Ellen Goodman has a meaty column in the Globe today about the debate going on in Congress whether the public should pay for abortions and maternity care as part of the public option.
Michelle Obama referred to this connection between health care and equality when she told a group of women that overhauling the system was “the next step” in women’s advancement for opportunity. …
The Senate Finance Committee beat back some restrictions, but the question for Congress is still whether the “reform” that is supposed to increase coverage will instead reduce it. Will women who now have coverage for abortion in their private plans end up losing it?
Goodman asks “So what now?” Well, I wonder if she read the article in the Globe earlier this week entitled “For French, US health debate hard to imagine”? The French have a system where basic medicine is covered by the government, and for things that the government doesn’t cover or fully cover, for whatever reason, people pay out of pocket, or they may choose to buy private supplemental insurance, which the French call “Mutuals”:
Despite the prospect of an expensive two-week hospital stay, Aloy, 58, did not worry. France’s national health insurance, supplemented by a private policy for copayments, covered the entire bill – from doctor’s fees to medication to a private room with a view – and Aloy would not even know the total. …
But the fast-rising cost of drugs and medical care, particularly for the elderly in their final days, has raised the question of how long France can afford the health care it has come to expect. Seeking to beat back rising deficits, the government has reduced the reimbursement rate for many medicines and routine medical services, opening a growing market for private insurance policies, called mutuals, to cover the steadily increasing copayments.
I think that is a fine idea. Everyone would have their basic care covered by a basic plan that didn’t cover abortion or fertility treatments or organ donations or prescription drugs and just about everything that has contributed to the “fast-rising cost” over the last twenty years (I think maternity care should be covered, at least if it means basic care for pregnancy and birth, and not fertility services). The plan would be cheap and uncontroversial, and universal. It would mean everyone could go to the doctor when they are sick without worrying about a bill, and only worry about a bill when choosing controversial or elective treatments. And anyone that wanted more coverage could easily find a plan on the private market tailored to their fears. Or, perhaps they could just pay back loans for services actually used, after the fact, in monthly payments that functioned more like insurance contracts or cell phone plans.
should be undertaken, not politicians. If it is legal and not elective it should be covered.
Right, the doctor and patient would decide what medical procedures should be undertaken, but that doesn’t mean every medical procedure should be covered by a public plan, or mandated to be covered by private plans. Not everything is covered now, unless you’ve got one of those “Cadillac plans” that cost $20,000 a year (tax free) and only the richest of the rich get. I think it’s better to achieve universal access to the basic plans, than attempt to give everyone a Cadillac plan that gives everyone access to organ transplants and everything else, that’s just unworkable. It is just a blank check to fund the newest and most expensive technologies. But maybe that’s what you like about it, not the universal care, but the shoveling of money to medical tech companies.
<
p>People could still do any procedure their doctor recommends, but they’d either get a bill or they’d have already gotten supplemental “mutual” plans.
What’s wrong with innovative companies coming up with better cures and treatments benefiting. Shouldn’t we encourage that? Of course we’re going to disagree on organ transplants. In my book, if not having the procedure causes/hastens death then it is by definition NOT elective! This isn’t to say we should not be thrify and get the best possible deal for our tax dollars, but when it comes to life and health we shouldn’t scrimp either.
What’s wrong with innovative companies coming up with better cures and treatments benefiting. Shouldn’t we encourage that?
<
p>Right now that happens fast enough without making every American contribute the max amount possible to it, by creating a right not just to health care, but the most advanced and expensive health care. Don’t you see you are wanting a blank check, and that putting money and resources into advancing health care and creating a right to live forever, by literally cannibalizing people? Also, the blank check doesn’t come out of a bottomless account, it would cannibalize other programs, other checks would get smaller.
<
p>Universal sustainable access to basic health care should be the goal, not funding faster medicine. More doctors, fewer researchers.
…and I think it’s well intentioned, but one component of health care that I think we do have a competitive advantage in is R&D. Some opponents to universal coverage raise concerns about losing that if we imitate other countries in this regard. I would like to think that America is capable of enjoying the best of both worlds and I don’t want to lose our research capacity in this process.