Connecting You to Your Community
Lodi, California •

Indexes

February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
February 1st, 2010
ADVERTISEMENT

The health care system needs fixing


Thursday, August 27, 2009 6:25 AM PDT

This letter is in response to Wade Heath's column on health care.

First off, there isn't even a health care bill to get hysterical over yet. There is only discussion about correcting a broken system accompanied by loud cries to create headlines and interrupt meetings. If these interrupters and Wade Heath are happy with health care as it now exists, then they need to ponder these facts:

The fact is, the USA is now ranked 37th in the world in national health care. We not only pay the highest prices, but receive mediocre care in return. Why?

1. Because so many people in the USA can't afford (or choose not) to have health insurance, they cram the emergency rooms of hospitals nationwide. Why? Because they have to treat even uninsured in emergency rooms.

2. Insurance companies often refuse to treat cancer patients beyond coverage limits. The system is clearly broken when those who need it most can't get treatment.

3. Insurance companies deny coverage of pre-existing conditions. These people fall through the cracks routinely.

4. Insurance company executives and their lobbyists are obscenely overpaid. The statement about these lobbyists waiting outside of Congress "sitting Gucci-to-Gucci" illustrates where health care profits are going in this failed system.

5. Yes, lawyers are also making way too much on malpractice suits, but the fact is that malpractice suits add only about 1/2 percent to the cost of health care. What makes the system so inefficient is that the competition between health insurance companies was won by who could exclude the most claims and thus make the highest profits, instead of who could provide the best care at the lowest price. The entire industry is now a monopoly with all the power concentrated in one or two companies, and for all their advertising about "taking care of people," taking care of profits is No. 1.

Charles Fries
Lodi

Reader Feedback

oldmanriver wrote on Aug 27, 2009 12:36 PM:

" woops.. Ignore the last incomplete sentence...or try to finish it. "

oldmanriver wrote on Aug 27, 2009 12:35 PM:

" Cogito, you are playing with numbers. I'm not sure what your goal is, obviously you have never been very ill or had claims denied by your insurance, or lost your health inusrance due to greed or through no fault of your own.
Being good at curing 13 types of cancer does not make the US the best place to receive health care. It is not the intelligence or devotion of medical professionals that is the problem. The problem is the limits of the free market as the driving force for health insurance. Curing sick people is not cheap. In insurance it doesn't just matter how expensive a claim is, but what proportion of the premium payers have this type of claim. When they figure this out, they know how much they can spend on it. If they have less than it costs, they can raise premiums, and risk losing customers to their competitor. Or refuse to authorize payment while they review your history (possibly until you become history), or find another way to get out of paying. On average, the cost of curing a sick person must "

Cogito wrote on Aug 27, 2009 8:38 AM:

" Mr Fries, the "37th" ranking is bogus. We are the number one nation at curing 13 of the most common 16 cancers. Nobody has better medicine than we do. Stop buying into what the UN says. By the way, that so called study was published 9 years ago. So you should have said "was ranked, a long time ago" "

stantaves wrote on Aug 27, 2009 8:22 AM:

" Mr. Fries, How is it that non-union carpenter could provide for his family, including healthcare, and still have something at the end of the month called personal savings? Answer: That was before the govt injected itself into the system and distorted the marketplace. What your not getting Mr. Fries is the marketplace will always find equalibrium. In other words, as the govt inefficiently consumes healthcare resources the supply goes down driving costs up. You, like a lot of other libs, want to create a strawman in case of insurance companies; while disregarding the obscene waste that comes from govt intervention. Let's try it another way: Right now, because of govt, healthcare as a percetage of GDP is is much higher than it would be in a freemarket. Why? Because people are consuming more heathcare than would otherwise be necessary in a "free-market" system that rewards good choices while discouraging poor ones. The left argues that given more opportunities people will make better choices; but the right says that people who make good choices always realize more opportunity. I know that many want to believe govt can do this thing, but they have yet to prove it with anything else. "

Warrior4Life wrote on Aug 27, 2009 5:57 AM:

" "First off, there isn't even a health care bill to get hysterical over yet. There is only discussion about correcting a broken system accompanied by loud cries to create headlines and interrupt meetings."

You must know low people in high places to get this one printed. I like a post that can make me think on my own two feet; not one that raises my blood pressure and throws me into anxiety. Well written food for thought. There's nothing like having a cup of coffee in the morning; reading misinformation regarding the proposed healthcare bill and blowing a blood vessel. Passion for something is one thing but aggressive attacks against the unknowns or what has not come to fruition is another. "

Stella wrote on Aug 27, 2009 5:52 AM:

" Mr. Fries, you make some excellent points. So long as health insurance companies are out to make a profit, their motivation is to exclude as many costly patients and limit as much expensive care as possible. A non-profit option for health care consumers (ie all of us) means lower costs and the same level of care. This can be done with the "public option" (similar to Medicare) or through non-profit insurers. "

Comments on this story are now closed.