) requires pre-approval for the MRI, and in order to approve it, they have to see the records, so that they can second guess the doctor. It will be at least two weeks before he gets his MRI, and in the meantime he is taking percoset, for the pain, which is affecting his quality of life. Now, how is this better than universal health care?
A friend of mine hurt his back a couple of weeks ago. He was taking pain medicine but it got worse, so he went to an orthopedic doctor (he had to wait a day or so for the appointment). The ortho doctor told him he needs an MRI to find out why he is in all this pain. The doctor said the radiologist would call in a day or so to set up his appointment. That's all fine. But the next day the radiologist's office called. Because of my friend's insurance, he couldn't get the MRI yet. The insurance company, which is in business to make a profit (see previous post) requires pre-approval for the MRI, and in order to approve it, they have to see the records, so that they can second guess the doctor. It will be at least two weeks before he gets his MRI, and in the meantime he is taking percoset, for the pain, which is affecting his quality of life. Now, how is this better than universal health care?
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Another day, another story
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/opinion/23herbert.html?ex=1350792000&en=8834ae50a0292bc1&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Okay, so this is an opinion piece in the New York Times. And yet it is not full of opinion; it is a recital of one family's story. One of the arguments I often hear made against universal, single payer health care is that most of the people who don't have health insurance are young and healthy and don't want to pay for insurance because they would rather take the chance. To be honest with you, I don't really believe that. I think they may be young, they may be healthy, and even those with children are taking the chance, but I don't think that they always take the chance because they don't want the insurance. I think they are taking the chance because they want a good life for themselves and their children, and they don't want their children or themselves to miss out on food, clothing or shelter so that they can pay the $300 or $500 or $1000 per month for health insurance. Or maybe they have tried to get health insurance and have been turned down, which is how the profit making insurance companies maintain their profit. We have laws requiring insurance companies to provide some type of coverage for bad drivers, even at really high costs. There are no such laws for insurance companies, although some states do mandate coverage for certain pre-existing conditions, so there are those who cannot get coverage at any price.
My employer pays for mine, and I pay the $300 or so for my ONE child, but I miss that money. Fortunately there are only the 2 of us and we can live just fine on my income, but I cannot imagine trying to manage a family of 4 or more with the income I have, and it is well above poverty level. If there were more of us, and I was the sole provider, that health insurance cost would look more and more optional.
Okay, so this is an opinion piece in the New York Times. And yet it is not full of opinion; it is a recital of one family's story. One of the arguments I often hear made against universal, single payer health care is that most of the people who don't have health insurance are young and healthy and don't want to pay for insurance because they would rather take the chance. To be honest with you, I don't really believe that. I think they may be young, they may be healthy, and even those with children are taking the chance, but I don't think that they always take the chance because they don't want the insurance. I think they are taking the chance because they want a good life for themselves and their children, and they don't want their children or themselves to miss out on food, clothing or shelter so that they can pay the $300 or $500 or $1000 per month for health insurance. Or maybe they have tried to get health insurance and have been turned down, which is how the profit making insurance companies maintain their profit. We have laws requiring insurance companies to provide some type of coverage for bad drivers, even at really high costs. There are no such laws for insurance companies, although some states do mandate coverage for certain pre-existing conditions, so there are those who cannot get coverage at any price.
My employer pays for mine, and I pay the $300 or so for my ONE child, but I miss that money. Fortunately there are only the 2 of us and we can live just fine on my income, but I cannot imagine trying to manage a family of 4 or more with the income I have, and it is well above poverty level. If there were more of us, and I was the sole provider, that health insurance cost would look more and more optional.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Terrorism and me (and maybe you)
Okay, so I have been trying to work out this analogy in my head. Just in the past week we have heard of the study that 19,000 people died in 2005 from an antibiotic resistant bacterial infection. Now of course this is partly the fault of all of us, because so many people run to the doctor every time they sneeze and demand an antibiotic. This, I hope, has changed in the last few years. But maybe not in time.
So 19,000 dead in 2005 from this bug. I don't know how many died from other causes that year. But I bet no one died on US soil from a terrorist attack in 2005. And to be honest, I don't believe that has anything to do with Bush and Cheney and the then-Republican Congress protecting us. I think it has to do with the fact that it takes time to plan a coordinated attack, and maybe some good law enforcement work. And the last attack, the 9/11 attack, killed about 3000 people. I am not saying it wasn't awful, because of course it was. I am saying that I am more likely to encounter this horrible staph infection (and in fact, I already know people who have had it) than I am a terrorist.
So to the analogy--if there is a guy at my door with a gun, and he has already killed some of my neighbors, and the police tell me they can't deal with that guy because they have to prepare for the guy from Maine (I live in the south) who is coming next month, that is just stupid. And that is what we have going on with Bush--they didn't want to deal with Katrina, or the housing bust, or the sub prime mortgage debacle, or the pending water crisis in Atlanta, because they are too busy convincing us to be afraid of the guy who is coming next month.
So 19,000 dead in 2005 from this bug. I don't know how many died from other causes that year. But I bet no one died on US soil from a terrorist attack in 2005. And to be honest, I don't believe that has anything to do with Bush and Cheney and the then-Republican Congress protecting us. I think it has to do with the fact that it takes time to plan a coordinated attack, and maybe some good law enforcement work. And the last attack, the 9/11 attack, killed about 3000 people. I am not saying it wasn't awful, because of course it was. I am saying that I am more likely to encounter this horrible staph infection (and in fact, I already know people who have had it) than I am a terrorist.
So to the analogy--if there is a guy at my door with a gun, and he has already killed some of my neighbors, and the police tell me they can't deal with that guy because they have to prepare for the guy from Maine (I live in the south) who is coming next month, that is just stupid. And that is what we have going on with Bush--they didn't want to deal with Katrina, or the housing bust, or the sub prime mortgage debacle, or the pending water crisis in Atlanta, because they are too busy convincing us to be afraid of the guy who is coming next month.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
End of the day
So it is Sunday night, the end of the weekend. Tomorrow we go to our jobs and our schools, and being our weeks again. During the course of the day, if it goes like most of my days, I will once again hear or read a story about the health care crisis in this country.
There is my 82 year old aunt who came home the same day she had a colon biopsy, thankfully, because she doesn't have supplemental medical insurance.
There is my 8 year old grandson with diabetes and ADHD, who receives not state of the art care but minimum care because he has no health insurance, and to get it at this point would cost more than his mother and stepfather can afford.
There is my friend at work who doesn't get the stress test her doctor recommends because she doesn't have the $6000 to pay for it (and believe it or not, she has insurance, paid for by our employer).
There is a woman I used to know at work who has MS, and I don't know how she is doing, but I know that she didn't have health insurance at the time she was diagnosed, and that they lost their house this year.
The cost of one chemo drug for one year is more than my income, and to be honest, I couldn't afford to have cancer. I don't have savings to live on or credit cards. Health insurance has caps (check yours if you don't believe me) ranging from a couple of hundred thousand/year up to maybe a lifetime cap of a million. One catastrophic illness could wipe that out.
IT SHOULDN'T BE THIS WAY. These are small examples. Every day in your world, as in mine, you can find even more serious examples. Like my friend whose husband has been in the hospital for over two months, much of it in intensive care. Some friends had a fundraiser for the family, raised around eleven thousand dollars, but some of the medication that was given to him at the hospital cost 6000/dose. How do they pay for this? He has insurance, but that won't cover everything, and what happens if he hits the cap? Not to mention the lost work for his wife (he is retired, but takes care of their two small children).
When I speak of universal health care, I am not talking about breast implants for strippers. I am not ruling out that someone who has the money can get whatever private care they want. But if you think that government control would be the problem, who do you think makes the decisions now as to what health insurance will and won't pay for? Accountants, because insurance companies are publicly traded, for the most part, which means they are not in business to pay your bills, but to make money for shareholders. Would you want your fire department to operate that way? Your police? So that the less calls they made, the less money that was spent on them, the better? Health care should not be profit driven.
There is my 82 year old aunt who came home the same day she had a colon biopsy, thankfully, because she doesn't have supplemental medical insurance.
There is my 8 year old grandson with diabetes and ADHD, who receives not state of the art care but minimum care because he has no health insurance, and to get it at this point would cost more than his mother and stepfather can afford.
There is my friend at work who doesn't get the stress test her doctor recommends because she doesn't have the $6000 to pay for it (and believe it or not, she has insurance, paid for by our employer).
There is a woman I used to know at work who has MS, and I don't know how she is doing, but I know that she didn't have health insurance at the time she was diagnosed, and that they lost their house this year.
The cost of one chemo drug for one year is more than my income, and to be honest, I couldn't afford to have cancer. I don't have savings to live on or credit cards. Health insurance has caps (check yours if you don't believe me) ranging from a couple of hundred thousand/year up to maybe a lifetime cap of a million. One catastrophic illness could wipe that out.
IT SHOULDN'T BE THIS WAY. These are small examples. Every day in your world, as in mine, you can find even more serious examples. Like my friend whose husband has been in the hospital for over two months, much of it in intensive care. Some friends had a fundraiser for the family, raised around eleven thousand dollars, but some of the medication that was given to him at the hospital cost 6000/dose. How do they pay for this? He has insurance, but that won't cover everything, and what happens if he hits the cap? Not to mention the lost work for his wife (he is retired, but takes care of their two small children).
When I speak of universal health care, I am not talking about breast implants for strippers. I am not ruling out that someone who has the money can get whatever private care they want. But if you think that government control would be the problem, who do you think makes the decisions now as to what health insurance will and won't pay for? Accountants, because insurance companies are publicly traded, for the most part, which means they are not in business to pay your bills, but to make money for shareholders. Would you want your fire department to operate that way? Your police? So that the less calls they made, the less money that was spent on them, the better? Health care should not be profit driven.
New Postage Stamp (joke alert)
New Postage Stamp
The Postal Service created a 41-cent first-class postage stamp with a picture of President Bush. The stamp was not sticking to envelopes, which enraged the President, who demanded a full investigation (at taxpayers' expense).
After a month of testing, a special presidential commission presentedthe following findings:
1. The stamp is in perfect order.
2. There is nothing wrong with the applied adhesive.
3. People are spitting on the wrong side.
I don't know the source of this, I got it from a friend, but it is funny. I laugh when those to the right of me say that we on the left are obsessed with hating President Bush, and usually what is said is pretty mild. Like they didn't call President Clinton a murderer, a rapist, call for his assasination, stuff like that. Of course, that was okay, because they really thought it was true!!
The Postal Service created a 41-cent first-class postage stamp with a picture of President Bush. The stamp was not sticking to envelopes, which enraged the President, who demanded a full investigation (at taxpayers' expense).
After a month of testing, a special presidential commission presentedthe following findings:
1. The stamp is in perfect order.
2. There is nothing wrong with the applied adhesive.
3. People are spitting on the wrong side.
I don't know the source of this, I got it from a friend, but it is funny. I laugh when those to the right of me say that we on the left are obsessed with hating President Bush, and usually what is said is pretty mild. Like they didn't call President Clinton a murderer, a rapist, call for his assasination, stuff like that. Of course, that was okay, because they really thought it was true!!
Saturday, October 20, 2007
First post
Okay, so I have decided to start blogging. I read a lot of stuff, political and otherwise, and always have things I want to say. My co workers are too busy to listen to my rantings, and I am too busy to rant at work, so I am putting them out on the web. If nothing else, it will get my thoughts out of my head and into the world.
First, the title of my blog. This is my mantra lately. Our country has been abused and misused and treated like a private bank for those with the secret password. It has been going on for too long, and it is time it changed. We, the everyday people, can change it, so people who are not registered to vote need to register, and everyone needs to PAY ATTENTION. Read blogs, left and right, read the newspaper, watch cnn, msnbc and even foxnews, but sift it all and see how it matches and how it fits with your own ideas and observations. Don't depend on any single source for your information, get it from everywhere.
I will admit I lean so far left it is a wonder I don't fall over. If you don't, then that is fine, I still want you to be involved. Of course I have a candidate already picked out, but look at every one for yourself. I'll share my choice, and why, in another post.
Enough for a beginning. I hope someone reads this, I hope someone enjoys it.
First, the title of my blog. This is my mantra lately. Our country has been abused and misused and treated like a private bank for those with the secret password. It has been going on for too long, and it is time it changed. We, the everyday people, can change it, so people who are not registered to vote need to register, and everyone needs to PAY ATTENTION. Read blogs, left and right, read the newspaper, watch cnn, msnbc and even foxnews, but sift it all and see how it matches and how it fits with your own ideas and observations. Don't depend on any single source for your information, get it from everywhere.
I will admit I lean so far left it is a wonder I don't fall over. If you don't, then that is fine, I still want you to be involved. Of course I have a candidate already picked out, but look at every one for yourself. I'll share my choice, and why, in another post.
Enough for a beginning. I hope someone reads this, I hope someone enjoys it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
