Confused...
Jul. 15th, 2009 11:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fairyrune"Republicans believe that the last thing the American people want is government telling them when and where — or even whether — they can get medical treatment for their families."
What's the difference between that and a health insurance company or HMO doing the exact same thing?
My mother has pretty good health insurance through her school district. If she needs to see a specialist, she needs to go to her primary care physician first and get a referral. Generally, she can't pick her own specialist. In the event that she has a problem with wherever they send her, she has to go through hell and high water to be allowed to see someone different.
A friend of mine out in CA has an HMO, and you MUST go to their group of doctors. If you want a second opinion, you're SOL.
When I had a pinched nerve in my neck several years ago, I was told that I had to be careful not to re-injure the same area. If it reoccured, the health insurance company wouldn't pay to treat the injury again.
My question is, what's the difference between the government telling the American people when and where — or even whether — they can get medical treatment for their families, or a private company doing the exact same thing?
Does the Republican party not understand how the American healthcare system, such as it is, works currently?
Also, does anyone know why doctor's offices don't offer health insurance? I interviewed at two, and neither of them offered it. That confuses me as well.
What's the difference between that and a health insurance company or HMO doing the exact same thing?
My mother has pretty good health insurance through her school district. If she needs to see a specialist, she needs to go to her primary care physician first and get a referral. Generally, she can't pick her own specialist. In the event that she has a problem with wherever they send her, she has to go through hell and high water to be allowed to see someone different.
A friend of mine out in CA has an HMO, and you MUST go to their group of doctors. If you want a second opinion, you're SOL.
When I had a pinched nerve in my neck several years ago, I was told that I had to be careful not to re-injure the same area. If it reoccured, the health insurance company wouldn't pay to treat the injury again.
My question is, what's the difference between the government telling the American people when and where — or even whether — they can get medical treatment for their families, or a private company doing the exact same thing?
Does the Republican party not understand how the American healthcare system, such as it is, works currently?
Also, does anyone know why doctor's offices don't offer health insurance? I interviewed at two, and neither of them offered it. That confuses me as well.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-15 06:33 pm (UTC)The HMO offers relatively shitty coverage because it covers more people (so less money per) and probably has a fairly poor client base so less money coming in over all. They need to be more restrictive because they can't afford not to be. The limited number of doctors is likely due to the smaller amount that wants to work w/such a system.(I don't know the specific HMO so I really can't give more than generics on this.)
The difference is a pretty cynical one. If you can afford better health care, you tend to go get it. Either pay for it outright or buy into a better plan. The best plans attract the best doctors because those plans tend to also attract the people (& private companies) willing to pay the most for coverage. The healthplan we offer here is pretty much in the middle of the two extremes, you don't get every option, but you get a decent share.
The issue with mandating universal health care is you'd no longer have the option of seeking better care if you can. Either private insurance would be nationalized or gradually starved out (financially or legally). Everyone gets the same shitty coverage (300M people is a big group to try to spread finite resources around) and only the super rich (and Congress) can afford truly private healthcare (no insurance, straight payments).
And, as a more personal objection. No one trusts the government to get anything right, why the hell would we think they would on this?
As for the doctors office, regardless of what they do, it's still a small business, and healthcare is especially expensive when you have fewer people to cover (person per person that is).
written quickly, please forgive any opaquity
no subject
Date: 2009-07-16 12:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-16 04:37 pm (UTC)PREPARE FOR ANECDATA!
When I had the previously mentioned pinched nerve in my neck, I was still on my mother's "good" health insurance plan. I had to go to physical therapy, and they sent me to this place that A.) didn't follow my prescription from the orthopedic surgeon, B.) didn't actually *treat* me (I drove half an hour to sit with a heat pack and be given a sheet of exercises to do at home,) and C.) damn near caused my injury to worsen because of their shitty treatment.
My mom had to get on the phone and scream and holler to get me to be allowed to receive treatment elsewhere. Thankfully, she was sucessful and I ended up going to a much better place that fixed the problem properly.
My point was, if even the "good" health insurance companies dictate who you can go to, how many times, and when, what's the difference if the government's doing it?
Granted, I haven't been paying very close attention to this. My understanding was that they were trying to develop a system in which the government would somehow compete with the private companies. The theory being that the private companies were sort of colluding to drive prices up. This would also benefit people like
ANYRATE. I'm just confused about that one particular excuse, is all. If they have actual logical reasons for disagreeing with the plan or whatever, why even say something silly like that?
no subject
Date: 2009-07-16 05:38 pm (UTC)And they are suposedly trying to develop a system that competes, but if you can write the laws, set the playing field and can basically rework the entire system to suit your chosen competitor (govt care), is that really competition? Or, due to the healthcare lobby, you'll end up with a government program that is so dysfunctional that it could never compete, leaving yet another giant inflated boondoggle in Washington that claims to do a lot and really does nothing.
No doubt the system needs to be worked over, but this isn't the solution.
Addendum: And just 10 minutes ago I read an article in the WSJ about how Congress is looking to levy $100 Billion in fees on the healthcare industry to help offset the cost of govt healthcare. Long before healthcare is anywhere near ready to go live. Proves my point about fair competition I'd say.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-17 07:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-16 06:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-16 04:37 pm (UTC)Have you tried getting a referral from some sort of free clinic or something?