WILLIAMS: Rosen grossly misrepresents the underinsured

By Ryan Williams, Special to the Rocky

Published October 2, 2008 at 12:01 a.m.

Text size

I am writing regarding Mike Rosen’s Sept. 19 column “Underinsured isn’t uninsured.” Sir, let me tell you what underinsured means.

You point out that people postpone or fail to seek recommended care because they can’t afford it because of “some kind of co-payment” and you compare that to not having enough home, auto or life insurance. There is a vast difference between not being reimbursed for damages and not getting that mammogram, heart test, or MRI you need. How is dying because you can’t get medical treatment comparable to not having enough auto insurance to replace your car after an accident?

Let me tell you about co-pays. My wife and I both have chronic hereditary medical illnesses (and no, I’m not talking about hay fever). Two of our medications cost over $4,000 a month, but our co-pay for both is $300. Other medications that we need bump the total to over $400 a month. That’s not including doctor visits.

You state this country has “the world’s best high-tech equipment and treatments.” Wrong again. My wife’s back surgery, which was denied by our health insurance company because of a loophole, had been provided in Europe for 15 years. Because we own our home we were stuck with the bill: $48,000. Six years later we are still paying $600 a month on that surgery bill. My entire paycheck is taken up by our first, second and third mortgage and our medical expenses. We live off what my wife can make and she doesn’t make any more than I do.

My wife needs dentures. Our health insurance company won’t cover the oral surgery she needs to have dentures because it is a dental procedure. Our dental insurance covers $1,000 a year. That doesn’t even come close to the $40,000 price tag. We are looking at going to Mexico for treatment and borrowing money from relatives to pay half that much – so my wife can eat.

“Unlike socialized systems… Americans can actually access medical services without having to wait in queues for months or years.” Really? Have you ever tried to qualify for assistance or pro-bono health insurance if you make $30,000 a year? Have you ever talked to Canadians or Germans about their health care systems? I have and, with the exception of one province in Canada, they are pretty happy with their health care system.

The underinsured might “perhaps” put off surgery so they can buy a new car or go on a nice vacation? You got that backwards. We put off a new car or a nice vacation for the next 15 years so she could have surgery. We haven’t been on a vacation that cost more than $300 in six years! I have driven the same car for nine years.

You state that “health care for the great majority of Americans is analogous to eating at a fine restaurant.” Really? Does a fine restaurant provide an entrée without a side dish? Or a drink of water? Or a fork because you don’t need it? I worked in mental health and worked with insurance companies for nine years. I have personally argued with insurance companies when a 19-year-old’s stay at a mental hospital was covered (except for a few thousand dollars in co-pays), but her ambulance ride to the emergency room after she took her overdose was not covered because it was “not medically necessary.” What about the guy I worked with who shot himself in the head and the insurance company wouldn’t pay for mental health treatment after three days because he didn’t feel suicidal anymore? I could talk for hours about similar stories.

You state that most healthy 18- to 34-year-olds could choose to get health insurance if they want to but gamble on government-regulated insurance and free emergency room visits covering them if they get sick. I have news for you; Medicaid is very difficult to get and emergency room care is only free if you are extremely indigent. I have talked to several underinsured people that have been sent to collections because of their medical bills. These aren’t a few friends of mine. These are hundreds of patients I’ve worked with at the hospital.

The only people our nation’s health care system works for is insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and those healthy people lucky enough that they don’t have to use our health care system. Mr. Rosen, you have no clue what you are talking about.

Ryan Williams is a resident of Windsor.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News

Comments

October 2, 2008

6:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

Ryan Williams is unhappy with our health care system and based upon his "experiences" he claims Mike Rosen is wrong. My experiences are different than those of Ryan Williams so I claim he is wrong. This can go on all day, tit for tat, and proves nothing.

Ryan Williams wants universal coverage because he was under-insured and paid the price. That was one of Rosen's points. Ryan Williams' point seems to be he has a bone to pick with the system.
October 2, 2008

6:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

vudumom writes:

Mr.Williams what you say is totally true. Health insurance can be costly with the co-pays and for my family 20% up to a certain amount is reached. I need some tests done now but can't afford the co-pays and the 20%. So I will wait. It's not critical and my husband and I are waiting out the economical storm.
Knowing what you do about the pain of other people and what you and your wife are going through, do you really believe that government can deliver a better system?
How are we as taxpayers going to pay for health care for millions of people? Are the people who want the government to pay for healthcare really think it will be totally free? Can or should the government pay for your wife's $40,000 teeth? Do you think the taxpayer should pay for all of your wife's back surgery? Do you actually believe that the government would be charged $48,000 for the surgery? No. They would be charged $72,000 so it could be then discount to the government at a taxpayer price of $60,000.
Most of us are one big catastrophe away from bankruptcy. We can't insure ourselves against everything. The government cannot possibly provide total healthcare to all people. Just look at what you and your wife would cost the government for 2 medical issues. $88,000 is alot of money. I feel for you and don't like to see bad things happen to people. There is no way our government should pay for everyone's healthcare. Do you think that you should be on the hook for some of these charges? How much? Do you think the government should pay all of your medical, dental and eyeglass too? How about Chiroprators? What about Accupunture? How far should the insurance go? If you listen to Obama's plan, and I think this is really what your trying to promote, he wants "basic" healthcare for "all" Americans. Define basic. Isn't that what you have now?
October 2, 2008

7:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

blacksho89 writes:

Mr. Williams: If you pay $1,000.00 per month in premiums (which I doubt) plus a $300.00 co-pay for meds that cost $4,000.00 cash, you are WAY ahead of the game! What are you complaining about?
October 2, 2008

7:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

Mike_In_Hartsel
You need to go back and read Ryan's letter again. He was not writing about our health care system he was writing about insurance companies.
October 2, 2008

7:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Art writes:

Mr. Williams certainly appears to know what he is talking about. It is especially interesting to read what he says about Canada and Germany. I have had the same experience with friends in other countries. They may have complaints about their systems, but they laugh when they talk about what goes on here in the U.S. My daughter works for a doctor in Phoenix and they see a lot of Canadians during the winter and they have virtually no problems dealing with the Canadian system. She tells me they would prefer to have all Canadians due to the ease of dealing with the system in Canada as compared to the insurance companies that the U.S. patients have. The Canadians are also very pleased with the system in Canada. And no, they do not come here for the health care, they come to escape the cold weather. We are beginning to look like a third world country in many ways and our insurance system in the U. S. is one reason for this. Our health care system is fine but our insurance system is definitely broken.
October 2, 2008

8:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

drphilosopher writes:

Mr. Williams,

I sympathize with your problems. But how do your problems give you a claim on my life? Or perhaps you think my life has less worth than yours because I'm basically healthy (for now). Shouldn't I have the right to decide when, where and how to give to charity? Or whether I can afford to give to charity at all? Should I give up sending my children to college so that your wife can have her teeth fixed? Isn't that my choice to make? Isn't this supposed to be a free country?

Darrell R. Hougen
Littleton
October 2, 2008

9:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

From Mr. Williams' anecdote, it is obvious that what is best for the nation is what is best for him. I mean, obviously he is average (with regard to health) or at least within a standard deviation of the average American. We should nationalize or universalize healthcare so that the $4,000 dollar bill (per month) that the average American is racks up won't destroy our collective well-being.

Sounds reasonable...???
October 2, 2008

9:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Elwood writes:

40,000 for a new set of teeth??? Maybe you should look into Gentle Dental, they provided a new set of uppers (including many fittings) for around $1200, before insurance. Of course if you want the implants, you should have to pay for any costs above a set of dentures yourself.
October 2, 2008

9:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ofearghail writes:

All I read was, "whine, whine, whine, whine"!
October 2, 2008

3:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

"$40,000 for dentures"

Anyone stupid enough to "swallow" the lies of Ryan Williams deserves to remain ignorant.

If Williams is willing to lie about the cost of his dental work, he can't be trusted to be honest about his other exaggerations.

A simple 5 second search reveals the extent of Williams' lies.... and the gullibility of morons willing to accept his lies, simply because it supports their equally dishonest political positions.

"How much do dentures cost?
Costs will vary depending on where you live and your needs. Prosthodontists' prices are typically between $500 to $2,500 per upper or lower arch. Cosmetic Dentist fees are usually $300 to $1,200 per arch. This is a procedure for which you should definitely research your dental insurance coverage. Much of the cost is often covered."

http://www.aboutcosmeticdentistry.com...
October 2, 2008

3:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Oh_Wise_One writes:

s.ucks to be you.
October 2, 2008

4:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cel writes:

While some Mr. Williams costs do seem at least a little out of line, the fact is nobody knows his situation. He may be being totally honest, and maybe not. Whatever the case, I think he's mostly right on about Rosen. I don't know where Rosen came from or his background but as I have listened to him in the past, I am led to believe that Mike Rosen has never faced any financial difficulty in his life. How can you talk intelligently about being poor or the difficulties of being poor if you've never been poor, or the difficulties of being uninsured or underinsured if you've never been so. In Rosen's defense though he can't be expected to know about something if he's never experienced it and besides let's face it, he's not going to win any awards for being a sensitive guy, I remember being in the Phillip Morris Sky Box years ago at the Stones concert and hearing Rosen who happened to be in the same box, tell Mexican jokes and not caring if he offended anyone. I think being in the media and constantly being the center of controversy and controversial topics might make you blind to who you offend or who you might be standing next to and having a stage, like a newspaper, with a platform so you don't have to see who your offending probably tends to make you not care.
October 2, 2008

4:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

RickG, in your on-going efforts to make each post more ugly than the last, you (and others) ignore the letter writer's statement that his wife needs oral surgery, which I expect is more than just "getting dentures". But, I don't really know, and unlike you I won't make assumptions of wrong-doing about someone I don't know.

Darrel Hougen, your argument that someone is making a claim on your life is ever disingenuous. You live in society and benefit from public services. You do not live on an island of your own (except maybe in your fantasies).

All the "I've got mine, F you" sentiments expressed on this thread, doesn't give me a lot of faith in my fellow man. It's no wonder our history is a history of war (Mr. Hougen, please don't take offense at my suggestion that we have anything in common).
October 2, 2008

4:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

vudumom asks: "do you really believe that government can deliver a better system?"

Government is already involved in health care, so what are you really asking? Or are you just offering us the boogeyman?
October 2, 2008

4:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

EastVail writes:

Health care is a privilege that must be earned, not a right to which people are entitled.
October 2, 2008

5:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

seeingeyeseesall writes:

Governments in all developed countries do a better job. My firm pays $13,000.00 per year per employee with family coverage. Each family member has a $2000 annual deductible and then the insurance pays only 70%. The system as it is doesn't provide much benefit to anyone but the insurer. Government would work for no profit. No CEO making $100 million a year. Most doctors support single payer - government - health care. If we can spend $700 billion to pay off the idiots on Wall Street's losses, we can afford full health care for everyone. (This amount would pay for it for over a DECADE!)
October 2, 2008

8:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

WestminsterJ writes:

Eastvail- What have you done to earn health care?
October 2, 2008

9:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Ike writes:

Ah yes, Mike Rosen and Rush Limbaugh. (EIB=Exageration in Broadcasting) can tell you many ways the Nation is better as it is under the current Sitting Shrub. Perhaps a visit to John Scalzi and his "Being Poor" essay will help Mike and Rush who will never understand what it is truly like to be "uninsured" or "underinsured" in the Greatest Nation in the World today from their Ivory Towers. Read it and rethink your comments.

http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/003704...

May all who read this never be poor to truly understand what it is like.
October 2, 2008

11:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

WestminsterJ writes:

No, Ike, EIB= Excrement in Broadcasting
October 3, 2008

7:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Maybe we have the wrong approach to fighting this socialized thing? When the democrats take over during this election cycle, they will socialize some things...most definitely healthcare. The real answer, then, is to ABUSE the system. Take it for all you can. Hide your income from the government whenever possible, and hit the government for as much medicine as you can get your doctor to prescribe you...then dump it down the toilet if you don't really need it.

When you lose your job, stay on the government payroll for as long as humanly possible before accepting your next gig in the private world.

Expose the weaknesses of socialized programs by abusing it!

One of two things will happen, then. Either the services given us by Uncle Sam will become pathetic, or the bill will become huge. Either way, revolution against the system will be the result.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
October 3, 2008

10:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

spencerr charges abuse in socialized programs but (assuming some will occur) doesn't really provide any evidence that this will break the bank or that it is exclusive to "socialized" programs. You don't think fraud and abuse occurs under private health care? Ha.

It's that ideological boogeyman (government) rearing his head again. When you can't argue for the current broken, wasteful system you can always trot out something to be against.
October 3, 2008

10:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

anderson,

You make too many assumptions. I agree that the current system is broken. You assume that I do not.

There are two aspects of the empirical evidence that demonstrate the current system is broken. It is expensive, and some people cannot participate in it via insurance company. The socialized version (whether or not you believe in nationalized or universalized) will remain more expensive than it needs to be, though more people will certainly be able to participate.
October 3, 2008

10:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

For those of us who value our ability to make a living without government dipping into our earnings, socialized healthcare is a catastrophe, and its supporters' claims that it will decrease costs leave out a lot of details on how it does that.
October 3, 2008

10:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Do you want to know what I think we should do? It will be devoid of regurgitated rhetoric that you are already accustomed to hearing, and I think you would find it refreshing, even though I know you won't agree with it.
October 3, 2008

11:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Oh, I forgot the other assumption. You said "You don't think fraud and abuse occurs under private health care?"

Oh, I know it does. The same exact abuses occur right now. The answer is not our current system or the highly flawed system that you would push (think blocks-long lines for toilet paper in the U.S.S.R., and then apply it to healthcare. This is an exaggeration, of course, but the results will not be dissimiliar).
October 3, 2008

11:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

You just wandered into my realm of knowledge, mr. The other day, I appealed mostly to ideology, though my memory is so bad that I don't even remember what we were arguing about.

Now, I have a quasi-unique perspective backed up by facts and logic (though, like jay, I'm sure you will go dig up some articles talking about how wonderful Canada is and use these as seemingly irrefutable evidence that socializing something is the answer).
October 3, 2008

11:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

spencerr, thank you for acknowledging two of the major problems with the current system--it is expensive, and not everyone is covered. But you then go on to make unsubstantiated claims about what a socialized or nationalized system would look like.

A couple of things stand out for me. The current system pays the salary of the middle man--the insurers, the TPAs, the HMOs, etc. Having all these players with their different needs and systems leads to wastefulness. The middle man's costs represent roughly 20% of our health care dollar. Eliminate that would result in cost savings. I have no idea what left out details you're referring to.

Having the middle man, also means that health care is driven by profit motives, more than concern over people's health balanced with cost constraints. That's backwards, if you ask me. Finally, most of the industrialized world has national health care and as far as I can tell, it's working. I have not heard any countries talk about adopting the American system of health care.
October 3, 2008

11:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

anderson,

Bingo! I agree with everything you just said except for the last point.

First of all, I have participated in the only current American experiment in universalized healthcare. It is not a good thing. Furthermore, for every Canadian that swears by their system, there is another who hates it. They have the same problems, less exaggerated than I described with my likening it to Soviet toilet paper lines.

Whether they like their system or not is largely dependant upon what their own political ideologies are. Their system is not perfect. I know of a system that is more perfect...but alas, it will never gain traction because it is politically unviable.

This fact stands. You can do it better, or you can do it cheaper. For Americans who can participate, they have the best quality healthcare system in the world. Socialize it, and you will either lose that aspect of our healthcare system, or your socialized system will be a black hole for taxpayer dollars.
October 3, 2008

11:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

My system completely cuts out the middle man.

You said, "driven by profit motives, more than concern over people's health balanced with cost constraints. That's backwards, if you ask me." So profit motives and concern for people's health is mutually exlusive? I argue that you can tweak a market so that you can maximize both health and profits.
October 3, 2008

11:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

I'm telling you, Anderson, you have picked a different topic than usual on which to argue with me about. You don't have to start off each post with an insult. Please revert back to the polite and nice Anderson that you were when we first met.

"go on to make unsubstantiated claims" and "It's that ideological boogeyman (government) rearing his head again. When you can't argue for the current broken, wasteful system you can always trot out something to be against."
October 3, 2008

12:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

No, they are not mutually exclusive. But where we're going on this trip depends on who's driving the bus. If we're headed toward the hospital because someone is sick, I don't want to stop or go on any detours just so the driver can pick up his donut.

You speak of problems with Canada's system, but you don't provide any evidence. Moreover, you don't acknowledge that there are many other national health systems not run on the Canada model, and the U.S. can design its own.
October 3, 2008

12:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Ah, Anderson,

So you are not even interested in my better plan?

You want evidence...here is evidence that one does not even have to drum up. Conservatives argue that the American system provides better quality than Europe's and Canada's, and liberals argue theirs provides better quality (assuming the people in between will choose a side on this one...except for me, who represents a third view).

Both sides are correct. America's system provides the best quality for those who can afford it. Europe's systems provide better quality for everyone involved. I don't refute that socialized systems everywhere are cheaper.

If you don't buy that, here is a link to a lot of articles. Don't get blindfolded by the conservative nature of the actual link. The ensuing links on the page come from real media sources. The articles can be individually googled to verify that they were not contrived. Some support my point better than others. Many European systems are covered. Also, I would draw on my personal experience in one of our own "universalized healthcare systems," but you probably don't care and would write it off as biased. anyway, below is the link.

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/...
October 3, 2008

12:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

I said, "Europe's systems provide better quality for everyone involved."

It would be more accurate to say "Europe's systems provide better quality, on average, for everyone involved.
October 3, 2008

12:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

By the way, I need a little explanation.

I asked if you thought profits and ensuring health were mutually exclusive. You agreed that they are not.

And then you said, "If we're headed toward the hospital because someone is sick, I don't want to stop or go on any detours just so the driver can pick up his donut."

I just don't understand how getting a donut on the way to the emergency room is profitable for anyone. If the worker is a lazy jerk, doesn't matter what system he is operating in, he might consider donuts during a heart attack. A more profitable system won't lead to this any more than a government-controlled system would prevent it.
October 3, 2008

12:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

When I was in Amsterdam several years ago, I learned that their system provides a level base coverage for everyone, and that everyone over a certain income is taxed for this. They also had doctors who would serve those who wanted more coverage and could pay for it. It made a lot of sense to me then. It still does.

I criticized you before for just being oppositional and not offering an argument for something. If you have a plan, offer it.
October 3, 2008

12:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

My story was metaphor regarding profits v. health. If Mr. (Mason) Proffitt is driving the bus, we stop so he can be compensated with donuts. If Mr. Health is driving the bus, we go straight to the hospital, because that is the purpose of the trip.
October 3, 2008

12:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Yeah, Britain's system allows for people to buy private healthcare if they want it done better. Canada's does not, or at least did not until recently when one of their courts allowed it. You will occasionally find Canadians wandering south for American healthcare when Canada's system refuses to cover something.
October 3, 2008

12:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Just a second. This will take a while to craft.
October 3, 2008

12:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

First, we I have to outline what I feel are variables leading to the increased cost of healthcare in our current system.

1. Administrative costs, which Medicare and Medicaid do not have too much of, but this is a problem with insurance. The middle man here is expensive (but the formerly mentioned two are also expensive when compared to my system).
2. The cost of avoiding litigation…not to be confused with the actual cost of litigation. Hospitals perform procedures, at times, simply because they are attempting to avoid being sued.
3. The broad category of supply and demand. Essentially, demand is outstripping supply, driving prices up. This happens for various reasons (including point 2. above), but the main two reasons are a. that America has a growing and aging population and b. there is no disincentive to avoid treatment, which in a functioning market, would exist in the form of a budgetary constraint. In simple terms, when insurance or any other third party pays your costs for medical care, you will abuse it.

An interesting read if you want to know the facts and logic behind the rhetoric. Though it is nowhere as effective as the one I was looking for.

http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/04/m...
October 3, 2008

1:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Here is the answer.

1. Give tax incentives to individuals instead of private companies. The average cost per family per year for insurance is between 6 and 10 thousand dollars. Make it so that up to ten thousand dollars of a family’s income (per year) is tax exempt if they put that amount into a flexible spending account that can only be spent on healthcare.
2. If they don’t spend the money, it automatically goes into a retirement fund such as a 401K at the end of the year, and they have to re-invest in their FSA. The added bonus of this is that now people have retirement savings too, and this creates an alternative use for their insurance money, creating a disincentive…the family has to make a choice, healthcare or retirement. This will help eliminate demand outstripping supply.
3. We can’t forget catastrophic emergencies, which might cost well in excess of 10K. For this, there is “catastrophic insurance.” Creative, huh.
4. Finally, the patient signs a waiver saying that they cannot sue. (that doesn’t mean that they can’t press criminal charges however).

Positive side effects: The cost of healthcare will decrease. That 6 to 10 thousand dollars suddenly gets a lot smaller, so 6 to 10 should be sufficient. Also, we have hit two birds with one stone; retirement and healthcare. Lastly, since your company no longer pays for your insurance, they will have to make up for it in your salary.

Negative aspects: No more lawsuits mean that people won’t be compensated for their doctor’s mistakes. However, I doubt that in a socialized system, you could sue the government either…at least that is the way it works in the military.

It can’t compete with socialized healthcare in one single way. Even though this system would make healthcare completely affordable for 99 percent (more or less…considering that right now 86 percent are covered) of people, some people would still opt not to get healthcare, or worse, a very small fraction would still not be able to afford it.
October 3, 2008

1:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Oh, and regarding the people that would have originally qualified for medicare or medicaid but who now wouldn't be able to afford it...you can still keep the taxes and give them their funds. The only difference is that instead of having the third party, medicare or medicaid, pay the provider, you would simply put the money into people's FSA accounts, and at that point, it would function exactly the same as "richer" Americans' healthcare.
October 3, 2008

1:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

I kind of left out one of the main points too, though you should have been able to deduce it...third party payers, including both medicare and medicaid and insurance companies, are gone, so administrative fees are no more.
October 3, 2008

2:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Ofearghail writes:

I am living in Kharkov, Ukraine. There are two types of health care available here. One is the state system, which is a socialized remnant of the Soviet days. It is available to all, but usually you have to bring your own bandages, syringes and other supplies if you expect treatment - the clinics can't afford them.

You will likely wait a long time for treatment, because these clinics are understaffed. Often a nurse will provide attention that should be done by a doctor. The quality of care is as not especially good - staff attitudes are usually ambivalent to poor. The medical professionals here are just too fed up to be well-motivated.

The other type of care is comprised of private, commercial clinics, which are used by those who can afford a higher quality of care. You don't have to bring your own supplies or wait so long in line. The care is excellent, and the staff are well-trained and professional. It is much like you would expect in any good clinic in Colorado. The costs are very low compared to the U.S., but for the average Ukrainian, it is a bit steep, and most have to use the state-subsidized system.

The concept of medical insurance does not really exist here, but I suppose it is developing. So you are left with a really poor, socialized system, which does provide some care but at a very low quality, and a commercial system that provides much better care for those who can afford it.

Is this where America is headed?
October 3, 2008

2:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Ofearghail,

What is the main difference between the Ukraine and the U.S. besides the healthcare system?

I'll answer for you. America is very rich and has a huge tax base.

You will run into some of the same problems if we socialized healthcare here...but I don't think you can make a fair comparison.
October 3, 2008

2:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

And Anderson, I think your metaphor needs a slight retouching.

You don't have Mr. Profit and Mr. Healthcare. Rather, I propose, you have Mr. Profit and Mr. Government, both of whom are susceptible to corruption, laziness, etc.. I also propose that, as the dollar might distract Mr. Profit, so too can things like power and beaurocracy and women with nice legs can distract Mr. Government.

And some socialized system are still driven by the buck. Allocation of funds goes to the best performing providers via the customer who is satisfied or dissatisfied and votes with his feet.
October 3, 2008

2:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Anyway, I will check out whatever replies you have tonight.

Normally, I start getting restricted by time about now, but I finally got my home internet up.

I hope this has been a little more stimulating and a little less irritating than usual.
October 3, 2008

3:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

spencer jr, once again we see your position on healthcare boil down to willful ignorance.

i'll say it again people.

our global peers are doing healthcare cheaper and better than we are.

i believe america can do better....like those folks.

spencer jr doesn't

i've asked him repeatedly to tell us why he believes that and he's still running...
October 3, 2008

4:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

spencerr, kudos for putting some thought into a plan. Most people don't get that far. I don't pretend to understand all the issues or to have all the answers. I can see several advantages over the current system, including costs, but here are some trouble spots I see in your plan:
(1) How do we cover those without income?
(2) What about those who don't have catastrophic insurance, and have a catastrophic event? Who's going to pay for that?
(3) We've had FSAs for years, but my sense is a lot of people don't use them. Why? One reason is because they are too complicated for a lot of people. I used to work with a woman has had dependent care for two kids, but didn't use an FSA. She wasn't dumb in any sense of the word, I just had the impression that it was something she didn't understand and didn't recognize the benefit. One major problem now is the complexity regarding health care. We need to reduce that complexity.
(4) Another reason why people don't use FSAs is because they think they don't need them. In the industry we used to call this Camaro coverage--20 something's who buy the cool car instead of insurance. And when they get hurt, who's going to pay for it?
(5) Your plan is premised on the idea that people will abuse the system. I think that fear is overblown. The vast majority of people don't and won't go to the doctor unless they have to. They're are a few who arguably go too often, but they do the same thing now if they're insured. Besides, going to the doctor itself is not a huge cost. Leaving conditions untreated until they become a problem requiring more expensive treatment is. That's one of the concepts behind managed care (as you probably understand).
(6) Torts (lawsuits for negligent medical care) are often referred to as the remedy of last resort. Before you eliminate this path of recourse, you should have some other types of protection in its place. Otherwise snake oil salesman may operate with impunity.
October 3, 2008

6:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Apologies, A,

Only have 1 hand. Can't key.

1&2 - Get creative w/existing welfare including medcare/caid, social sec., etc..

3. My FSA is as simple as swiping a credit card and much simpler than dealing w/loads of hospital bills that arrive months late.

4. This is part of the reason 14% of the pop. is uninsured right now. Many are young and invincible. Dock pay if person goes into debt on hospital bills??? How do we deal with it now?

5. Can't make some people get help when they need it. Can't keep others who have a cold @ home. Details. If they want a tax break, they send IRS a preventative health receipt for each family member each year.

6. Criminal system!!!

Lots of minor details a person w/ a more creative mind can work out. I know...devil in the details. The hard part of the theory, the meet & potatoes, is worked out though.

Anywho, I did not make this up. Give me credit only for enthusiastically researching it. Here are SOME MAJOR ADVANTAGES OVER SOCIALIZED. Two birds w/ 1 stone, health and retirement, increased worker pay for at least half, cheaper care. No toiletpaper lines or decreased quality of services. You must admit that soc. healthcare is not perfect either, and aspects of this are much better (economically efficient for 1, where simple gov't or even complicated gov't interference completely distorts market forces, same as current system).

Again, forgive me. 1 hand.

BTW, jay, thanks for the intelligent, well-thought contributions. :)

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Home › Opinion › Speakout

WILLIAMS: Rosen grossly misrepresents the underinsured

By Ryan Williams, Special to the Rocky

Published October 2, 2008 at 12:01 a.m.

Share

Comments

Post your comment

Featured

Columns & Blogs

News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Calendar

Upcoming events

Sponsored links