The Times-News has two interesting articles on national health care:
Dr. Richard Salluzzo, Wellmont’s outgoing CEO, tells reporter Sharon Caskey Hayes he supports Universal Health Care. Click here to read the report.
Political reporter Hank Hayes offers some insight as to where Phil Roe and David Davis, our 1st Congressional District GOP primary candidates, stand on the issue. Neither favor a government-backed single-payer national health care plan, the two primary rivals have their own ideas about creating more choices beyond employer-based health insurance coverage.
You can read the article here.
Essentially, Davis advocates associated health plans so small businesses can band together and create large insurance pools and offering tax credits to families to offset the cost of health insurance.
I can see some merit in Davis’ plan. For most small business, there is a painful growth period between start-up and generating enough profit to offer employees health benefits. Of course, the smaller the business, the higher the premiums – and this is a Catch .22 because it hinders growth. You cannot retain skilled and reliable workers without offering benefits. Once these workers are trained, knowledgeable and productive: they will seek better jobs. This turn-over affects overall quality and/or service and adds the burden of constantly recruiting and training new personnel.
So Davis’ ideas are good, but without some common sense regulation applied to industry – specifically supportive industries, I think it’s a lot like trying to spit on a California forest fire to put it out.
Meanwhile, Roe did not adequately address the issue at all. He tells Hayes he has a health care savings account, and his investment in the plan serves as incentive for him to take care of himself. Yeah, so? What about me? I have young children? This incentive encourages me to cocoon them in Lysol-coated bubble wrap, never allow them outdoors, demand all school classrooms and surfaces be Clorox’d five times daily and no snot-filled peers be permitted to violate their personal safety zone? Not terribly realistic – and considering the cost of medical treatment, lab testing, supplies and prescription drugs, common injuries and illness of childhood will burn through a spending account by early March. So, I’m basically without health insurance for the remainder of the year.
Absent from media coverage is any mention of Democratic candidate Rob Russell and his position on health care – which annoys me a little. I realize the GOP primary is the hot race here and I understand it’s going to pick up a few more column inches… particularly since Roe is taking these little verbal potshots at Davis… and we love that don’t we? But, for many reasons, I think voters should be provided with somewhat equal and consistent information about all candidates throughout the process.
Fortunately for us, blogger Joe Powell is planning to interview Russell and provide this for his readers.
Other candidates for the seat are listed here. They’re quite an interesting bunch.
The biggest part of the problem isn’t being addressed by any candidate or pundit.
People are desperate for coverage right now not because of the rare catastrophic care, which is easy enough to get inexpensive coverage for, but because health care is completely and unnecessarily unaffordable to the uninsured and underinsured.
There is absolutely no reason at all why you should have health coverage and still find that out of pocket expenses for a routine and minor child’s ear infection should cost $400.
All of the universal health care advocates are aligned with the corporate goal of maintaining these obscene and ridiculous prices, and forcing all taxpayers to pay for it through massive taxation, creating the largest wealth seizure by a single industry in world history, far greater than the railroads managed in the 19th century.
No one will talk about the obvious problems in the system right now.
[...] Angelia is not impressed with Republican Congressional challenger Phil Roe’s approach to health care: He tells Hayes he has a health care savings account, and his investment in the plan serves as incentive for him to take care of himself. Yeah, so? What about me? I have young children? This incentive encourages me to cocoon them in Lysol-coated bubble wrap, never allow them outdoors, demand all school classrooms and surfaces be Clorox’d five times daily and no snot-filled peers be permitted to violate their personal safety zone? Not terribly realistic – and considering the cost of medical treatment, lab testing, supplies and prescription drugs, common injuries and illness of childhood will burn through a spending account by early March. [...]
Precisely! There are no minor illnesses anymore. The sniffles will cost you $80-$100, which is a huge issue for my family because for a great portion of the year, we’re required to seek treatment (unnecessarily) to comply with school attendance policies. This wastes my money and the time/resources of licensed providers, so they can officially say, “Yep, it’s a virus. Wait 48 hours. Here’s your note.”
Add to this: we do not have the option of using “insurance” as “insurance.” If you have any type of health care coverage whatsoever, you cannot negotiate the price of care, you do not pay a lower “out-of-pocket” rate and most practitioners won’t consider allowing you to trade chickens for antibiotics either. Basically, due to this “somebody else is paying for it, what do you care” attitude, I’m hit with the red-tape price for every ear infection.
I suspect we’ve over-regulated the direct care end of the industry and overprotected the parasitic support markets. Thus far, we’ve refused to provide care givers with basic, common sense liability protection (If anything our system favors the overly litigious) Patent monopolies for drug companies? Bah! Process for granting licensing and marketing rights for drugs created by tax-funded research – disastrous. The government’s hearty nod to HMOs – biggest mistake ever.
Administrative costs, negotiated care contracts, malpractice insurance… it’s impossible for doctors to go into private practice, which helps eradicate any real competition (and it hasn’t helped the quality of care) All of these things drive up the cost for consumers.
I love the idea of universal health care coverage – but this is why I don’t support it. If you look at what government involvement in health care has done thus far, you’d have to be delusional to think more involvement is the magic solution.
Oh – I also think allowing consumer-direct advertising in the pharm. industry was a mistake – although I’m not sure how this contributes to problem beyond encouraging hypochondriacs and causing consumers to overlook the effectiveness or availability of less expensive treatments…
Still, the first time I saw a television ad for a herpes treatment, I somehow knew we’d all jumped in a hand basket bound for hell.
I agree with everything you said and also agree with the points about both pharmaceutical advertising and funding.
Taxpayers pay for research that creates new drugs, and then somehow for-profit companies are given the patents and free to charge whatever they wish. It seems to me that if drugs are developed on my dime, I shouldn’t have to pay a premium for them to account for the risk of development to a company that didn’t risk anything or even development them itself.
Out of 200 countries in the world, pharmaceutical advertising for prescription drugs is only legal in the United States and New Zealand and New Zealand is working to ban it. In every other country the mere idea is considered madness, and rightfully so in my opinion.
I just posted the interview with Rob Russell.
And many thanks for the mention here!!