Quote:
Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy
Well, using Angry's above scenario, there's no need. If someone prefers an alternative regimen with a low chance of success, they are fully within their rights to pursue it, but at their own expense. How is this a problem? And Healthcare companies may not use the term CER, but they definitely make it very hard for anyone to pursue expensive treatments.
|
Obviously if someone wants to spend $$$ on a treatment that is expensive and won't work no insurer private or gov't will cover it. And yes, the CER concept is used in private healthcare, but not to deny coverage of normal procedures. If a procedure isn't covered "in-network" on a plan there is the option of going "out-of-network" to get the procedure but with less of a percentage covered. CER boards are used in many countries with socialized medicine to deny certain treatments or to deny treatment to individuals based on age or other factors. I don't want a gov't bureacrat between me and my doctor or other medical professional. When I'm a bit older, I don't want some GS-9 deciding whether I'm able to get an MRI, or heart valve replacement, or other treatment in a timely manner. I just had my gall bladder taken out, not a big deal but over $30K without insurance, cost me about $ 2K. Whenever I ate anything I was in severe pain for 3-4 hours. If I had to wait for this surgery for two weeks or 1 month, that would've been absurd.
Once a government run insurance program is in place with less benefits and no profit motive, it will drive the costs of private insurance up to be unaffordable or will bring service levels way down. Let's say a family of four with both parents working is bringing in $ 80K / yr. They go with the gov't program as the private insurance will likely go to over $ 1K per month. Their child needs a procedure, recommended by their doctor, which the government will not authorize because it doesn't meet the recommendations of the CER board. The procedure costs $ 40K....yeah I've got a problem with that. When currently that same family is paying about $ 300-500 per month for much better and timely coverage that will allow that procedure.
Again, our health care system isn't perfect, but it's the best in the world. Why do people come here from countries with socialized medicine to get procedures done? We need to fix some things but not put another massive government program in place. If you want to provide vouchers or tax credits for low income families that can't afford health insurance that can be discussed, but the Kennedy/Wrangle/Obama vision is flat out wrong and will be extremely destructive to our healthcare system and the federal budget.
EDIT: As a small business owner, if I'm forced to provide health care benefits to my employees (or pay a fine), who will wind up paying for it. My customers will, I'll have to raise prices. That could actually result in a reduction in monthly revenue if people don't want to pay higher prices and force me into the red. Or, I'll have to cut my staff down to an absolute minimum, that will be at least 2-3 jobs lost. Obama can count those in his jobs saved/created numbers. We're a small family owned restaurant, under 20 employees. Other restaurants like mine will be in the same position, some will close and you'll have more of the chain restaurants to visit (oh joy). But Obama is supposed to be for the little guys right?