Trending

A Dishonest Conversation on Healthcare

The conversation our country is having about healthcare right now is not honest. It’s not just the Republicans, the Democrats are just as dishonest, in a different way. Republicans talk about government death panels denying care. Democrats talk about insurance company death panels. Both positions are intellectually dishonest. Both Republicans and Democrats know that a part of insurance is drawing boundaries around the care that would be paid for by the group.  Any care outside that boundary doesn’t get paid for.  You can frame it any way you want, but this is a critical part of any insurance. 

Insurance, whether healthcare or auto, is a risk pool.  A group of people pay into the pool and hope they don’t have to use it – hope they don’t have a wreck on their car, don’t have to go into the hospital.  Those few that do have to use it consume most of the money in the pool – the risk pool spends tens of thousands on the people that have serious car accidents, or hundreds of thousands of dollars on someone that has cancer.  That means that everybody else in the pool helps pay for the costs of the unlucky few.  Healthy me pays for the costs of tripped and broke his leg Bob.

The worst part of the Affordable Care Act that nobody talks about is its removal of caps on annual and lifetime awards.  There is no limit to the risk that the risk pool assumes.  Before the ACA, an annual cap for an insurance plan might be $500,000, with a lifetime cap of $2 million to $5 million.  Now those caps are gone – there is no limit to the amount of money a risk pool has to pay to keep someone alive.

This is a great thing if I am the parent of a premature baby, with medical bills approaching $1 million dollars, or a person with cancer that doesn’t respond to the first or second treatment.  But it’s also a choice.  No nation has an unlimited amount of money to spend on healthcare.  The more money we spend to keep the extreme cases alive, the less money we have to spend on wellness, or prenatal health.  The more money we spend on healthcare, the less we spend on education and roads.

The Democrats like to pretend it is the cold hearted insurance companies denying claims for its own benefit, protecting its profits.  Again, this is intellectually dishonest.  Insurance company profits are less than 5%, and even if you add in the executive salaries only a couple of points higher.  The insurance companies are trying to make sure that the amount of money contributed into the risk pool by all of the participants is enough to cover the cost of care.  The insurance companies are trying to keep everybody’s premiums from having to go up next year. 

As harsh as it is to say, we can’t afford to save every life.  We can’t afford to pay for every $200,000 experimental treatment for a person on their deathbed.  The Republicans of course, are too afraid to just come out and say this, to state the obvious that we can’t afford to spend an unlimited amount of money saving any one person.  Instead they propose a strange bill that tries to limit how much government would pay but sidesteps the hard questions that our society has to answer, sidesteps a rational conversation on caps on healthcare spending.

It’s very possible that the Republican’s current bill will crumble under its own weight – it’s hard to bring real change without an honest conversation on the problem.  Let’s hope the Republican Party eventually remembers that it was the Daddy Party, and starts a real conversation about healthcare tradeoffs and costs.

Blake Ashby, an entrepreneur living in Ferguson, MO, was involved in the healthcare industry for many years.

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

Categories: Trending

10
Leave a Reply

8 Comment threads
2 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
Dr. JimkgsubramajamesepurcellAllanrmcnutt Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Dr. Jim
Member
Dr. Jim

No political process will EVER permit refusal of care to a non-payer. For any of these “castles in the air” insurance schemes to work, that is what is required, yet it is impossible.

kumar
Member

Blake, thank you for the article. Unfortunately, I did not read it until now. I will go out on a limb to say that the costs of delivery and financing of healthcare in America will remain unsustainable until we, as a society, redefine what it means to care for the sick amongst us. While both conceptual measures are necessary to some degree, they are insufficient. As in other spheres of engagement, we have outsourced the care and nurturing of our sick to “professionals”. Informal caregivers have chosen to be relegated to the background with little to no influence over the… Read more »

jamesepurcell
Member

Blake: Thank you for a very concise, straight-forward, easy to understand article. Resource allocation is never easy. I’ve thought (being over 65) that we spend too much on the elderly and not enough on the young. But that’s my predisposition. I’d say it’s society’s obligation to give the young (say up to 25) every opportunity to develop into responsible contributors to and participants in society. That’s healthcare, education, etc. We elderly have had our opportunity. We need safety nets, for sure, but…

Write more articles Blake!

rmcnutt
Member
rmcnutt

To judge something as, “new” sets a remarkably high standard for publication. We often rehash, rethink, re-communicate our ideas. I like this, Blake. There is a straightforwardness to your comments. But, like others are saying, we are dancing around, perhaps, some miss communicated ideas and concepts. There is no relationship between cost and outcome; benefit is a surreal and unmeasurable, at present, entity. In fact, I would argue that the entire philosophy of economics and insurance is superficial and a lie; we like money and no one want to shut off the spigot. Perhaps we have entered the final phase… Read more »

HealthLawyer
Member
HealthLawyer

Blake, Your article highlights the need for the healthcare debate to include acceptance, or at least recognition, of hard truths. However, I think the hard truth you identify – “We can’t afford to save every life.” – is just one of many. How do you address this hard truth: if health insurance benefits are capped, some people will literally die in their homes or on the streets without the benefit of health care that could prolong their life or ameliorate their suffering? Is this something that we should have to accept? Would you advocate for no lifetime caps on spending… Read more »

Allan
Member
Allan

” it must control costs through a mechanism other than free market competition. I’m all for competition in the right markets, but it necessarily and inherently results in vast inequality.” The problem is that you are suggesting a political solution over a market solution and those solutions are not sustainable. Classes remain, even moreso. They have mechanisms to prevent rising costs (not totally successful and therefore the unsustainability) and that includes limiting the amount of care provided. Political solutions don’t last. Look at the ACA. Here today gone tomorrow. The Republican plan, here today gone tomorrow. Better to have a… Read more »

Don Levit
Member

How do you assess premiums on unlimited risk?
Instead of trying to cover all today for infinite benefits,we should be concerned about future bills exceeding $50,000 up to certain limits such as $1million which covers 99 percent of the population
Charity is recommended for the other one percent

peddlenetwork
Member

We all know how much of a drag it is with the Obama healthcare. When searching for care plans i found this site, and i am loving my monthly premium rate.
http://familyforhealth.net/
If health care is still required by law even for the next few years. I would recommend going to this site for finding the best rates.

BobbyGvegas
Member

“we can’t afford to save every life. We can’t afford to pay for every $200,000 experimental treatment for a person on their deathbed.”
___

This is news?

See Elhauge, 1994 “Allocating Health Care Morally.”

Moreover, just as no amount of calling heterogeneous data exchange “interoperability” will make it so, no amount of calling dubious-value-add 3rd party intermediated pre-payment of health care services “insurance” will make IT so. Only part of health insurance is actual “insurance.”