The Tribune-Star
June 22, 2009 08:43 pm
—
What does health care really cost?
Health care is a topic that is soon to be taken up in the halls of Congress. Individuals of various political stripes can argue if a private or public system is the way to go. This letter more deals with getting an idea of what health care really costs.
Each year we are warned that the system is in crisis because Americans spend so much on health care the prices are spiraling out of control and spending is growing at a rate so much greater than inflation. But is it really? Let’s consider a few fact.
Government studies on health care costs are based on dollars billed by health care providers.
Medicare and Medicaid pay something between 50 and 60 cents on the dollar billed.
Private insurance companies negotiate rates as well and often only pay 70 to 80 cents on the dollar for in-network treatment.
Some patients struggle to pay their medical bills and health care providers wind up collecting little or nothing for their services.
The patients who do wind up paying the full amount billed by the health care provider are those who obtain out-of-network care or the uninsured who can afford to.
We wind up with a spiraling “Catch-22” of medical care. The health care provider started with a price for a service that allowed them to cover their costs. Discounting sets in and the provider collects less and has to increase prices. The insurance provider, in the interest of their customers, negotiates a lower rate. It soon all starts over again.
This sort of thing is at the heart of the talks between Union Hospital and Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield. They are negotiating the rate at which the insurance provider will reimburse the medical provider.
How have we allowed the system to get into such a condition? Would we allow a bank to give an individual $80 when cashing a $100 check? Would a restaurant let me get out the door if only offering $35 for a $60 tab?
We the people have let this happen because the insurance companies were thought to be helping us save money. What they have really done is complicate the system and increase their overheads along with profits. The result of this effort has turned the system into a mess.
Is there something wrong with simplicity? Some may call me simple-minded, but why can’t a doctor send out a bill and expect full payment from a patient or insurance company? The price per procedure would go down without the discounting. Medical costs and insurance rates would be decreased further as fewer people would be required in both industries to shuffle paper.
We would have a much better idea of the true cost of health care. From that point, we could start the debate about dealing with the uninsured.
— Dwayne Owens, Terre Haute
No censorship, just reasoned dialogue
I find it necessary to rebut some of the uninformed comments from other readers to my earlier letters.
The first issue that I will address is Mr. Tom Toles’ editorial cartooning and that is the fact that this man has to be one of the most hateful persons in the country. I have no objection to reasoned dialogue on issues. I do have objections to depicting our leaders to persons such as Hitler, Mao and Hussein. I do avert my eyes many times, however, if someone comes to a gathering place and gets drunk, throws up in the middle of the room several times, I would think that the sponsor would not invite (allow) that individual to the gathering or risk losing all the other guests who find the drunk despicable.
I have no objections to passionate debate but when it becomes hateful that is time to call a timeout. In today’s Tribune Star, June 15, a perfect example of the hatefulness of Toles is presented by depicting conservative talk radio and the Second Amendment right as the cause of hate. “Not that I am suggesting anything” but Ted Kaczynski; the Unabomber, Abdulhakim Muhammad; the assassin of an innocent Army recruiter, would be deemed to not be conservative or liberal.
Scott Roeder; the assassin of Dr. George Tiller, James von Brunn, the murderer of a D.C. police officer, could not be classified as either liberal or conservative. They all have to be classified as haters that caused exceptional grief to many people. It has nothing to do with their political ideology. Their common attribute is insanity.
Mr. Allen obviously did not read the column I referred to in my earlier letter or chose to ignore the fact that Froma Harrop is in no way a conservative, but I wholeheartedly agree with her that identity politics have no place in the discussion. He also chooses to ostracize me for the “broadsides” to Lew Hackleman.
I also know Mr. Hackleman and in no way was I personally attacking Mr. Hackleman. Again, I must go back to earlier writings that discussed my OPINION that nationalized anything is contrary to freedom as this country was founded and if we continue to pursue the path that we are apparently heading the outcome will be a disaster to these freedoms.
Lastly, lest the several letter writers feel I wish to censor persons, I do not. However, all one needs to do is reread what I have written and compare it to the Allen letter of June 15. I would have hoped that he would have availed himself of the opportunity to illustrate the “successful government programs” that he belittles regarding my writing.
I do hope that the letter writers that responded now understand where I am coming from and it is my intention to continue a reasoned dialogue on the issues that affect all of us.
— Raymond E. Broshar
Terre Haute
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.