My wife’s Ob-Gyn just raised her fees from about $225 a visit to more than $300. And she doesn’t take insurance.
The news was a shock to the system, of course, another in a long line of increasing expenses that seem to impinge upon the alleged freedom of choice we Americans supposedly enjoy.
Yes, we could change doctors, find an Ob-Gyn who is in our plan or one who might charge less, but Annie likes her doctor, feels comfortable and confident in her abilities, so changing doctors seems foolish.
And yes, we will be reimbursed for some of our costs (I can’t remember exactly what the percentage is), but we still have to put the cash out and deal with the personal cash flow issues.
I’m not relating this story to whine, but to explain that the American health care system is failing not only those without insurance but so many of the rest of us forced to rely on employer-provided coverage. The reason is that the system is based on profit and not on care. Every decision made by employers who negotiate contracts with insurance companies, every decision made by those insurance companies about the legitimacy of medical expenses and even many of the decisions made by doctors — including who to see and what kind of services to provide — are made with the bottom line in mind. The idea is to minimize expenses but to maximize price, meaning that we are paying more and more for each visit to the doctor but getting less time with our doctors.
That’s one of the points that Michael Moore has been making as he makes the rounds promoing his film “Sicko” (haven’t had a chance to see it yet). As he told Business Week:
“Do you know of anyone who hasn’t had a problem with the insurance company, or getting some procedure covered?” he asks. “Anyone who sees this film will understand exactly the mess we’re in right now.”
Adds Daniel Vallin:
Moore’s main point is that the profit motive of private health insurance corporations is what causes the problem. The need, codified in law, in fact, to increase profits as much as possible for the benefit of the tiny number of shareholders of the corporations, trumps the concern for adequate health care for the policy holders. The health insurers are institutionally bound, not to care for the sick, but to turn a profit for their shareholders, and thus many who believed their health care costs were covered find that they are cut out from the most expensive healthcare system in the world in order to cut costs for the insurance company.
And we’re not talking about extreme or experimental treatments. We’re talking about regular care in most cases, such as standard diagnostic testing and referrals to some specialists.
So, it’s not just he 43 million Americans without health insurance who are suffering under the current dysfunctional system, though they tend to suffer more than the rest of us. It is all of us.
We are guilty of national malpractice for allowing the profit motive to drive decisions about who gets health care, and of what sort.
Of the presidential contenders, John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich understand this best, though both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are offering proposals designed to fix at least part of the problem. The GOP plans, where they exist, would do nothing.
But plans crafted in the run-up to elections often fall apart once candidates gain office as high-paid corporate lobbyists — in this case for the health insurance and drug companies — work to preserve the status quo (remember Harry and Louise?).
So it is up to us — the system’s abused consumers — to create momentum for change.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog
E-mail me by clicking here
