Riddle me this, health care consumers, watching from the sidelines as our politicians ponder the untenable rise in medical costs. How are we, the people, supposed to do our part to keep those costs from spiraling out of control? How are we supposed to make the right choices? How much choice do we really have?
Consider the case of a family of four, which will (cough) remain nameless. On a recent night, while the children slept in a nearby room with an open door, the parents roused from their slumber to hear something rattling against their bedroom window. It was a bat. In a brief frenzy at 1 a.m., it was captured and released.
Comments
I commend Ms. Weiss for clearly demonstrating the polarization of receiving care in this country and the worry factor because of financial considerations. There is little one as a patient can do to "decide" what care is best when one of the outcomes is serous injury or death. This is why we have personal physicians who knowing us can lead the way to proper decisions. The other issue here is the individualization of the public's approach in terms of shifting the expense of treatment to someone else. It is a false notion that our insurance pays for our singular care. It is more a ticket to a system that you hope stands at the ready if a health disaster strikes. This implies that deep in the recesses of public thought there is the expectation others will be chipping in so we don't have to. After all we have done our share if we have insurance to pay for it. However the ability to pay for this expectation that the system will be there when we need it is uneven and for some not possible. To stop this unevenness a more global payment system based on ability to pay is needed. All those who can should feel they have played a part to secure our health needs and those of others. To do otherwise is to have a lesser nation hamstrung by less productive and less content citizens and some even drummed into bankruptcy because they got sick. Every man and woman for themselves is not a workable solution for an unpredictable necessity that can be very expensive.
"All health care, for the rest of the calendar year, would be absolutely free." This is part of our problem. Individuals forget that their salary is set at a level that allows employers to "afford" to provide healthcare as a benefit. Additionally, most employees pay some set amount out of each paycheck toward a health benefit. Even after your deductible has been met, you will continue to pay for health care...one way or another.
To me the most interesting thing about this is the unlikelihood that anyone in this family needed these shots.
Good article, Globe -- this kind of background information about how one system is working is key to an informed understanding of how the system might be improved.
This is a very instructive piece, because it illustrates how the machinations of the fee-for-service, employer sponsored system creates massive inefficiencies and distortions. We have come to this point over decades, and it will take a massive change at many levels to bring this industry back into balance. It will not change through Obamacare (or Romneycare), as that just digs us in deeper through regulation and taxes. We must create competition between insurers, hospitals, and health care providers. This will lead to simpler transactions, and lower costs.