As I read the various pundits on both sides, I'm struck at how often the issues of quality of care are confused with insurance issues (and vice versa). Insurance of course centers around risk and who should bear that risk. This is something I know a great deal about.
Health care of course deals with what happens once a loss (i.e. an illness, injury etc) occurs.
Part of the problem is that we've come to think of health care and health insurance as the same. Additionally, consumers treat health insurance totally differently than any other form of insurance. For example, no one would consider paying insurance premium to insure against the cost of oil changes. Why not? That's just maintenance. Yet we seem to have no trouble expecting insure against the cost of routine medical exams. Yes part of this may be because of the cost involved (if oil changes were $300 a pop)!
I can't help but think what we really need is more freedom for consumers and the introduction of greater market forces. I know many on the left feel, wrongly I believe, that market forces are ruining health care.
In auto and property insurance we are regulated in California by the fair claims and settlement practices. These rules have done a pretty good job of keeping insurers honest.
I do have some ideas on reform. I'll be happy to share them later. In the meantime lets make sure when we are talking about health care, we really are talking about health care and not the allocation of risk.
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteDidn't know you blogged, good job, I like the website. I wanted to contribute.
First, I think it's pretty nahive to say that the California fair claims and settlement practices act has done a good job in keeping insurers honest (that's like saying the penal code has done a good job of preventing crime). If it had done a good job there wouldn't be a whole industry of Law Firms who specialize only in suing bad faith insurance denials. So, I respectfully disagree.
Second, universal healthcare is actually beneficial (having lived in a country that has one). Costs are shared between employee and employer. Yes, the service is not the greatest, but at least it's there. Between waiting 5 months to get an operation for free or not getting an operation and dying or losing a limb, I choose the former and I think most people would do that too. If you don't want to wait and you can afford it, then go to a private doctor and get it done there.
Let me ask you this. I like watching FOX News (I find it entertaining, lol). Why do people think that if there is public healthcare there will be no private healthcare? That is silly (every single country that has public healthcare has as many private hospitals and doctors, well maybe except Cuba and such, lol). In fact, the existence of public healthcare reduces the costs of private healthcare (simple supply and demand).
Why do you think this is not said or emphasized enough?
second that. I've said many many times that to get real about health care reform, we need health care reform. I briefly broached it at my blog (plug): susquespine.blogspot.com
ReplyDeleteDave, it's me Shawn Lee from the kong
ReplyDeleteRod:
ReplyDeleteThanks for responding! By the way I hope you passed the bar (again).
Actually it has been the fair claims and settlement practices that has made the difference. Recall that in CA third party bad faith suits are disallowed (only policy holders can sue the carriers directly). So I don't think we can thank all improvements on the bad-faith bar. Bad faith lawyers can't help you with a third party claim. Plus when dealing with a third party claimant, trust me a threat from the DOI carries far more weight with the carriers.
I agree quality of care stinks under national programs. I just don't think making it free for all and the process ruining the economy is worth it.