Locked Post

Best care in the world

... just don't get old

By Posted August 29, 2009 23:10:28External Link

Here's a recent Op-Ed piece from the NY Times that points out an interesting side effect of the current US healthcare system. 


Until Medical Bills Do Us Part

Critics fret that health care reform would undermine American family values, not least by convening somber death panels to wheel away Grandma as if she were Old Yeller.

But peel away the emotions and fearmongering, and in fact it is the existing system that unnecessarily takes lives and breaks apart families.

My friend M. — you’ll understand in a moment why she’s terrified of my using her name — had to make a searing decision a year ago. She was married to a sweet, gentle man whom she loved, but who had become increasingly absent-minded. Finally, he was diagnosed with early-onset dementia.

The disease is degenerative, and he will become steadily less able to care for himself. At some point, as his medical needs multiply, he will probably need to be institutionalized.

The hospital arranged a conference call with a social worker, who outlined how the dementia and its financial toll on the family would progress, and then added, out of the blue: “Maybe you should divorce.”

“I was blown away,” M. told me. But, she said, the hospital staff members explained that they had seen it all before, many times. If M.’s husband required long-term care, the costs would be catastrophic even for a middle-class family with savings.

Eventually, after the expenses whittled away their combined assets, her husband could go on Medicaid — but by then their children’s nest egg would be gone, along with her 401(k) plan. She would face a bleak retirement with neither her husband nor her savings.

A complicating factor was that this was a second marriage. M.’s first husband had died, leaving an inheritance that he had intended for their children. She and her second husband had a prenuptial agreement, but that would not protect her assets from his medical expenses.

The hospital told M. not to waste time in dissolving the marriage. For five years after any divorce, her assets could be seized — precisely because the government knows that people sometimes divorce husbands or wives to escape their medical bills.

“How could I divorce him? I loved him,” she told me.

“I explored a lot of options with an attorney here in town,” she added. “The attorney said, ‘I don’t see any other options for you.’ It took about a year for me to do the divorce, it was so hard.”

So M. divorced the man she loves. I asked him what he thought of this. He can still speak, albeit not always coherently, and he paused a long, long time. All he could manage was: “It’s hard to say.”

Long-term care constitutes a difficult and expensive challenge in any health system. But the American patchwork, full of cracks through which people fall, has a special problem with medical expenses of all kinds bankrupting couples.

A study reported in The American Journal of Medicine this month found that 62 percent of American bankruptcies are linked to medical bills. These medical bankruptcies had increased nearly 50 percent in just six years. Astonishingly, 78 percent of these people actually had health insurance, but the gaps and inadequacies left them unprotected when they were hit by devastating bills.

M. still helps her husband and, quietly, continues to live with him and care for him. But she worries that the authorities will come after her if they realize that they divorced not because of irreconcilable differences but because of irreconcilable medical bills. There were awkward questions from friends who saw the divorce announcement in the newspaper.

“It’s just crazy,” she said. “It twists people like pretzels.”

The existing system doesn’t just break up families, it also costs lives. A 2004 study by the Institute of Medicine, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences, found that lack of health insurance causes 18,000 unnecessary deaths a year. That’s one person slipping through the cracks and dying every half an hour.

In short, it’s a good bet that our existing dysfunctional health system knocks off far more people than an army of “death panels” could — even if they existed, worked 24/7 and got around in a fleet of black helicopters.

So, for those of you inclined to believe the worst about President Obama, think it through. Suppose he is indeed a secret, foreign-born Muslim agent who is scheming to undermine American family values while killing off as many grandmothers as possible.

If all that were true, why on earth would he be trying so hard to reform our health care system? We already know how to prod families into divorce and take a life unnecessarily every 30 minutes — all we need to do is reject reform and stick with exactly what we have.

+124 Karma 217 Replies 10 Referrals
August 31, 2009 13:46:08

Not totally. Just that when there is a financial incentive then there is just cause to doubt someone's motives. It's called conflict of interests.

Here are my 'conflicts of interest':

  • Money I make from pharmaceutical sales - $0
  • Money I make from laboratory tests - $0
  • Money I make from diagnostic imaging studies - $0
  • My investment in pharmaceutical companies - $0
  • My investment in commercial laboratories - $0
  • My investment in diagnostice imaging facilities - $0
  • My investment in insurance companies - $0
  • Percent of my income derived from direct patient care - about 98%
  • Percent of patients on Medicare - about 50%
  • Percentage of patients I treat free of charge - about 8%

Hmm ... no doctor shortage here in Concord.

At $236 per 5 minute visit, I'm not surprised.  Free markets are funny like that.  (I still seriously doubt those numbers, however)

Or perhaps you're worried about doctor flight if UHC is passed. Where they all going to go, France?

As usual, you miss the point.  There will still be plenty of MediSpas, cardiovascular surgeons and plastic surgeons.  However, physicians have been 'fleeing' (or not entering) primary care for a number of years now.  There won't be enough us to go around; shortages already exist.  Long as you're not sick, that's not an issue, but I have a strong suspicion that if UHC were to pass, the primary care physician shortage would worsen, not improve.

August 31, 2009 16:53:12

Sheesh!  Glad I served my country for 22 years and don't have to worry about all this healthcare stuff!  [e digicons]o_O[/e]

August 31, 2009 17:34:35

Thank you for your service, Tom.  [e digicons]:star:[/e]

August 31, 2009 17:51:45

The first step should be repairing our current government corruption and poor spending within existing departments.
That will never happen to the right's satisfaction. Healthcare delayed is healthcare denied.

You could (and should) have said the same thing about a whole lot of other things like “We can’t start a war until we repair our current government corruption and poor spending within existing departments”. Or “how can we give the government the right to secretly eavesdrop on its citizens with no oversight when there is so much government corruption”. Or “how can we cut the taxes on the richest 1% of all citizens when we’re already spending more than we make”. But no, not a word was spoke. It’s OK to rush into two wars and push through the fear mongering Patriot Act but for healthcare reform we need to wait and take a measured approach. Perhaps in another 20 years we might be able to begin considering alternatives. I think not.

I'm looking for something that eliminates the health insurance industry as a viable concern. That is one positive step. All else is appeasement.

You’re free to want what you want but nothing you’ve said changes my opinion. I want change and I want it now. The change does not need to be perfect and can most certainly be tweaked later but eventually the power of AHIP, PhRMA and the AMA needs to be seriously curtailed. Anything that takes a step in that direction is correct to do in my opinion.

August 31, 2009 18:06:09

LightStar
Sheesh!  Glad I served my country for 22 years and don't have to worry about all this healthcare stuff! 
Yes. I'm glad that veterans don't have to worry about this as well. I certainly don't begrudge you your benefits.

The question is do you begrudge your fellow citizens the right to try and get some semblance of the security that you enjoy? Certainly not the same level of subsidy that you enjoy because that's not in the cards, but some basic right to healthcare that doesn't bankrupt you or deny you coverage at precisely the time it's most needed?

August 31, 2009 18:22:00

Here are my 'conflicts of interest':
Your conflict of interests are that you're a physician, period, end of story.

You're as much a part of the problem as the health insurance, pharmacutical and malpractice industries.

Consider yourself lucky if you don't end up as a federal employee with wage controls like in France.

August 31, 2009 19:07:07

Your conflict of interests are that you're a physician, period, end of story.

You're as much a part of the problem as the health insurance, pharmacutical and malpractice industries.

Consider yourself lucky if you don't end up as a federal employee with wage controls like in France.

Very decent of you, Your Highness.  I will certainly consider myself most fortunate to have a few crumbs of cake that spill from your plate.

You lobbying for a job with the new Ministry of Health?

And, just so I understand your thinking, if I have a question about constructing a building I should be sure to consult no engineers, since they have a 'conflict of interest'?  I should look to marine biologists to help me?

August 31, 2009 19:08:49

You lobbying for a job with the new Ministry of Health?
Nope. I'm an engineer. I have to work for a living.

August 31, 2009 19:09:43

Nope. I'm an engineer. I have to work for a living.

See #57.

And thank God, as a physician, I don't.  Life's good here on Easy Street.

August 31, 2009 19:29:34

And thank God, as a physician, I don't. Life's good here on Easy Street.
You got that right.

And, just so I understand your thinking, if I have a question about constructing a building I should be sure to consult no engineers, since they have a 'conflict of interest'? I should look to marine biologists to help me?
You might try an architect.

But the analogy is not about consulting an architect when constructing a building. The proper analogy would be if the buildings in all our major cities were constantly falling down and killing people on a regular basis and there was a widespread belief that architects needed to be regulated then you would not go to an architect and ask if this is the right thing to do.

Asking a doctor whether or not to fix healthcare in this country and if so how to go about it is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

However I would be interested in hearing a French physician's opinion on the matter, but even that I would take with a grain of salt.

August 31, 2009 19:39:24

Asking a doctor whether or not to fix healthcare in this country and if so how to go about it is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

Only if you attribute base motives to us. I've always thought that when a man returning from a trip runs to look in the closet it's only because he's stood in one himself...

However I would be interested in hearing a French physician's opinion on the matter, but even that I would take with a grain of salt.

That might be...."Honi soit qui mal y pense."

August 31, 2009 19:58:29

Only if you attribute base motives to us.
I'm sure *most* physicians are honest and caring professionals that take pride in their work and have the best interests of their patients at heart. I'm as equally sure that there are a *few* that don't. The problem I have is in telling the difference between them based on words on a screen.

However even beyond the very few that are motivated by the basest of motives, there are more that allow their own financial well being to color their decisions more than they would be willing to allow themselves to admit. There is no one that is an asshole in their own mind and yet every one of us can recognize someone else as being one. Anything that conflicts with one's own self image is either rationalized away or simply ignored.

How many physicians would vote for something that they were convinced would be a benefit for patients as a whole but would also be a detriment to physicians as a whole. I suspect not many no matter how well meaning they think they are.

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Nice try. "Evil be to him who evil thinks".

But really the opinion of a doctor that works under a UHC system is far more valid in this instance than one that doesn't.

August 31, 2009 20:17:24

But really the opinion of a doctor that works under a UHC system is far more valid in this instance than one that doesn't.

With a grain of salt, of course.

That you would dismiss out of hand the knowledge and experience of those in the trenches, the ones actually living every day with the decisions & inevitable unintended consequences of distant regulators, who daily hear from the patients who have to live with them as well, says a lot about you.  Though what you've said on your own is sufficient to form a reasonably accurate assessment of your character.  Engineers certainly have no monopoly on arrogance, but you're certainly working on garnering your share.  Doin' a right nice job of it as well.

August 31, 2009 20:31:29

But really the opinion of a doctor that works under a UHC system is far more valid in this instance than one that doesn't.

Why? Because he's too lazy to run his own office? You see, there are no absolutes and anything can be turned around and doubted to the nth degree.

The difference between doctors and engineers is that the latter bear no fiduciary relationship with a client or employer. We do. Therefore, I would think that if doubt were being leveled in any direction, it would be away from the doctors....true, there are those who seek money, but they are in the minority. No one became a doctor to get rich.

I'm rather disappointed that you think we did.

August 31, 2009 20:45:32

LightStar
Sheesh!  Glad I served my country for 22 years and don't have to worry about all this healthcare stuff! 

Don't get too relaxed. Last year there was a proposal to raise our tri-care premiums to bring them in-line with other heath insurance premiums. To save money veterans usually take their military benefits and not their new employers insurance. Some people don't like you paying less. It was narrowly defeated. If you're living off your pension, that's probably fine. If you have a new career you should be concerned. because you'll be paying for yourself and someone else. The UHC crowd are glad you "don't care". When you time comes for a benefits trim from you, they will hope that guy you didn't care about will feel the same about you.

Like some posts on certain JU articles that a few dislike, your service will just disappear and you'll just be a source of revenue. The "what have you done for me now syndrome".

August 31, 2009 21:09:56

Many of the people that don't have it, don't buy it by choice.

 Source?

Left of center CNN

January 21, 2008
Posted: January 21st, 2008 09:09 PM ET

MYRTLE BEACH, South Carolina (CNN) – Does Obama actually believe he can get all young people to buy health insurance? It'd have to be virtually free for that to happen. Most young people don't worry about getting sick and rarely feel at risk. If it's a car payment or health insurance, my guess is most young people would choose the car!

– CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider

...And from the Denver Post

 • 17 million of the uninsured, or about 37% of the total, live in households with over $50,000 annual income. Nearly 9 million, or about one fifth of the total, live in households earning over $75,000 a year. These are people who could afford health insurance if they wanted to.
• An estimated 9.5 million of the uninsured are not American citizens.

 

Suddenly, the 47 million number drops to 20 million, when you eliminate people who could afford their own insurance or are not entitled to government programs. (This is not to say that non-citizens shouldn't buy health insurance, but rather that they must not be the subject of any government policy which pays for health insurance with tax dollars.)

• Nearly 14 million of the reported uninsured are either in or eligible for government health programs, like Medicaid and SCHIP. Of these an estimated 9 million are actually enrolled in Medicaid but were categorized as uninsured anyway in the 2004 Census report, leading to an "over-assessment of the uninsured population", according to Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
• And about 17 million are between the ages of 18 and 24, people who may rationally believe that they are not likely to require expensive medical treatment, and that they (or their families) can afford whatever treatment they may need (and such treatment would likely cost less than high health insurance premiums.) Another 10.4 million of the uninsured are between 25 and 34, another group which generally doesn't have very large health worries.
The Census Bureau themselves admit, in the publication which claims 46.6 million uninsured in 2005, that "health insurance coverage is underreported in (their report) for a variety of reasons."

August 31, 2009 21:24:51

Asking a doctor whether or not to fix healthcare in this country and if so how to go about it is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

Apparently only Engineers (and Democratic politicians) know better how to fix heath care. [e digicons][/e]

Hold onto your wallets, it will be a bumpy ride.

 

August 31, 2009 22:19:07

The difference between doctors and engineers is that the latter bear no fiduciary relationship with a client or employer. We do.
The difference between engineers and doctors is that engineers are responsible for demonstrable and quantifiable results, doctors are not.

Engineers are expected to know precisely why something doesn’t work, how long it will take to fix it, why it broke in the first place and how to prevent it from ever occurring again. Doctors, on the other hand, when asked the cause of chest pain merely respond that it’s angina. Since all angina means is non descript chest pain that’s really not much of an answer.

Engineers are paid for results and those that do not produce continuous, timely and repeatable results do not remain employed very long. Doctors are essentially paid for their time without regard to result.

August 31, 2009 22:36:15

Doctors are essentially paid for their time without regard to result.

I was just asking myself the other day, "Now, why again did I invest over a decade of my life for this?  Oh, yeah, now I remember - to sit around and get paid to shoot the shit.  Yeah, that was it."

Apparently, to be an engineer is to know everything about everyone else's business; when lacking that knowledge, to believe you know it anyway.

August 31, 2009 22:38:43

The question is do you begrudge your fellow citizens the right to try and get some semblance of the security that you enjoy? Certainly not the same level of subsidy that you enjoy because that's not in the cards, but some basic right to healthcare that doesn't bankrupt you or deny you coverage at precisely the time it's most needed?

No, I don't begrudge my fellow citizens anything.  I just think all this talk against health care reform is getting out of hand and critisizing the government for its attempts at such reform at this point in the process does nothing at all.  Let's wait a bit and see what happens. As far as I can see this is nothing more than a Medicare program on steroids that covers more people is all, but I may be wrong and will reserve my opinion on it until a bit later when more comes to light.

August 31, 2009 22:45:35

Don't get too relaxed. Last year there was a proposal to raise our tri-care premiums to bring them in-line with other heath insurance premiums.

What we need is a program that brings private sector health care premiums to the level of Tricare (a government program for the military folks), not the other way around.  We also need health care providers to charge less for their services, but that will never happen so it is a moot point.

August 31, 2009 22:48:57

17 million of the uninsured, or about 37% of the total, live in households with over $50,000 annual income. Nearly 9 million, or about one fifth of the total, live in households earning over $75,000 a year. These are people who could afford health insurance if they wanted to.
Hmm ... my family coverage costs me $1,600 per month or $19,200 per year. It's decent coverage but by no means top of the line with $1000 per person, $2000 per family yearly deductibles, $20 office visits, $30 for specialists, $100 ER visits and $10/$20/$30 monthly drug costs. Admittedly I'm in a small group but it's still way better than non-group coverage.

$20K of insurance on a $50K or even a $75K household income is hardly affordable.

And about 17 million are between the ages of 18 and 24, people who may rationally believe that they are not likely to require expensive medical treatment, and that they (or their families) can afford whatever treatment they may need (and such treatment would likely cost less than high health insurance premiums.) Another 10.4 million of the uninsured are between 25 and 34, another group which generally doesn't have very large health worries.
This is the group of people that are free loading off of the system and are taking money from those of us that pay taxes.

This is held up as a rational "choice" that folks are free to make but it's a major fallacy. Yes they have the choice to not purchase health insurance but if they get in an accident or get a major illness then they still get care except it's paid for by you and me. Being young they certainly have less of a chance of requiring care but it's not zero. If this is a true choice then these folks should be left to die but they aren't. Instead by being out of the insurance pool they force those of us with insurance to pay higher rates.

One of the major right wing talking points is the idea that you don't want to be forced to pay for someone else. Well guess what, you already are. A UHC would force these free loaders to pay their fair share based on their taxes.

An estimated 9.5 million of the uninsured are not American citizens.
This is the only segment that I'll grant has some validity but again I must point out that you're already paying for the most expensive care possible (i.e. ER care) for this segment of society and it is realistically possible that under a UHC the costs for this segment would actually go down since the ER care could be replaced by more normal and preventative types of care.

Also other than the 18 to 24 and 25 to 35 age segments there is no accounting for people that fit multiple catagories. How many illegal aliens are between 18 to 35 and live in a houshold of either $50K or $75K income. Probably a lot. In all reality all you can honesty say is that it's likely that the 47 million is something of an overstatement with no real numbers as to how much of an overstatement it really is.

August 31, 2009 22:57:47

I just think all this talk against health care reform is getting out of hand and critisizing the government for its attempts at such reform at this point in the process does nothing at all.
Totally agree, which is why I'm defending it as opposed to criticizing it.

What we need is a program that brings private sector health care premiums to the level of Tricare
I'm definitely familiar with Tricare and I absolutely agree here as well except that I don't expect anything so good as what veterans get with Tricare. But then I don't think that's necessary. I believe veterans deserve the coverage they have and while it would be nice to have that level of subsidization for everyone it's not practical.

Plus servicemen and women are not paid all that much during their service, the pension and veteran benefits are what make up for it. I'd be happy with the Tricare system for everyone with it just being more expensive for non veterans.

August 31, 2009 23:07:50

Apparently, to be an engineer is to know everything about everyone else's business; when lacking that knowledge, to believe you know it anyway.
Apparently, to be a doctor is to be likened unto god himself. Let no mere mortal question their most trivial utterance.

Now, why again did I invest over a decade of my life for this?
Actually I'm a doctor as well having received a PhD in Electrical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and although I didn't quite spend ten years achieving it, I'm sure it was not all that much less in time *or* in money. The difference is that I don't go around insisting on being addressed as Doctor and I put my pants on one leg at a time. You seem to think that doctor's have exclusivity on a long and difficult education. Well they don't.

August 31, 2009 23:09:13

What we need is a program that brings private sector health care premiums to the level of Tricare (a government program for the military folks), not the other way around.

The problem there is that Tricare is subsidized now. Don't worry forces are at work to "remove" that subsidy and you will pay more... much more. You could use your local MTF, but the screws are squeezing defense spending too. Where would be a good place to cut services and save money? Retiree use of MTFs. I'm retired military as well, so I follow such things. The same people that will give coverage to some (even illegals) with one hand, have no problem lowering defense spending and raising vets costs with the other hand.

It comes up often enough, one day nobody will oppose its passage.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,79721,00.html

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/01/tnsTricarefees070122/

http://www.fra.org/AM/template.cfm?template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2868&section=news

Stardock Forums v1.5.3112.18688
© 1995-2009 Stardock Corporation. All rights reserved.
All times are EST. The time is now 06:58:16
Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0000016   Page Render Time: