Yes, you are privileged if you have a computer, are reading this, and have any sort of health care.

The two big issues are making health insurance mandatory for all employed citizens, and also making sure no one is excluded for pre-existing conditions. It’s ridiculous that insurance companies are allowed to do that. Are bad drivers denied car insurance? No. It simply costs more.

No one likes to pay for expensive health treatments. And some folks have bad health problems requiring expensive treatment through no fault of their own. It is more than possible for the rest of America to chip in to help those people. Thank God we already do through taxpayer-backed emergency room care for the uninsured/charity hospitals, etc., even though we draw the line at preventative care.

This is all simply about who pays for an incredibly expensive service that we ALL require. Thank God we don’t live in a nation that denies immediate healthcare to anyone. Figuring out how to pay for it all is no easy task. The liabilities increased by $8 trillion when Bush added prescription drug coverage to Medicare for the elderly. And that’s JUST for the elderly.

The benefits of private medicine are undeniable, and free choice of doctor is important. I certainly hope ObamaCare does not mess with that. Government control is very scary. At the same time, private insurance and drug companies are REAPING profits while squeezing doctors and patients. And no one has the guts, or the money, to take them down.

1) Limit insurance companies ability to make profits at the expense of our lives and our health. There should be no billionaire insurance company executives.

2) Allow free trade for drug imports, with careful quality control and regulation. This will help the rest of the world as much as it will help us, and it will flush out inefficiency and price distortion in the American drug market.

3) Make sure all employees are required to purchase health insurers, same as all drivers being forced to buy car insurance. Make this automatic and streamlined— take it straight from their paycheck but still give them the option to pick the insurance, AND the doctor they want.

4) Tort reform for doctors so they no longer have to practice expensive, defensive medicine to avoid lawsuits

It’s not the macro that matters. It’s the micro.

I’m no fan of gov’t healthcare. But I’m no fan of insurer-driven “exponential cost curve” either…ie. healthcare cost as percentage of wages. (and diminishing wages at that..)

So yes, cost containment does need to be a goal, of WHATEVER we do to address healthcare, public or private.

Since suggestions are seldom offered as to how we bend that curve down, and how on earth Americans will continue to absorb the Y-over-Y increases, I’ll offer my 2 cents:
- immigration reform
- computerization (and standardized records access)… every step of every process, cradle to grave.

though some may find this interesting:

Neuropathic pain: The sea provides a new hope of relief

A compound initially isolated from a soft coral (Capnella imbricata) collected at Green Island off Taiwan, could lead scientists to develop a new set of treatments for neuropathic pain – chronic pain that sometimes follows damage to the nervous system. Currently this form of pain is very poorly controlled by the usual analgesics (aspirin like drugs (NSAIDS) or even opioids like morphine) and novel treatments are urgently required. The conclusion of a paper published today in the British Journal of Pharmacology is that this new compound could be a candidate.

http://www.physorg.com/news168674447.html

I’m NOT against reducing costs. What I’m doubtful about is using cost reduction as the primary concern when making policy.

I’m not sure what is meant by the term, “improving access,” so I am not sure how to respond. In general it seems to me that everyone has some access to healthcare – even those who cannot pay. Our emergency rooms are not allowed to turn people away. I guess the issue is what kind of access and under what circumstances.

Will. reduce. costs. will. improve. access.

Do you recognize this?

Well, I’m not for anything floated by Congress at this time. It seems to me that we would be better off leaving the system alone.

I’m not against some reform of the insurance industry. It seems to me that there are things that could be changed to benefit both the consumers and the doctors that deal with the insurance companies.

I like the idea of abolishing requirements that consumers buy insurance only from companies in the state in which they live. What the present system amounts to is an absence of competition.

Standardizing the administrative transactions of the insurance companies would also simplify things for both doctor and patient.

In short, I would like the insurance companies to be made to honestly compete with each other instead of merely divvying up the consumer pie as they do now. Real competition would probably result in a reduction in cost.

But I don’t want draconian reform that would have the effect of eventually driving the insurance industry into bankruptcy. Eliminating all “preexisting conditions” seems to me to be a recipe for eventual bankruptcy of the insurance industry.

We can’t have folks deciding to buy insurance only after they come into a catastrophic medical condition. On the other hand, refusing to insure someone because they take high blood pressure medication seems unfair.

Stopping the practice of conditioning promotions, raises and bonuses on insurance adjusters’ rate of refusing claims is another step I favor.

I am emphatically NOT for any kind of single payer system.

I would be in favor of relieving the doctors of the onerous malpractice insurance fees they pay now, perhaps with a mandatory ceiling on jury awards and a downward limit on legal fees going to the lawyers. The lawyers are in business just like anyone else but we make it too tempting for them to try to hit the jackpot through frivolous litigation.

But as I’ve said before, my attitude in this area is undergoing evolution. I’m open to arguments for particular viewpoints. Fire away but please be specific.

I’m still fighting my HMO. They’d rather give me opioids as against a cure.

There is a consistent theme with all but one of my physicians: they always contradict me. Twenty-one years have passed. It’s a shame.

When a physician cannot accept the falsity of his diagnosis his emotions turn to anger, resentment and hostility. When he gets it wrong, then the patient is being ‘difficult.’

I rather suspect that I’ll have to visit the Mayo Clinic. (They saved my sister’s life for which her children are truly grateful. )