OBE, for short–that’s a much used phrase from a once upon a time former supervisor. Applied to projects, assignments, etc., it meant the task at hand no longer needed doing. Some might suppose that recent election results might make that an epithet applicable to health care reform. But as President Obama said in his state of the union address, it still is something needing doing. As an aside, in my own case, OBE also refers to the bronchitis that took a toll on me recently–a partial excuse for the interval between my last post and this one. So, a couple more installments on the main topic.
Prohibiting insurors from refusing coverage of pre-existing conditions seems a bit unfair to them on the one hand or a prescription for higher rates for everyone does it not? However, while there may be some cross subsidization by healthy people of sick people, consider the alternatives. Those sick people who can’t afford or are unable to obtain coverage, will go to emergency rooms–soaking up available resources from people with genuine emergencies. Those uncovered people will also be out and about in stores, schools, neighborhoods, etc., where any communicable illnesses they may have can impact on the rest of us. In other words, we may all wind up paying for or suffering on account of denying coverage to others. So in the long run, it may make more sense to find a way to pay for coverage for them, pre-existing conditions and all.
February 15th, 2010 at 1:41 am
Like everyone else Jack, you discuss healthcare without examining the problem. The trip to the ER you described a few months ago would have cost about $25 in 1960. Adjusting for inflation that would be about $250 in current dollars. How much did the hospital charge for your visit? Most people who go to the ER don’t even know what the charges are.
Why has the cost of healthcare gone through the roof? Nobody wants to address that fundamental question. Instead they treat it as a given and only discuss who should pay the bill.
That doesn’t make sense to me. What do you think?
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:14 pm
I had meant to get back to that topic as well, but perhaps while under the weather with my own health issues I forgot. I see a variety of causes for the increase in costs–some of which should indeed be part of the consideration with health care reform. I alluded to bang for the buck. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) machines may cost in the neighborhood of $2 million last I heard. Computer Assisted Tomography (CAT or now more often just CT) isn’t cheap either. To amortize the expense, the machines have to get plenty of use, whether needed or not. The costs of medical school have risen dramatically (so have other professional schools–my law school charges current students about 12 times as much as they charged me near the end of the 1970s). Everyone wants the newest and best drugs (although those often are not the same thing) which cost more. Unfortunately too, part of the reason for our getting less bang for the buck is the fact that as a nation, we are more sedentary, more obese and otherwise engage in less healthful eating, drinking and other habits than we used to decades ago. So what does this all mean for health reform? A recognition that the newest (and most expensive) is not necessarily the best. Eat and exercise more sensibly so we don’t have to have doctors bail us out of our self-initiated ailments. Those are just starters.