|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics |
|
March 24, 2005Bankruptcy - What About Medical Relief?If Congress can pass a private relief bill for the family of Terri Schiavo, why can't they pass a bill that would provide funding for medical relief to families or individuals who have been forced into bankruptcy? Instead of forcing hospitals and care providers to write-off unpaid bills, or struggling families to labor to repay them, why can't we have a limited form of national health insurance that would rescue families from financial catastrophe due to medical emergencies? This might alleviate the more egregious isses with the bankruptcy bill. Posted by rickheller at March 24, 2005 11:11 AMComments
why can't we have a limited form of national health insurance that would rescue families from financial catastrophe due to medical emergencies? This might give the people doing the billing even more incentive to pile on the costs. I sympathize with the notion that "everyone" ends up paying those unpaid bills. But part of the underlying problem of runaway healthcare costs is middleman costs, bureaucracy costs, marketing costs, and so on. In the current fiscal climate of a big current deficit and looming cost growth in both SS and medicaid/care, I can't see another new program to have the government step into the breech and foot the bill. I think it makes sense to deal with credit issuing policies along with bankruptcy rules. If it isn't dealth with as part of the overall discussion of credit-driven problems, it won't be addressed at all, becuase the constituency is small enough and powerless enough to be ignored. I think the medically-criven bankruptcy issue should be dealth with as part of healthcare reform, which is probably going to be a big issue post 2008. Posted by: bk at March 24, 2005 11:29 AMThe Kerry campaign floated the "catastrophic cost" pick-up during the campaign. Sounds good in theory, but as Brian points out there's a major agency factor. Once the ceiling is reached and everything is covered, providers have an incentive to provide unlimited care. And once the patient hits the out-of-pocket ceiling and all is covered, they DEMAND unlimited care. The dilemma--the way to restrain costs is either through provider-driven rationing or patient-driven self-rationing. The patient has no incentive to self-ration if they don't pay the bill. The provider has no incentive to ration if the bill is always paid. With our third-party payor system, we've laid off much of the rationing function to the 3rd party payors. If the provider rations, call in the lawyers. If the patient self-rations, call in the undertakers. If a 3rd party rations, call in the politicians....and the lawyers and the undertakers. Who said life was easy? Posted by: Tully at March 24, 2005 12:45 PMI understand the sentiment. The implementation would be complex and in short A DISASTER. Lets keep bankuptcy reform separate form Healthcare reform. Lets not give anyone an "easy way out" of healthcare reform. You have to eat your spinach! Posted by: c3 at March 24, 2005 01:56 PMHell, about a some student debt relief for my broke ass? Posted by: S at March 27, 2005 03:22 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|