Here are some things I have to look forward to:
- No lifetime maximum (Harvard Pilgrim plan through Brandeis--for grad students--had $100K lifetime max)
- Mental health benefits
- Low copays for doctor visits
- huge network of providers
Basically, all of the things one should expect from a reputable health plan; many people enjoy these norms. This plan, up until last year, was playing with offering diabetes care with no copays in order to encourage diabetics to more aggressively manage their illness. However, apparently the program had little effect and it died. Boohoo for me -- I would have gone on an insulin frenzy under this program.
It's amazing to me that people are so protective over their private insurance and balk at the idea of a large-scale national health plan. In my experience, the more members the plan has, the higher quality it is. Say what you will about bureaucracy, I just plain trust the intent behind nationalized care. It's not about taking care away from you; it's about making sure that nobody is overly burdened with medical bills. Take Israel's program: They have a single payer--the government, paid by, yes, higher taxes--and have private companies (four of them) offer different plans that citizens can elect. Above and beyond the basic, paid-for-by-your-taxes plan, you can elect all kinds of other benefits that you have to pay for. But if you are on the basic plan, you cannot pay more than a certain amount of your own money per month (when I was there it was about $250). Once you hit that max, you do not pay anything over that.
Is the care rationalized? Well, let's call it "medically necessary." Guess what? It's the exact same deal in private insurance. My continuous glucose monitoring system had to be deemed medically necessary before it was paid for by my private insurance plan. Same with my insulin pump. Furthermore, I found that MassHealth (shout out, M. Romney for pushing through that beautiful plan that is a model for the nation), everything seemed to be much more efficient, from my automated supply deliveries to cooperation among my various doctors.
It shouldn't surprise any of you that I have been closely watching the continuing discussion over the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a Obamacare). And I can't say that I am surprised that opposition to the plan remains a Republican talking point (even though it was a Republican idea in the first place). But I do find it really ironic that the biggest point of discussion about the plan is the continued myth that the law invents so-called "death panels", namely committees of bureaucrats that would decide whether individuals can receive medical care.
Let's discuss this idea and what is really going on.
According to a hot-off-the-presses study, 46% of Americans think that the plan includes this kind of committee and less than 17% of Americans are confident that such a provision is not in the plan.
There is no such thing as unrationed care. The costs of healthcare are simply too high for everyone to get coverage. There has been ample evidence of this. And does anyone really think that we can pay for ALL of the care that everyone thinks they need? My dear father, the sweet old hypochondriac, is getting rationed care when his doctor tells him that, no, he doesn't have small pox and will not do a test for it. Perhaps we should all wean ourselves off of WebMD and actually listen to our doctors.
Perhaps the most shocking bit of the debate on Monday was the mention of death panels. Again. Didn't that idea die when somebody actually read the Affordable Care Act? (Have Republicans even read it yet?) Most unsustainable healthcare system ever.
No comments:
Post a Comment