George Harris K.C. Star Reader Advisory Panel 2008
In 1998 when I was 48, doctors diagnosed my incurable blood disease. According to then available medical data, my life expectancy was 11 years.
There’s nothing like a terminal illness to focus the mind on medical care.
And on insurance. I traveled to Johns Hopkins in Baltimore and Cornell University Medical Center in New York City to meet with experts on my disease, polycythemia vera (PV). Of course, these doctors were “out of network” and my insurance wouldn’t pay them or paid a very reduced amount.
But one of the experts recommended a medication on which he had done research. The medicine worked beautifully for ten years. Insurance covered the expense, but earlier this year the company decided not to pay for the drug because it was not FDA approved for my disease.
Of course, there are no drugs approved by the FDA for PV, a rare disorder thought to be caused in most cases by a genetic mutation. Lucky me, I’m a mutant, and my insurance company didn't like my kind.
So I went looking for another insurance company that might like mutants better. Long story short: After being insured and paying premiums for almost 40 years, I am now uninsurable.
No one will sell me an individual policy, and I’m stuck with the insurance I have, which won’t pay for the treatment that worked for me for ten years. I get no credit for having paid my premiums for 40 years, having only a single year in which my benefits exceeded premiums paid.
This is no way to run the health care system. So you can see why I am, quite personally, interested in health care reform.
As a psychologist, I also see the health care problem from a health care provider's perspective.
Insurance companies are raising co-pays and deductibles to the point that many, probably soon to be most, with insurance really have only major medical coverage.
Over 45 million people have no insurance at all, and the only care they receive is expensive emergency room treatment, the cost of which is added to the hospital bills of those who are insured. And you wonder why your premiums keep going up while coverage is going down.
An estimated 30% of all private insurance premiums are spent on administration. Doctors pay an additional 10% or more for staff to navigate the byzantine claims process, making 40% of your health care costs go for bureaucracy, not medical care.
So, here we are. I’m doing ok and paying for the treatment I can afford that insurance won’t cover. But you’re kidding yourself if you think your insurance company isn’t like mine. As the saying goes, insurance companies sell coverage to people who don’t need it.
Want to get involved in solving this national problem? Here’s some information about a local group that is advocating for health care reform.
Heartland Healthcare for All was formed by medical professionals and medical students at the Kansas University Medical Center. The group seeks to form a coalition with other local groups to support their goal: Single Payer Universal Health Care.
Heartland Healthcare for All will give a presentation of Health Care Reform Options on December 5th at 6 pm at the Southwest Boulevard Family Clinic, 340 Southwest Boulevard (the northeast corner of Southwest & Rainbow boulevards).
Here are links to get information and to get involved in addressing health care reform:
http://healthcareforall.kumc.edu/index.htm
http://healthcareforall.kumc.edu/about/getInvolved.htm
A petition supporting Single Payer National Health Insurance is at:
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/HHFA/petition.html
Numerous polls show that single payer is enormously popular.
* In a New York Times/CBS News poll in February 2007, 64% said that the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans.
* In October 2003, 62% of respondents to a Washington Post/ABC News poll said they preferred "a universal health insurance program, in which everybody is covered under a program like Medicare that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers."
* These findings were repeated in a 2007 Associated Press-Yahoo poll in which 65% supported a Medicare-for-all system.
So go to the meeting and go to the web sites. Let your elected officials know what you want. If you’re wary of universal health insurance and single payer systems, give the folks at Health Care for All a chance to give you facts about these issues. They'll even provide a speaker for your group to explain their goal.
As it turned out, after several biopsies, I don't have the genetic mutation that causes PV in 95% of the cases. So the genetic basis of my particular disease remains a mystery. That makes me not just a mutant but a mystery mutant. I am so proud.
It also turns out that longevity predictions stink. With the right medical care (not necessarily what the insurance company will pay for) dread diseases can often become mere nuisances. That my story and I'm stickin' to it. I do not plan to participate in anybody's statistical prediction formula.
Meanwhile, please check out what Health Care for All has to say. If you still don’t agree that health care reform is badly needed, I surely hope you never become a mutant, mysterious or not.








Delicious
Digg
It's rampant through our
It's rampant through our economy in other areas. For example, required income tax withholding by employers makes employees numb to the use of their tax dollars - because they never SAW the money.
high school ged | diploma for home school | home school diploma
Well NOW you're talking
Well NOW you're talking Alma. In the end we'll all be dead. You know, in my youth I used to love Milton Friedman until I realized just what you were saying. A free market is amoral, it doesn't seek good or fair only equilibrium.
This country wants to be a
This country wants to be a capitalist country, but we have too many obstacles in the way for markets to be free. Insurance companies paying for our medicines and medical procedures makes us complacent and we don't shop for price. If we shopped for price/quality, maybe the providers would at least try to be competitive. It's rampant through our economy in other areas. For example, required income tax withholding by employers makes employees numb to the use of their tax dollars - because they never SAW the money. Schools are not competitive and aren't trying to attract students because we make parents send their kids to their local public schools, and their only other option is to pay twice (once in taxes and once in private school tuition). So we can argue about free markets here & there, but there is nothing pure, and probably never will be.
Sigh. In a free market the
Sigh.
In a free market the seller can ask any price they want and sell their good/service to anyone they want on any terms they want. The buyer is under no obligation to buy under any price or conditions they don't want to meet. That's a free market.
Being prevented by the government from buying outside the U.S. is anti-market activity only to the extent that the government decided on its own to make the rule. To the extent that they were influenced by the seller (i.e., lobbying), THAT'S free-market activity.
DON'T CONFUSE "FREE" WITH "PERFECTLY COMPETITIVE."
What I'm trying to get across here is that when you hear the half-educated shrieking about the glories of the free market, because they at least could understand that in Econ 101, they never want to take the responsbility for the consequences: people die from the effects of free markets. In Econ 202 (or whatever they call Intermediate Micro these days), once the Bus Ad majors are out of the room, they tell you about market FAILURE, which is vastly more interesting.
Alma, this is not a free
Alma, this is not a free market in any kind of sense, not as we practice it in the US. Our idea of a free market is closer to anarchy. The seller is free but not the buyer. A third entity, the insurers, is acting in it's own interest. This is one bastardized situation for sure. In a free market I could buy my prescription on-line from Canada or the UK, or France or wherever I find the best price or service. If I could do that I could influence elasticity. This is why we need reform. Between the drug companies and the insurers the fix in in.
It IS a free market
It IS a free market situation, RadMod. It's just not a perfectly competitive market situation, which is what I think you're thinking of. A pharmaceutical company's exclusive on a drug is, granted, a created monopoly, not (necessarily, though possibly) a natural one, but there are monopolies in free markets.
And price elasticity of demand is CRITICAL here. Price goes up, demand changes very little; you got to have it or you die. That's not aneconomic, that's PURE economic activity.
But several bloggers can't understand why the U.S. consumer is "subsidizing" other consumers for drugs, because the pharm companies sell to them cheaper than they do here. It's because they're responding to different price elasticities in different markets. That's not Big Pharm dictating prices, that's Big Pharm selling high where they can sell high, selling low where they have to, as long as they make a profit.
The bloggers think it would be fairer to sell a drug at the same price everywhere. Fine, but that's a regulated market. The drug companies would MUCH rather sell at their optimal price in each market given the local p.e. of d.
All I'm sayin' is that if you like the idea of a free market, that's the flavor of your slice of the pie.
Alma you need to get out
Alma you need to get out your Samuelson Econ 101 text book and check the definition of a free market. If ever there was NOT one the pharma market is it. If my doctor tells me I need a particular chemotherapy drug I don't have the option to shop competitors there are none. If my insurance company says no to a $10,000/month anti-viral aides drug drug I get to do without, go into bankruptcy after a few months, or simply die. I cannot legally go to another marketplace (e.g. Canada,Mexico, UK,) where I can get the drug cheaper. The only ones who are free in this market are the drug manufacturers and insurance companies. Price/demand elasticity aren't in play here because the consumer doesn't get to participate.
Nope. The SELLER is
Nope. The SELLER is responding to the free marketplace; remember, we were talking about whether Big Pharm should be "subsidizing" other countries with cheap drugs that sell for more here. You can have all kinds of entities as buyers in a free marketplace: individuals, businesses, government agencies, governments, NGO's, whatever. That doesn't make it any less free. Big Pharm doesn't HAVE to sell to anybody because it's a free-market seller. It CHOOSES to sell to poor countries because it's still making a profit even at a reduced price.
Laws that require a seller to sell to everyone at the same price are classic anti-trust legislation, which is antithetical to the working of a true free market.
This is Econ 102 stuff, kcgrh.
I swore not to reply to you
I swore not to reply to you anymore Alma, but your nonsensical comments demand it...
You said "Other countries can't afford it or regulate price gouging, they pay lots less" and then say this is the "free market"... which is it, regulation or free market? You can't have it both ways...
You obviously underthought your comments dear....
You're overthinking this.
You're overthinking this. Big Pharm is selling directly to the price elasticity of demand in each country. Mercedes sells cars at home for significantly less than they do here, because in Germany the standard MB sedans are considered to be the rough equivalent of Buicks. Here, they're a luxury item. The U.S. permits an open market for a good with an extraordinarily high priced elasticity of demand: we get to pay what the market will bear. Other countries can't afford it or regulate price gouging, they pay lots less. TFB, that's the market in action. The costs of producing the drugs are (almost) irrelevant.
Once again, KC Grunt, ideology isn't going to get you the right answer here. This is the operation of a free market at its finest.
I agree that we should not
I agree that we should not be paying more than anyone else. I'd like to see all developed first world economies paying the same price (adjusted to the exchange rate). Third world countries can get free or discounted drugs under a foriegn aid or charity program but the cheap drugs would have to be accounted for to avoid a black market.
And "reasonable" pricing is
And "reasonable" pricing is defined as ..... The additional 5 years of patent is a good idea--see, we did agree on something!!
I still think we have to do something with the subsidizing of the rest of the world. I don't have a problem giving cheap AIDS drugs to Africa, I do have a problem with Canada and Europe sucking off the teet.....
Well KC, since you mentioned
Well KC, since you mentioned it, I do have something in mind regarding the pharms. 5 years or so of additional patent protection in exchange for reasonable pricing. That way they don't have to gouge us to make back their "investment" and 5 years fewer if they don't. I believe they'd find that proposal persuasive. There's no use having power if you don't use it to benefit the people. It's good to be king.
Radical.... My
Radical....
My mother-in-law, God bless her soul, was on Medicare(MC) for 27 years. She lived with us her last 3 years and I must say I had NO complaints whatsoever with MC.
My fear is that if a MC like organization takes over we are going to lose our world-leading pharms via govt. mandated price controls which will lessen pharm's profits and therefore research budgets.
On the other hand, I am so pissed-off at the pharms giving the rest of the world bottom dollar prices at our expense I almost want to punish phrams. Almost, but not quite. What I want "the government" to do is to say to the pharms Medicare gets your lowest WORLDWIDE price. Then, pharms and you and I will stop subsidizing the world. I know that some countries will then allow illegal copying of the drugs our companies spent millions/billions to develop, but I guess that's the risk. Hopefully the drugs will be so complicated to produce the thieves will screw it up, or in the case of China, load them with a poison....
Back to MC, maybe that is the best approach, but even that cost my mother-in-law, with her supplement & drug coverage $500 per month.
Where does that come from, and don't say "the rich".
KC, while I'd prefer a
KC, while I'd prefer a single payer system I'll support anything that's accessible and affordable. You may be familiar with the cuts Gov. Blunt made in Missouri that made some families making as little as $300/mo too rich for medicaid. Add to that the refusal by congress to expand s-chip last year and we've got one messed up system. You may not trust government but I don't trust insurance companies. Medicare has it's flaws but it's more cost efficient than any insurance company will ever be and Medicare's mandate is to serve the patient, not the stockholder. If you put your wellbeing in the hands of a clerk who can only make money by NOT serving you your risking your life and believe me when I say I've got the dead friends to prove it. Those insurance CEO's don't make their millions by seeing to it you get the best care but rather the least care. We can agree to disagree buy I'd be happy to sign on to Medicare and pay premiums if I could.
The 45 million includes not
The 45 million includes not only the in-between jobs people and the risk takers who opt to spend their money elsewhere, but it also includes children who are already elgible under Medicaid but I guess have parents(breeders) who opt not to cover them, and a big chunk of our old friends the illegal alien to whom I owe nothing but a bus ride or boat trip back home.
You could be of service Mr. Harris if you research all of the above and give us a NET figure, or CITIZENS who can't afford or don't have the option of coverage. I have read that this number is in the teens, not 45. Over to you...
We can then choose how we get this net figure into coverage without socializing our entire medical delivery system, which is what the libs want to do.
Any system has to be
Any system has to be mandatory or it won't work. That's why a taxpayer funded system is the most viable answer.
As an alternative, if we were to declare that all health insurance coverage be group insurance and that the groups are large regional (or even national) groups composed of millions of people the overall costs would be reduced. Also mandate that any participating private insurer offer some sort of basic coverage to all and a fixed rate. The competition would increase efficiency of the insurer. Those who need help with premiums get it and those who don't pay their own way. Either way it's critical that everyone be covered.
Grinch is right that the 45
Grinch is right that the 45 million uninsured figure includes people who don't buy insurance by choice, often young adults. The problem is that when the odds catch up to some of them, the public ends up subsidizing their treatment in emergency rooms because the law requires hospitals to give stabilizing treatment. So, following Grinch's logic, we should allow hospitals to refuse emergency treatment to anyone who shows up without money and/or insurance.
OK, that's logically consistent, but it's not going to happen. Whatever your political philosophy, the fact is that the public wouldn't stand for a system that allows people to die on the hospital's doorstep because they don't have coverage. We need to get a system that gets everyone paying for coverage somehow.
The uninsured also include millions of children, who don't have the "choice" to buy or not buy health insurance. I could, perhaps, accept the argument that adults should be allowed not to have insurance and the argument that adults don't have a "right" to health care, but I don't accept such an argument applied to children.
And how about adults who are mentally retarded. Can we say society has no obligation to provide for their health care? Should we just let them suffer and die because they can't care for themselves?
I think, under any system, that able adults should pay for their health care. But I also think there should be a system that makes it possible for people to get reliable health insurance and health coverage.
Health coverage is unlike most other insurance. I can buy house insurance year after year without the odds increasing that my house will burn down. Consequently, I don't have to worry that coverage will become unavailable as I get older.
But with health insurance, it's just a matter of time until a person becomes uninsurable; we're all going to develop a disease or illness of some level of severity as we get older. Imagine what would happen without Medicare. As people retire and lose employer provided coverage, they get sick and their insurance company decides they are too high risk and too expensive. So they terminate the policy, even though a person may have faithfully paid for insurance for decades.
So the result of Grinch's philosophy would be that you turn 65, you lose insurance, you get an inevitable illness, and if it's too expensive, you lose everything. And if you don't have enough reserves to pay for your cancer treatment yourself, you just die.
I respect the concern that those of us who work will end up paying for those who don't work. But we already do. What is needed is a more rational system to reduce administration costs, bring people into the system who are now playing Russian roulette by going uninsured and prohibit insurance companies from dumping customers they decide are no longer good business.
I don't dislike Grinch the way he seems to dislike those of us who support reforms. What a shame we can't debate the issues without vitriol.
Grinch you are a nasty old
Grinch you are a nasty old fart aren't you? Vermin? Sticks & Stones Grinch, Sticks & Stones. That's the kind of argument you make when you've not nothing but gas to pass.
From your posts I'd bet you're retired and already enjoying the cost effective benefits of medicare. If you're not already you will be and happy to have them. Access to health care is considered a right in most of the developed world. Right now your only preexisting condition is your bad temper but some day you'll have one and be told you can't get insurance or can't get insurance you can afford, or can't get insurance that covers the preexisting ailment. Then that big stack of cash you've worked so hard for could be gone in less than a year. I'd hate for you to end up sick, old, broke, and homeless but I'm sure that, given your philosophy you'd sleep under a bridge rather than take any kind of assistance.
Health care has gotten too expensive and complicated to go it alone. The insurance companies have lobbied for and gotten a system that works for them and against us. I'll back the Obama plan if I can't get a single payer system. Give people the choice of staying with the insurance they presently have or sign on to the geha system for government employees and choosing one of those insurers.
I'll look for you under a bridge (with the other trolls)
Jesus. A lie told often and
Jesus. A lie told often and with heartfelt confiction is oft-believed:
"Over 45 million people have no insurance at all".
What no one who trots this canard out for display bothers to say is that this includes a LOT of people who are uninsured by CHOICE (young workers who choose NOT to be insured) and those who are in between jobs but who will be insured. This is a floating number, but people like George Harris trumpet it as if it accurately reflects a permanent class of people who never have insurance.
Now, we have the usual vermin surfacing who are eager to claim that everyone deserves health care as a 'right' - which is so pathetic I cannot even tell you how I detest those of you who believe this. How is this a 'right'? Do you have a 'right' to eat and drink and have shelter, too? Meaning, you have a 'right' to expect your fellow citizens to contribute their tax dollars so that you can have food, have water, and have shelter and medical care? Really?
Is that what you lousy moochers actually believe? Well, then enact your socialist policies and find out how long productive members of society will work in order to provide you mooching leeches food, drink, shelter and medical care. It didn't work in the former Soviet Union, and it won't work here, for one simple reason - when people discover that productive work is unnecessary for success and even a penalty, they will stop, expecting others to support THEM as well.
I cannot tell you how disgusted I am by those of you who believe health care is a 'right' - if I were in the medical profession, and the time came when this became accepted as a precept, then I would simply quit and tell you to operate on yourselves and see how you fared.
How did you people fall so low as to believe that people have a 'right' to services provided by others who have sacrificed so much to achieve their knowledge, in terms of time, money, effort and sacrifice? Do you even have any concept as to what it takes to be a doctor or a nurse??? And then to be told by your patients that your services are now to be devalued because they have a 'right' to them?
Well, then, I have a 'right' to heat and air conditioning in my home, I have a 'right' to have my car fixed so I may go to my job, I have a 'right' to any other like service that I consider important to my life. And I expect the government to ensure I get them.
Welcome to Hell. Next stop, Moscow.
--> Global warming is the new eugenics <--
HeartlandHealthcareForAll
HeartlandHealthcareForAll will have a free public presentation about the need for universal healthcare this Friday, December 5 at 6PM at the Health Clinic at 340 Southwest Boulevard in Kansas City, KS.
Dying people can be so
Dying people can be so annoying.
Notelling, you are fortunate to be able to afford your treatment. Many cannot. A friend recently had a two day stay in the hospital after a procedure. The total bill was more than $60,000. That's more than most people make in a year. A month long stay can cost more than most people earn in a lifetime. I hope that you or someone you love never needs that sort of care. I'm sure you wouldn't tolerate their whining.
I'll bet that when you're old enough to enroll in medicare you'll happily take their socialized medicine and accept their socialized prescription coverage and you'll tell yourself you're entitled to it. So, enough with the self righteous sanctimony.
Notelling, you seem to be
Notelling, you seem to be whining because you think other people are whining :) Ah, where will this point/counterpoint stop?!
Seriously, I am sorry about your condition and respectfully disagree with your conclusion about single payer health care, of which Medicare is a good example.
Obama's proposal to have the choice of a government single payer or private health insurance company also seems to have merit to me. I simply encourage people to recognize that the current system is incredibly expensive and inefficient and to consider other options.
Quit your damn whining and
Quit your damn whining and pay for your meds yourself. And don't try the "you don't know what it's like" either, because I do. I have a rare muscular condition that is horribly painful, and the only known treatment is never covered by insurance. I pay for it out of pocket, willingly. Will I push to get this treatment covered by insurance since it can be very beneficial for many conditions? You bet, but I'm not going to go around whining that we should turn our health care over to the government. It's a horrible idea, and would only result in rationing of ordinary care for ordinary conditions for millions of people who get very good treatment now. Treatment and even diagnosis of rare conditions would become impossible to obtain for any amount of money with the rationing of resources that would have to take place. So, be careful what you wish for, you might not be able to aquire that medication even if you volunteer to pay for it yourself. That's if you have anything left to pay for it with after you pay the new taxes to pay for care for everybody else.
Jefferson wrote of "life,
Jefferson wrote of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" but first among them was life. How then, can anyone be denied life sustaining health care on at least some basic level?
I personally favor a single payer scheme. Citics point to long waits for treatments in foriegn countries yet they fail to look at our existing single payer system, medicare, which serves millions of people efficiently and with lower costs and overhead than private insurers. The addition of private medicare plans in recent years has increased costs over the traditional system by 15% and is a more complex system.
I know there will be great resistance to change. I was told by a doctor recently that he did not believe all were entitled to health care, a doctor no less!