Gina has another kidney stone (#3 in the past year or so), poor girl. So we had the opportunity to spend the afternoon in the ER.
A few thoughts on our experience there.
-We waited well over an hour before a doctor came to see us. This makes me quite ecstatic about the possibility of "free"* health care in the future. As I'm sure that as soon as health care is made free, demand will most assuredly will decrease (note the sarcasm). I'm sure that the quality of our health care (i.e. the timely presence of the doctor when all Gina really needed was some pain relievers) will increase greatly when our health care is made "free"*.
-The doctor told us Gina should get an ultrasound to make sure it was, in fact, a kidney stone. We kindly refused so as to save money on our final bill. We refused because a.) we knew that she had a kidney stone already, and b.) let's say we weren't sure and got one to make sure it was. What would be the point? We know that there is little the doctors can do about a kidney stone anyway. We know this because the doctor had just told us this.
Here is where I thought about the claim that health care costs will be cut through a "public option" or through a socialized plan. Let's take the same scenario with me and Gina except substitute our private insurance that we pay for and implement "free"* health care. What would stop us from getting that ultrasound? The ultrasound that costs several hundred dollars per use.
So what I'm getting at is this. What the argument truly comes down to is efficiency. Getting the most for the least. Which system offers the greater efficiency, a privatized one or a public one?
*I say free in the above thoughts very loosely. There truly is no such thing as "free" health care. Someone pays for it and when you don't see the money coming directly out of your own pocket it decreases the efficiency, that is to say, you end up getting less while spending more.
There is evidence of this in medicare. It seems almost laughable that some are asking specifically for a system much like medicare. A system that has experienced rampant fraud, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22184921. A system in which you could say calling it poorly ran would be an understatement, http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/09/01/edca0901.htm. A system that has been instrumental in ensuring that America not only only spends the most total dollars on health care but ensuring that we are also spending the most public dollars on health care in the world, http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13899647. And a system that has discouraged, merely through it's existence, private insurance companies from concentrating on preventive care.
A few thoughts on our experience there.
-We waited well over an hour before a doctor came to see us. This makes me quite ecstatic about the possibility of "free"* health care in the future. As I'm sure that as soon as health care is made free, demand will most assuredly will decrease (note the sarcasm). I'm sure that the quality of our health care (i.e. the timely presence of the doctor when all Gina really needed was some pain relievers) will increase greatly when our health care is made "free"*.
-The doctor told us Gina should get an ultrasound to make sure it was, in fact, a kidney stone. We kindly refused so as to save money on our final bill. We refused because a.) we knew that she had a kidney stone already, and b.) let's say we weren't sure and got one to make sure it was. What would be the point? We know that there is little the doctors can do about a kidney stone anyway. We know this because the doctor had just told us this.
Here is where I thought about the claim that health care costs will be cut through a "public option" or through a socialized plan. Let's take the same scenario with me and Gina except substitute our private insurance that we pay for and implement "free"* health care. What would stop us from getting that ultrasound? The ultrasound that costs several hundred dollars per use.
So what I'm getting at is this. What the argument truly comes down to is efficiency. Getting the most for the least. Which system offers the greater efficiency, a privatized one or a public one?
*I say free in the above thoughts very loosely. There truly is no such thing as "free" health care. Someone pays for it and when you don't see the money coming directly out of your own pocket it decreases the efficiency, that is to say, you end up getting less while spending more.
There is evidence of this in medicare. It seems almost laughable that some are asking specifically for a system much like medicare. A system that has experienced rampant fraud, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22184921. A system in which you could say calling it poorly ran would be an understatement, http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/09/01/edca0901.htm. A system that has been instrumental in ensuring that America not only only spends the most total dollars on health care but ensuring that we are also spending the most public dollars on health care in the world, http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13899647. And a system that has discouraged, merely through it's existence, private insurance companies from concentrating on preventive care.
- Jier JT likes this.
Jier JT Hopefully the our congressional reps and senators will receive this information from you. This is information that they need to hear from their constituents.July 24, 2009 at 10:23pm · ·
Kellie Colberg Yeah, Luke, public health care outta fix the problem, lol. Sorry to hear about Gina. How are things with you?July 24, 2009 at 10:48pm · ·
Ginny Morrell Loken Oh...I'm so sorry.....kidney stones are awful!!July 25, 2009 at 9:27am · ·
Amanda 'Miller' Quisberg I love your research. why don't you run for office?July 26, 2009 at 9:16pm · ·
Luke De BoerThanks Jier & Quisberg! Much appreciated.
Quisberg- I don't have much desire to run for office, thanks though.
Kellie- I can't tell which way you are arguing?! as usual, right?
...
Thanks for the condolences Ginny. :)See MoreJuly 27, 2009 at 12:41pm · ·- Amanda 'Miller' Quisberg Have you looked up the info regarding the czars? you should really look into the czar of science. He has some crazy ideas and all I can say is hold on tight and keep your faith for the rollercoaster!July 27, 2009 at 1:05pm · ·
- Luke De BoerYa know, I still haven't! Although, I do vaguely remember hearing something about that science dude. If I remember correctly he was the one who once wrote a textbook advocating a "systematic controlling of the population" aka, killing off a... part of the population.
Am I right on that or is that someone else?See MoreJuly 27, 2009 at 9:52pm · · - Amanda 'Miller' Quisberg Yes that is the same person. Scary these thirty some men don't have to report to anyone, but Obama. How can he appoint that many czars if czars aren't in the constitution??July 27, 2009 at 10:12pm · ·
Corey A. Purkat ...what a second...what??July 27, 2009 at 11:15pm · ·
Anna Hansen Love this Luke! Well done! Do I smell a protest in the works???July 30, 2009 at 4:57pm · ·
Kenneth Mitchell Good article, Luke. I understand Gina's pain...I've successfully delivered kidney stones on two separate, painful occasions! Not fun.August 1, 2009 at 1:37am · ·- Luke De Boer Anna, this isn't the protest? :) I need to try harder...
Thanks for kudos KenAugust 1, 2009 at 10:13am · ·
No comments:
Post a Comment