How SHOULD Health Care Work?

[vern_humphrey]

ok you might not like my idea but i think its a good one:

ABOLISH INSURANCE COMPANIES

they are the ones that are blocking care. they are not doctors and should not have the authority to decide a procedure is unnecessary.
a person should be able to just walk into a doctor’s office and get cared for. move the insurance company out of the picture.
they are the reason that medical costs have skyrocketed. they are always looking for a way of getting out of paying for the care that they contracted to do. some contracts do not include some procedures. they write exclusions into contracts as well. so what are you paying for insurance for if they aren’t going to provide the service to begin with. save your money and give it to the doctor yourself when you are sick.

the only time you really need insurance is when you are in a terrible car accident. that is how i feel about insurance.

Actually, that’s what Medical Savings Accounts do – with the added benefit that you pay with pre-tax dollars and get to roll any unspent money over into your IRA at the end of each year.

And the beauty of it is, you don’t have to abolish anything – you let people choose for themselves. If people want conventional insurance, fine. But those who don’t can have MSAs.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

We have a lot of smart folks around here, certainly smarter than those who are likely to ACTUALLY make law on health care in the near future. Let’s hear some ideas about how to make health care work properly…Sound off.

You people would make excellent government bureaucrats.

Here’s how “health care” should “work”:

Completely eliminate ALL government programmes, regulations, etc.; federal, state, and local. Eliminate them ALL…

In the abbreviated form KofC660 answered your question. Did you know the current system was developed to stop drug abuse? Have you seen any drug abuse in your life time? If government dropped all health care regulation we would all have more health care at cheaper prices.

 

[boppaid]

I just went through the entire thread – and found things like this

The person making that post was advancing the nasty insinuation that Catholics only care for other Catholics.

So more than one person comes off as being very uncharitable and snippy

I’m sorry…you obviously took offense where none was intended. (That’s why I added the edit…so you’d know where I was coming from.)

And regarding my quote ‘What would the people who are not part of the Church
do?’, I was obviously NOT insinuating that Catholics will only look after Catholics since I AM a Catholic! What I was responding to was someone’s idea that we leave health care expenses to the Church. There are many who need healthcare that do not belong to any church, and I was simply asking “what about them?” Not sure how you got a “snippy attitutude” from that. I guess it was a misunderstanding.

Again, sorry you took offense.

 

[emily47017]

i am against socialized medicince because of the damage the insurance companies will do to the american public. they aren’t going to provide service to the people who need it if they arbitrarily decide the service isn’t necessary. all they want to do is get the money and run.

hi,
i’m not sure where you’re coming from here, since socialized medicine is one of the ways we can abolish insurance companies. what socialized medicine means, essentially, is that doctors are government employees, so there’s no insurance company needed. single-payer insurance is the one i like better, where it’s like there’s one big insurance company, but it’s not allowed to make a profit, and doctors get to be independent business owners.

you might be thinking of several forms of “universal” health care that some presidential candidates have proposed; they don’t really change anything, except to shovel some of tax dollars down the gaping maws of for-profit insurance companies…

Have you seen any drug abuse in your life time?

hey texas roofer, is this a serious question?

 

[LumenGentium]

emily

thank you for correcting me

i do mean that i am against the health plan that the candidates are pushing right now.

i do see potential for abuse to patients in a socialized medicine system where the govt runs things though. ie workers comp, nursing home, let’s not forget hurricane katrina fiasco.

i just think that people should pay for their own healthcare and get the insurance companies out of the way for good.

the (name removed by moderator)s plan shows a lack of understanding of the complexities involved in healthcare from a financial standpoint and qualifications standpoint. universal healthcare is not the correct solution.

especially because of the poor healthcare or lack of proper healthcare received by the workers comp and nursing home population i am totally against giving insurance companies any more money. the insurance companies are wasting the money we give them for our health on themselves. they are not honoring their obligations to cover the health of the people who paid for them to do so. the insurance companies need to be investigated on very deep layers to uncover their abuses and neglect of the patient populations they were hired and expected to care for.

 

[LumenGentium]

(Part 2)

Sorry - this must have come out wrong in my original post. I am not suggesting that drug companies not get ANY new patents. I agree, this would bring research to a screeching halt and is not acceptable. What I am suggesting comes from my talk with people who work for drug companies. Right now, if a brand name manufacturer (Pfizer, Dow, etc.) makes a drug and gets a patent for it, they cannot change the PROCESS by which they make the same chemical without going through the majority of the “proving” process again (VERY expensive). On the other hand, a generic company has a limited number of tests they have to go through before the generic version comes onto the market (regardless of how they PRODUCE the drug). One argument for this double standard is that brand name companies could get patents for the drug again just by changing the WAY the drug is made. My plan would be to:
a) guarantee that a brand company would have X full MARKET years on patent (right now, the patent time starts ticking the moment it is issued, often years before the drug hits the market) and make it much more difficult for companies to in-fight with each other about patents (right now the drug companies spend billions on legal battles with each other over patents)
b) NOT issue new patents for change of PROCESS (ie - not issue new patents because a drug company changed the way it makes the drug) BUT allow the brand company to change its PROCESS under the same rules that generic companies can. THUS brand name drugs can be made cheaper if/when technology changes and allows it to be such. This would allow the drug companies to both sell their drugs for less and have a greater profit margin - which they can then funnel back into research.
c) provide some incentives (not clear on how exactly yet) to drug companies to research and produce medicines for diseases that may not provide much other financial incentive (diseases mostly prevalent in 3rd world countries or diseases that affect only a few people - called “orphan diseases”) AND provide incentives for drug companies to manufacture (and sell at an affordable cost cost) “essential medicines” (as defined by WHO) to 3rd world countries
d) change trade laws so that developed countries are not getting significantly cheaper drugs from US drug companies than US citizens

Again - I understand your reasoning here**. I do NOT advocate FORCING drug companies to sell to underdeveloped nations. However, I see a SOCIAL JUSTICE issue in that people cannot get BASIC medical needs met (cannot get basic antibiotics or antimalarials) because they were born in the wrong place. I advocate ENCOURAGING (perhaps financially?, definitely NOT through laws or force) drug companies to HELP (in conjunction with other organizations) provide drugs to these countries at prices that people in these countries can afford. For the most part, most of these essential medicines are fairly inexpensive by our standards (but still too expensive by these countries standards), thus for the most part, it wouldn’t cost that much more to us every day but it would make a HUGE difference in the lives of our underprivileged brothers and sisters.**
I hope that helps clarify what I wrote late at night

on this one, the drug companies should accept blood diamonds as payment to offset the cost for drugs to cure aids. get the diamond monopoly out of the way in this matter. i realize that blood diamonds are being used to buy weapons. it would be better if the diamonds were used to purchase aids drugs instead. also, people should not be killing for diamonds. the diamond monopoly is a problem that needs to be resolved. and this is a humanitarian way to do it. why are these nations so desperate for survival that they would kill each other for diamonds??? and then buy weapons??? who is monopolizing these people and why???

 

[jman507]

One problem with asking how health care should work, and looking for a systems oriented solution is that solutions is going to be a complete answer is flat out not going to get a satisfying answer in practice. Systems can only act as pathways to get things done. If you worry about abuse, you can make checks and balances, but it makes it more ineffecient. If you want to set it up streamlined where things can happen quickly, it sets it up to be abused. Not to forget that things can be abused intentionally or unattentionally. Every system comes with its advantages and disadvantages. If your looking for a system for health care to work, one really needs to be realistic about where it’s failings can be, and how best to avoid them.

Health care would not really be a huge deal if it was all out of pocket, insurance based, or universial if there would not be worry about how it is going to be funded in the future. Inflation in the health care industry is far out-pacing inflation in other areas. If you think we are going to help the problem by changing the system, well that’s a maybe or maybe not. It might just change where the problem is going to be. Chances are the payer is going to have to start saying no, and many will not be happy.

 

[Man]

When discussing medicare, we must remember that wealthy peoples contribution is “capped.” That is, they are not charged beyond a certain amount. Essentially this cap determines how bankrupt the system is.

Health plans work fairly well for the healthy and/or prosperous.

Cutting wages to physicians, nurses, and therapist won’t work; There is already a shortage. We need to improve training and conditions to encourage growth. This is one of, if not the primary cause of, many of the problems in the healthcare systems of other developed countries. (Even though physicians are paid fairly well, I rarely hear anyone state that they would rather be a physician).

The issue can be summed up like this:
How can poor healthy individuals be insured under the same plan as unhealthy prosperous individuals? (There is no free lunch.)

Obviously, it comes down to basic theology. Preference for the poor. A cardinal rule for achieving peace.

Pharmacuticals are expense and sometimes dangerous. They are also an excellent contribution to society. Many or most people think the sector is still too small, so an accumulation of wealth is likely to be exactly what is necessary (in our culture) to achieve a fullness of activity.

 

[LumenGentium]

hi,
i’m not sure where you’re coming from here, since socialized medicine is one of the ways we can abolish insurance companies. what socialized medicine means, essentially, is that doctors are government employees, so there’s no insurance company needed. single-payer insurance is the one i like better, where it’s like there’s one big insurance company, but it’s not allowed to make a profit, and doctors get to be independent business owners.

you might be thinking of several forms of “universal” health care that some presidential candidates have proposed; they don’t really change anything, except to shovel some of tax dollars down the gaping maws of for-profit insurance companies…

hey texas roofer, is this a serious question?

hi emily i had another thought about socialized medicine

people who need ssa cannot get it because they don’t meet the govt standard of being qualified. these qualifications do not match the standards of other provider alternatives such as state disability or insurance provided disability.

everyone’s rules are different. or to be more correct standards of health are varied.

the govt doctors who make the decision of whether someone is qualified to receive ssa benefits is based on age and money. but they won’t tell you that. they will say according to their health standards you are not qualified to receive benefits.

ok

this is just more of my reasoning as to why insurance is the problem area. they are denying benefits when they shouldn’t be. which is why i don’t want to pay for universal health medicine because i know they aren’t doing their job in the workers comp area, the ssa area, the nursing home area etc.

they keep saying that we should do it for the uninsured children. ok…most kids don’t require healthcare. sorry. they don’t. only a small percentage do.

so they aren’t getting my sympathy vote. i know they didn’t have sympathy for the adult populations, why would i expect them to have sympathy for the child population. you know our television industry favors kids and young adults…the healthy people…not the older people after they hit age 45.

our nation is heading towards euthanasia. and this is just the first nail in the coffin in acheiving that objective…

they are testing us now on the euthanasia with the law that people must neuter their pets within six months or pay a $500 fine. and of course once you get fined you have to also pay for the neutering procedure. this is also a subtle birth control measure but it is really aimed at euthanasia.

 

[jman507]

The issue can be summed up like this:
How can poor healthy individuals be insured under the same plan as unhealthy prosperous individuals? (There is no free lunch.)

Obviously, it comes down to basic theology. Preference for the poor. A cardinal rule for achieving peace.

Oh, I’m sorry, I’ve got to give my flip answer: to make the plan for the unhealthy prosperous individual as bad as the plan for the poor healthy individuales. But if you need a surgery or something, hopefully you can hope a flight to India to cut through all the red tape.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Oh, I’m sorry, I’ve got to give my flip answer: to make the plan for the unhealthy prosperous individual as bad as the plan for the poor healthy individuales. But if you need a surgery or something, hopefully you can hope a flight to India to cut through all the red tape.

That’s the Canadian Solution – many Canadians drive to the US to get health care (and pay out of their own pockets after paying the taxes that are supposed to provide them with “free” health care.)

If we adopt the single payer approach, we’ll have to fly to India.

 

[mary_bobo]

That’s the Canadian Solution – many Canadians drive to the US to get health care (and pay out of their own pockets after paying the taxes that are supposed to provide them with “free” health care.)

If we adopt the single payer approach, we’ll have to fly to India.

No use doing that. Too many of the India-trained doctors have already fled to the US.

 

[JW10631]

How **SHOULD **health care work?

Well, a little critical thinking on the part of health care consumers would help.

First off, forget socialized or government-run healthcare. Healthcare in these systems is rationed - except for the wealthy, who fly to countries without “socialized medicine” to get the health care they need without going through a government bureaucracy.

Most people don’t blame the doctor, or the hospital, or at least sometimes, the pharmeceutical companies.

It’s always the fault of the insurance companies. Big, greedy, unregulated insurance companies - d*mn them ALL!

Or so the “conventional wisdom” goes.

Let’s look at the way health insurance coverage is purchased in most cases. Employers purchase insurance coverage for employees and their dependents through an insurance company - or they “self insure” which means they hire a third party administrator to process the medical claims of the employees and dependents and pay the claims from their own funds. A great deal of health care coverage is “self insured” where the TPA, which often can be an insurance company - just processes the claims.

Employers purchase the coverage they usually can afford. Often, this means a policy with limitations - certain hospitals aren’t included in a network, certain physicians aren’t in a network, certain drugs or procedures aren’t covered.

Who gets blamed? The greedy insurance company, of course.

I have worked for two different Blue Cross insurance plans. I put myself through college working in a hospital. I know more about the health care system - what’s good about it and what’s bad about it - than 99% of the American public.

The Canadian system is so greatly praised. Yet, their health care is rationed, and when I worked for the Blue Cross plan in DC, we had a subsidiary company that sold health insurance policies to Canadians who spent their winters in Florida. Yeah, that great Canadian health care - where MRIs are rationed.

The hospital where I put myself through college decided, at the depths of the 1982 recession, to build a new wing, with a CAT scan unit. As the patient count dropped, the capital spending went up. A new laundry was built, an outpatient wing was built for the Medicaid patients who used the ER as a doctor’s office, and the CAT scan unit was built. When the unit went operational, the hospital was putting everyone through the CAT scan unit so they could bill the insurance companies in order to pay for it. The insurance companies objected to paying for a CAT scan for every admission. Soon after the CAT scan unit opened, MRIs began to be offered and the hospital had to invest in a new wing and a mobile MRI unit to be shared with other area hospitals.

Meanwhile, the Medicaid patients still used the ER instead of the outpatient clinic.

In the mid 1980s, Medicare came up with a new means for payment for claims called Diagnostic Related Groupings. This means that Medicare will pay a set, fixed amount for a particular procedure.
If the hospital can discharge the patient sooner than the DRG maximum number of days, the hospital makes a profit. If the patient cannot be discharged, the hospital eats the loss. So, if 85 year old Aunt Edith’s gall bladder condition requires her to stay an additional week, the hospital loses money on Aunt Edith and engages in cost shifting so insured patients end up covering the loss.

The “single payer” advocates point to administrative cost as the biggest component of health care cost. This is just plain stupid. Read a financial statement of any health insurance company and claims cost is over 90% of expenses. Every health insurance company is required by state law to file audited financial statements with its State Insurance Department and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners in Kansas City.

to be continued

 

[JW10631]

Much of the administrative cost of health insurance companies comes from state and Federal regulation. Companies that process Medicare claims (did any of you think the Federal Government acutally processes those claims by Federal employees?) have vast amounts of regulations that must be followed, or felony criminal violations will occur, involving prison sentences. This has occurred - a former VP of a Medicare claims processor was sentenced to 30 months in jail for failure to follow regulations.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is the Federal agency that oversees Medicare Part A (hospital), Part B (provider), Part C (Medicare Advantage) and Part D (prescription drug coverage) for senior citizens. The cost of health care for senior citizens grows each year and will continue to grow. Most of the cost of Medicare is borne by taxpayers as it stands now and that burden will only grow. CMS wants to phase out Medicare Parts A and B and replace it with Part C. However, CMS doesn’t pay insurers in many parts of the country enough of a premium to make the business worthwhile.

I have noticed that nobody demands a single payer life insurance system or a single payer home insurance system or a single payer car insurance system.

Only in health care - but nobody who advocates it can prove it will reduce administrative cost. Making every claims processor a Federal employee and expecting the Federal government to purchase enough computer systems to process claims and setting up a Federal bureaucracy to employ these people and manage these systems will save nobody any money.

to be continued

 

[whatevergirl]

And every time someone suggests tort reform, the lawyers in Congress (and there are far too many of them) squeal like stuffed pigs. We can’t have reform that would benefit us if it cuts down on the lawyers money grab, now can we?

hmmm–you gotta point there! lol

 

[whatevergirl]

Much of the administrative cost of health insurance companies comes from state and Federal regulation. Companies that process Medicare claims (did any of you think the Federal Government acutally processes those claims by Federal employees?) have vast amounts of regulations that must be followed, or felony criminal violations will occur, involving prison sentences. This has occurred - a former VP of a Medicare claims processor was sentenced to 30 months in jail for failure to follow regulations.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is the Federal agency that oversees Medicare Part A (hospital), Part B (provider), Part C (Medicare Advantage) and Part D (prescription drug coverage) for senior citizens. The cost of health care for senior citizens grows each year and will continue to grow. Most of the cost of Medicare is borne by taxpayers as it stands now and that burden will only grow. CMS wants to phase out Medicare Parts A and B and replace it with Part C. However, CMS doesn’t pay insurers in many parts of the country enough of a premium to make the business worthwhile.

I have noticed that nobody demands a single payer life insurance system or a single payer home insurance system or a single payer car insurance system.

Only in health care - but nobody who advocates it can prove it will reduce administrative cost. Making every claims processor a Federal employee and expecting the Federal government to purchase enough computer systems to process claims and setting up a Federal bureaucracy to employ these people and manage these systems will save nobody any money.

to be continued

the only thing though, is with private companies, the government has a certain amount of regulation duties, as they relate to rating and following laws, but private companies have their own red tape…I know–I work in the insurance field, and it can be costly, indeed.

 

[JW10631]

Part of the cost of health care is abuse of the system by those who have employer paid health insurance. My mother was an emergency room nurse for 27 years. The hospital she worked at was very close to a Chrysler plant and several Ford plants. The UAW members received fully paid health insurance from their employers. When little Johnny had a sore throat or little Susie had a runny nose, Mr and Mrs Autoworker took Johnny and Susie to the Emergency Room and whipped out the health insurance card, expecting the big, greedy insurance company to pay for it all.

Make a doctor appointment? Forget it!
This garbage led to the rise of HMOs, which were targeted by the media as the most evil entities since the Nazis after the political defeat of Clinton Care. We heard story after story of horror on 60 Minutes, Dateline, 20/20 et al about some poor schmuck whose procedure wasn’t covered by Corporate Care HMO.

My dad had emphysema and congestive heart failure. He was eleigible for 100% disability and went into the hospital for the last time in July 1993, never to return home. His HMO, Met Life Managed Care, a company I have no affiliation with, handled everything for my mother. He had over $400K in medical bills, and only one bill for a pathology practice got screwed up, which was later taken care of. Stories like this never made the news. Wonder why?

Solutions for the health care situation:

1. Do away with employer paid health care. Instead of buying the health care insurance for the employee, allow the employee to have those dollars in “benefit salary” tax free. Allow the employee to shop for the health care coverage the employee wants to buy. the employee can buy as much - or as little - insurance as the employee wants to buy. Couple this with personal health savings accounts - money saved tax free that can be used to pay for doctor visits and procedures that cost less than, for example, $1000 and the increase in cost of health insurance should slow down.
2. Permit insurance companies to underwrite - assess risk for behaviors such as alcoholism, smoking and obesity.
   Make the chain smoker, the heavy drinker and the glutton pay for their bad habits. Bad drivers have to pay more for car insurance. Those who insist on engaging in bad health habits should pay more as well.
3. Bust up hospital monopolies. The University of Pittsburgh Health Care System controls two dozen hospitals and owns its own health insurance company.
   It controls a majority of the local market.
   Hospitals should not be permitted to engage in such practices.
4. Tort reform. Some physicians have to pay so much in malpractice insurance that they have to cancel their practices. A malpractice insurance company in Pennsylvania went broke not long ago. Several obstetricians in the Philadelphia area had to close their practices and leave Pennsylvania because they could not afford to operate here.
5. For those who do not qualify for Medicaid, low cost limited benefit health insurance should be made available - provided by a consortium of health insurance plans that operate within a given state.
6. Reduce the amount of meaningless state insurance regulation that has to be passed onto the consumers of health care. Annual Statements contain volumes of unnecessary information that is expensive to obtain and report.
7. Personal responsibility. People need to take better care of themselves.

 

[Man]

Part of the cost of health care is abuse of the system by those who have employer paid health insurance. My mother was an emergency room nurse for 27 years. The hospital she worked at was very close to a Chrysler plant and several Ford plants. The UAW members received fully paid health insurance from their employers. When little Johnny had a sore throat or little Susie had a runny nose, Mr and Mrs Autoworker took Johnny and Susie to the Emergency Room and whipped out the health insurance card, expecting the big, greedy insurance company to pay for it all.

Make a doctor appointment? Forget it!
This garbage led to the rise of HMOs, which were targeted by the media as the most evil entities since the Nazis after the political defeat of Clinton Care. We heard story after story of horror on 60 Minutes, Dateline, 20/20 et al about some poor schmuck whose procedure wasn’t covered by Corporate Care HMO.

My dad had emphysema and congestive heart failure. He was eleigible for 100% disability and went into the hospital for the last time in July 1993, never to return home. His HMO, Met Life Managed Care, a company I have no affiliation with, handled everything for my mother. He had over $400K in medical bills, and only one bill for a pathology practice got screwed up, which was later taken care of. Stories like this never made the news. Wonder why?

Solutions for the health care situation:

1. Do away with employer paid health care. Instead of buying the health care insurance for the employee, allow the employee to have those dollars in “benefit salary” tax free. Allow the employee to shop for the health care coverage the employee wants to buy. the employee can buy as much - or as little - insurance as the employee wants to buy. Couple this with personal health savings accounts - money saved tax free that can be used to pay for doctor visits and procedures that cost less than, for example, $1000 and the increase in cost of health insurance should slow down.
2. Permit insurance companies to underwrite - assess risk for behaviors such as alcoholism, smoking and obesity.
   Make the chain smoker, the heavy drinker and the glutton pay for their bad habits. Bad drivers have to pay more for car insurance. Those who insist on engaging in bad health habits should pay more as well.

…

1. Personal responsibility. People need to take better care of themselves.

The problem is that the more you separate groups up the higher prices become for those who need insurance the most. So, all of your portions are flawed. How does one take responsibility for childhood leukemia? Or a premature baby? We’re talking millions of dollars for these. A broken hip?

If you are in a one family group plan and you get cancer, your premium goes up to fit the expenses. The insurance company keeps the charges down to some extent by negotiating prices, though an individual has no write to negotiate (hospitals are legally prevented from negotiating to prevent biasing - which leads to higher prices for worse insurance or cash).

 

[jman507]

The problem is that the more you separate groups up the higher prices become for those who need insurance the most. So, all of your portions are flawed. How does one take responsibility for childhood leukemia? Or a premature baby? We’re talking millions of dollars for these. A broken hip?

If you are in a one family group plan and you get cancer, your premium goes up to fit the expenses. The insurance company keeps the charges down to some extent by negotiating prices, though an individual has no write to negotiate (hospitals are legally prevented from negotiating to prevent biasing - which leads to higher prices for worse insurance or cash).

Yes, that is defiantly one of the disadvantages of that type of system. There is always a hard question to come up with an uncomplicated why to address issues such as increase premiums for those who increase their health risk; at the same tying to keep it reasonable for people who are at an increased risk due to nothing that the person has reasonably has done.

To a point this can be mitigated by a catastrophic policy for high dollar needs. Also the poor can be helped, Vern has addressed that. Those in-between may have help to by being helped to make the premium and deductable of the insurance.

It shows some of the dilemma. On one hand there is a need to make sure everyone gets the care they need. On the other hand, something needs to be in place to make sure the system is not abused, causing higher costs, and less care for those overall, especially the poor.

Unfortunatly health care is not an independant economic industry. Every dollar spent in health care, is a dollar that could be spent for other good things. There is always a need to increase the productivity of that dollar. Plus health care to met our moral desires, health care is probably going to be a net economic loser. Great care must be used. There is a need to always stress prevention, education, and personal responsiblity, but we cannot forget those that need care now, need care now.

 

[mary_bobo]

The problem is that the more you separate groups up the higher prices become for those who need insurance the most. So, all of your portions are flawed. How does one take responsibility for childhood leukemia? Or a premature baby? We’re talking millions of dollars for these. A broken hip?

If you are in a one family group plan and you get cancer, your premium goes up to fit the expenses. The insurance company keeps the charges down to some extent by negotiating prices, though an individual has no write to negotiate (hospitals are legally prevented from negotiating to prevent biasing - which leads to higher prices for worse insurance or cash).

There have been interesting points both pro and con on this issue in this thread. I believe hospitals do negotiate in one respect in that they write off millions of dollars annually for people who cannot pay. And the idea of employer paid health insurance came about in the 70s when Nixon installed wage and price controls. Employers could not long reward long standing employees with higher salary, nor could they reward those who had excelled in their jobs, so they started adding benefits to induce employee loyalty, etc. Prior to that most people were responsible for their own health care. It was when we got all these other entities involved that health care sky-rocketed.

We do have so much more technology at play here and so many more treatment options are available. But I question whether it is a “right” to have all this available. If people had to manage their own health care accounts, I think we would have smaller ER visits except by those who really need an ER. Community based preventive health care would go a long way toward reducing the cost, I think.