I called up my doctor's office to make an appointment for my annual "wellness check." I asked to talk to the nurse to see if I couldn't arrange to get the blood tests done ahead so that we could talk about the actual results. What has been happening is that I go in, they do the weight, bp, and listening to my heart and breathing, we have a nice conversation, and the blood draw gets done and I get a letter in the mail with the results with little explanation except everything is within the normal ranges. What's disturbing is that the conversation includes a little go round about putting me on statins because of some unspecified risk factors and "it's something we can prevent." Presumably that refers to clogged arteries. He is "concerned" but my cholesterol while on the high side of normal is not high. So I have said "no," for two years running.
So this time I want a real review with him of the test results. No can do. "Medicare has no codes for doing that." I cannot get the tests done first.
The yahoos would say "see what happenes when you let gummint mess with health care," but I think that while the regulations and required procedures are annoying--there is now an anti-fraud questionnaire to be filled out every 90 days, inconsistent answers will get your file pulled--in my experience the insurance companies are just as bad. Switching plans when changing jobs I could never know what was going to be covered. And of course there was that "pre-existing conditions" bullshit.
Actually right now I may have the worst of both worlds. I have my supplimental insurance through an insurance company who by virtue of this becomes my Medicare administrator. So I've got both government and insurance companies messing with me.
Here's what I don't understand. there is all this uproar about how terrible it is to have government involved in our health care, but in the name of "free enterprise" we have willingly surrendered all manner of control to private often run for profit insurance companies. I know the argument goes that in a "free market" you can choose and that "competition" will keep things lower cost and reasonable.
Well, here's the facts folks. The market is nothing like "free." You take what your employer offers. The employer makes the deal. You don't. And unless you are willing to pay the hefty premium on your own there is no "free market." At best the "market" is highly "inelastic." In my state the insurance commissioner is investigating the four largest providers for keeping overly large reserves, that he says should be passed on to consumers as lower rates.
During the run up to the federal health care bill, there was all this screaming about "death panels" and "rationing" of health care which struck me as utterly absurd given that the insurance companies already have "panels" deciding what treatments will be paid for and which ones not and they already ration what they provide unless you are willing to pay extra outside of the system. What makes that any different in its impact on you than a third party payer system?
So now with no employer I get Medicare and pay for the privilege of having an insurance company administer my Medicare for me. Worst of both worlds I think. I've been on it for two years and switched provider once already when I was about to get shunted onto a different plan by my original provider, and I am thinking very seriously about switching again. This time in part because my medical providers are part of the largest and most well regarded local hospital system, but which just acquired another hospital network which is Catholic owned. I'm not sure my health care directives would be followed in the new merged organization which has already shut down its reproductive health care center.
Just what is the *bleeping* problem with requiring employers to provide a specified range of health care coverages? We create this bastardized kluge of a system with private employers ("You don't have to work for Geogretown U., slut!") and private insurers in the mix, and now we should go around and make "exceptions of conscience" in what gets covered, at the same time that the use of a vaginal probe ultrasound is prescribed by a *bleeping* legislature as a tactic to embarrass women seeking to terminate a pregnancy.
None of this sounds very "free" market or otherwise to me. So explain please.
Oh, do us both a favor. DO NOT use the words "socialized" or "socialism," because what has been going on isn't even close.
No comments:
Post a Comment