More Bang for Your Buck

As Mr. Fixit and his band of merry men and women in Congress debate how to put the fix on health care, it is interesting (in a lurid sort of way) to watch them work.

The Washington Post has this to say.

"Sure, some people here have the best health care in the world, but the average American is paying too much and not getting enough in return,"

By whose standards are we "not getting enough" if we have the "best health care in the world". Seems these statements are diametrically opposed.

Mercedes-Benz is arguably one of the best cars in the world, and it comes with a price to reflect the quality. You can pay less and still get a decent car, but it just isn't the same as a Mercedes, is it?

They envision a health-care system that guarantees a basic level of care for everyone, shifts the emphasis to wellness and prevention, minimizes errors, and reduces unnecessary and unproved treatment.

Seems to me everyone already has access to a "basic level of care", so what's the beef? As we have said repeatedly, one does not need health insurance to access health care, and certainly not at the basic level.

You may design a plan that promotes wellness but unless you are willing to punish those who do not obey the ideology is flawed.

For years we have been told to follow a healthy diet, get regular exercise and limit alcohol consumption. Yet we are a nation that is getting fatter year by year.

Minimizes error and reduces unnecessary and unproved treatment. As long as humans are involved, there will be error. And for what it's worth, carriers as well as Medicare/Medicaid do not pay for unnecessary or unproven treatment modalities.

So what is the problem?

"People tend to demand the new thing even if there's not much evidence it will make a difference in the length or quality of life," she said.

We want the latest and greatest but want someone else (the insurance carrier) to pay for it. Sometimes older, more established medications will accomplish the same thing at a lower cost and fewer side effects.

But who is willing to settle for something "old" when there are plenty of new medications?

Not those who have health insurance. Especially if it has copay's.

In 2006, using inflation-adjusted figures, Medicare spent $5,812 on the average beneficiary in La Crosse, compared with $16,351 in Miami. Yet an examination of health status in both places, adjusted for age, finds no evidence that the extra spending resulted in better care,

The answer seems simple enough.

Send those who need care to La Crosse . . . or pay the docs in Miami the same as those in La Crosse.

Or send them to Turkey for treatment.

No problem.

Solving the health care crisis is a piece of cake.