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.