Glad to see that as I was making good use of our private healthcare industry in a private, non-profit hospital that you all were debating what I said.
Let me break things down in a dollars and cents explanation.
Of the four plans I have an option on, the single rate premiums are $0, $30.74, $37.24, and, $62.74. The max out of pocket on the premium-free plan is $3,500. Compared to reality incomes, minimum wage comes out to be about $15,000. $12,000 is an unrealistic income amount for anyone working full time in the US. At most, the cheapest plan would cost someone on minimum wage 23% of their income. That is assuming a disaster strikes. It is feasible that it will never cost a penny. It is also similar to some estimates of the taxes necessary to cover a socialized healthcare plan. Of course the state pays a minimum of $21,000, so the true maximum would be about 17%.
Never mind that I made it obvious 5% is the lowest possible rate at my wife's income. Let's ask it this way: Can a socialized system cover everyone for a maximum annual cost to every individual of $3,500?
I admit that plan means charging a lot more at point of service than the other plans that will cost more in premiums, but at least I have options of what and how I will be paying out of pocket. And yes, this is simplified and breaking down all comparisons and giving state-run comparisons would take days but I don't get paid for this so we will stick with simple.
Also, as for whether people would abuse doctors: We don't get antibiotic resistant diseases from lack of use. Drug ads don't tell you that if you have symptoms to ask your doctor about their drug because no one likes going to the doctor. And lawyers don't advertise to people suffering from side effects because they had doctors break into their homes and force them to take treatments. No, we have created a society of people who believes the world owes them everything on a silver platter, and if it doesn't work out exactly as they hoped then they are owed for that too. People abuse doctors in hundreds of different ways, and the worst is parents with a sick kid. They want a drug, no matter what the issue is. Our pediatrician knows me well enough now to say, "Many times parents like us to prescribe X drug, but that really just makes us feel better. It won't do anything for her." Gee I wonder what all those other parents are doing getting drugs when they avoid the doctor.
From someone working in a hospital I only see good things coming from Meaningful Use, it not only cuts down on waste and streamlines budgets, but it also keeps many people employed (like myself) so that all that data can be tracked an analyzed.
Meaningful Use sounds a lot like what private insurers call medical necessity. Do I trust politicians and bureaucrats to make those calls? Hell no.
The other problem I see with meaningful use is it will often be determined by budgets. Do we just constantly enlarge the budgets, thus raising taxes on healthy people, to cover rising healthcare costs due to living longer and having a larger population, or do we just wind up with a situation
like Arizona?
Then there is the understanding of meaningful use and those who approve individual cases. As someone who has had even insurance rule a lack of medical necessity on claims due to nothing more than my young age and requiring I call and appeal, I wonder what hoops I have to jump through when dealing with government. I have yet to do anything with any government agency where I walked away thinking how pleasant that experience was.
On a personal, yet related note, my cardiologist brought me news from a conference he recently attended. There is a new device that is designed specifically for one of my situations that may help me to postpone my transplant even longer. It is called a
Melody TPV. It is created by the same company that makes my defibrillator, Medtronic. It is something we would be looking at in a couple of years to help maintain my quality of life and open my conduit more. Part of me was surprised because I wasn't aware that many people had pulmonary conduits that were dealing with stenosis. I asked him about it and his exact words were, "The conduits are something mainly only done in congenital cases, but there are enough of them that Medtronic saw a market for a profitable product." It is as yet not thoroughly tested but has been given a Humanitarian Exception by the FDA to be provided without full testing.
I have to wonder, would this device even exist in a socialized system? I mean, there are ways to treat a stenotic pulmonary conduit, but this is the first non-invasive treatment. As other treatments are usually done alongside other things that are necessary, as was the case when mine was put in and when mine was planned to be removed, both before we knew I needed a transplant and as part of the transplant, there is no direct need for non-invasive treatment other than to create something that is easier on the patient. It is not a fix and is just temporary to maintain quality of life until it is absolutely necessary to perform invasive surgery. Heck, I only have it as a possible option now because of an appeal to the FDA. Without that it wouldn't even be available to me by the time I would need it.
So, as I see a new technology provided by profit-hunting, greedy capitalists seeking to make money off of me, I have to say, "Damn them and their technology to extend my life."
Would I happily pay them for this? Yes. Would I demand the government make any of you pay for it? No. That would be immoral.
).
