The Healthcare Debate

Ok, so it seems we are in the midst of a raging debate about health care here in the US. My question is why? It seems as though people are highly polarized between two horribly poor choices. On one hand we have the uber-capitalist insurance and prescription drug dominated model that is American health care, and on the other we have a state run model, or at the very least the first steps towards such, like our neighbors to the north, and across the pond. Are these the only two options? I say nay. Lets investigate a couple of things.

First, there is the matter of what drives up the cost of going to the doctor in the first place. It is not solely technical sophistication and highly specialized professionals, as doctors have always been in this position. Rather, it is the fact that doctors must pay for insurance to cover themselves from lawsuits. Now, I'm not saying that there is never a time, nor a place for a doctor to be sued, but they should not be sued every time they make a mistake. When you go under the knife, you are doing just that, you are getting cut open. I do not care who it is, doctors are human and make mistakes, and mistakes happen. Patients are unable to handle surgery sometimes. These things happen. Should they really get sued for this kind of thing? No! Doctors should only be able to be sued in cases of gross negligence and/or misconduct. If a surgeon comes into surgery after a long night of drinking, or high on drugs, then sue him. He deserves it at this point.

Then there is the matter of punitive damages. These costs should never be covered by insurance companies. Why should an insurance company cover the cost a doctor incurred as a punishment? There is no reason. Now, one may ask, why even have insurance for doctors. I say to cover the cost in true mistakes. To give patients money as mere reparation for damages. This need not require a lawsuit, or any kind of court case whatsoever. The patient has the incident looked at by an independent doctor, and then damages are rewarded. This is no different than what is done with auto insurance. This provides an independent investigation into what has happened, and holds all parties accountable. Then, if the insurance company is unwilling to pay, then the insurance company needs to be taken to court, simple as that.

Second, we have insurance companies. As one of the insured, my premiums are so high, that I can't even afford the co-pay it takes to go to the doctor. I don't know what I would do if I were to have to go to the ER. Why is it that we pay so much to insurance companies just so that they can sit back and collect our money? What should we be paying them to do? Firstly, Insurance companies should be mutually responsible with their clients. I say that insurance companies should provide health management. They should give their clients two free checkups yearly. Not only this, but they should mandate them. This would encourage preventative medicine, and therefore drive health care down. Rates should be barred from going up if the patient gets sick, and goes to their mandated appointments, unless there is gross negligence on the patient's part.

At these mandated appointments, there should be a complete physical, and an advisory by the doctor on what to do to improve the patient's health. At one of the two, there should be stress tests, mammograms or any other age and gender appropriate test. This would catch things early, and prevent many, albeit not all, extensive post-illness programs. If the patient does not complete these exams, or heed the doctor's advice, then their rates go up, or get dropped from the insurance. After all, if the patient is unwilling to take measures to improve her health, then the rest of us should not be responsible for it.

Thirdly, we have the monstrosity that is the pharmaceutical industry. One can't even turn on a television, look in a magazine or drive down the road without being bombarded with drug advertisements. Why should the general public be involved in what is a highly specified field? Should we really be going to our doctors and requesting drugs from them, or should we leave that to the hands of professionals? Most of us wouldn't even do that to our cars, but we do that to ourselves. Prescription drugs are a controlled substance, and therefore illegal to distribute to the general public. However, the drug companies sell them to the general public on a daily basis. We would be in arms if a crack dealer took out a TV spot, or a magazine ad. Why do we turn a blind eye on the drug companies. The reason these are prescription drugs is because they have been deemed too dangerous for the public to decide to take on their own. So, I say bar prescription drug companies from advertising on TV or in magazines. Keep knowledge of prescription drugs in professional journals and literature. The doctor should be responsible for the decision to distribute prescription drugs, and to provide information to the patient about what is being prescribed.

All of this would cut out the huge advertising budget that insurance companies currently have, and cause it to be a much less lucrative business. This would also more tightly regulate prescription drugs, insofar as the general public would have less access to the information. This would force the industry to work less as a for profit industrial giant, and more as the public service that it is.

All of this would create a much more responsible health care industry. It would force all parties involved to actually be proactive in the care of the patient. It would drive health care costs down. Not only that, but it would give doctors more of an opportunity to actually examine their patients, and their lifestyles, and therefore better be able to see the causes of heart disease, cancer and the like. This would give us all the research that is needed to live healthier, happier lives.