Comments about ‘Personal responsibility needed’

Let me point out a few things to Ms Parker. Health costs cannot be covered out of pocket. Would Ms Parker care to explain why? This would be a useful exercise for both sides of the health care debate. Private health insurance can choose to deny coverage for so-called pre-existing conditions without so-called continuous coverage. Does Ms Parker think this is fine? Denial of coverage is an effective death sentence for millions. Is this Ok with the D-News?

Parker is ignores what's so blatantly wrong with the current system.

Everyone is under a death sentence. Coverage does not assure that your treatment will save or even help you. Where should our scarce resources be allocated? Many have come to the realization that the wallet of America is not eternally full. The solution is not a government single payer program. That will satisfy some who wish to spread misery as well as wealth. The question is rationing. Which way do you ration? Money, time, or pure scarcity causing increased misery. Rationing will come in some manner. Can you find solutions without populist bias? Can we allocate resources in effective ways. Right now, under medicare and medicaid, useless and costly treatments are expended on elderly and terminal patients. Not a good allocation.

Wait. So did Viktor Frankl actually say anything about American health care?

Star Parker is propagandizing the Conservative notion that Personal Responsibility is when the person assumes fault for his/her predicament regardless of circumstances beyond the control of the individual.

Her orientation is obviously on the side of the criminals of the medical industry who have placed profits at so much greater value than health of our nation. The reason that the medical industry criminals do not want government health care is that it would destroy their strangle hold on the wallets of the American citizen.

There are many good and decent people in the Health Care Industry who would cheer the government providing a rescue for people victimized by the unscrupulous.

With an understanding of what Star is trying to get at, and the additional comment addressed towards underlying costs above, here are the 4 Steps to reform health care:

1. Prohibit insurance from paying greater than 80% of actual cost: patients need to have some skin in the game and will dramatically control costs when they are so motivated (actual experience). If the doctor discounts for the patient, the insurance company participates in the discount. Enforce with insurance fraud statutes.

2. Revive charity hospitals: this will give doctors a place to donate care, students to train, and provide for the needy without huge tax based entitlement programs.

3. Tort reform: prohibit any patient who has recieved discounted or free care from suing, and implement a loser pays system.

4. Remove the barriers to increased use of mid level providers such as Physician Assistants; they provide 80% of the care, at the same quality, and for far less money than doctors.

Results: Health Care costs drop like a rock, insurance premiums (including malpractice) become affordable, and access to care increases. Additionally, Medicare/Medicaid fade away, taxes go down, government budgets become reasonable.

Please address Parker's point about lack of personal responsibility where people are entitled to receive something that others pay for?

Does not insurances use everybodys money pulled together to pay for everyones bills? The only difference I see is there would be no money going to the profit of insurance companies so thus it would go to more the actual cost of treatment. We are already paying for those who are not insured by the cost of treatment (by higher insurance costs/and hospitals charging more to recoop loses).

I think Ms Parker's idea of personal responsibility is to throw the less fortunate even further under the bus by making them pay for their own care, while those of us lucky enough to have employer-sponsored health coverage continue to be oblivious to the costs of our own claims.

Not only does she deny that there's a problem with the way health care is allocated in this country, she deplores any attempt to find a solution. If I learned anything from this column, it's that she's unhappy with the status quo because it covers too many people. Does this make sense to ANYBODY other than Ms Parker?

As long as we're talking about this, consider another angle. In "Capitalism and Freedom" Milton Friedman says most of our problems with health care reflect the AMA monopoly of medicine, government created - and everything we have done, according to Friedman, is a reflection of our inability to deal with this unhappy fact. So, dear readers, to what degree is our health care mess a reflection of monopoly power?

RE: True Reform | 8:13am

Your first and fourth suggestions have some merit, I will admit - ensure that patients are knowledgeable consumers of their own health care, and provide more efficient use of scarce health-care funding.

Questions about the other two:

1. Even if doctors and nurses are able and willing to donate time to charity care, who will pay for the facility, the materials, the maintenance, etc.? If you look at a hospital's total bottom line, doctor and nurse salaries are a pretty small percentage of the overall costs. Receptionists, orderlies, assistants, administrators, and facilities people don't make enough at other jobs to be able to donate time, and they WILL expect to be paid competitively. Should the government handle it, or insurers?

2. Regarding discounted care, don't you just introduce an incentive for providers to post rates for services, then ensure that EVERYBODY is treated at some discounted rate for those services, thereby eliminating ANY liability to ANYONE for even gross negligence or misconduct? If your surgeon is drunk and amputates the wrong leg, will YOU accept it gracefully and go away quietly because you got an artificial discount?

Little. Lew, you sound bitter because doctors took school seriously and their education let them earn good money. You really seem ether misinformed or promoting an personal agenda by characterizing the AMA as being connected with the government. A closer comparison would be comparing the AMA to the NRA. They both lobby for their membership.

Milton Friedman taught at the same university Obama taught at. So, is Milton pushing Chicago politics? You failed to point out Milton Friedman was critical of the economics of the Bush years.

Medicine isn't a free market.If you are having a heart attack you can be shopping around. If your insured, you have no idea of costs.

If Americans became vegans, our national health care costs would be cut by a third. If Americans rode bikes and walked the costs would be further deduced.

You saw Rush Limbaugh and others fight banning smoking from public venues. Has stopping smoking put restaurants or bars out of business? Today, conservatives are fighting letting customers know what they are eating by requiring better labeling of foods.

Have you noticed, the person complain about the healthy of alcohol can eat ice cream?

Why has Magic Johnson lived for nearly 18 years with HIV? Why did Lance Armstrong survive cancer? Because they have had the money to pay for the treament themselves--out of pocket.

It is true that most people do not have the resources to pay for major cancer treatment out of pocket. Even many wealthy people are pushed to the brink of bankruptcy for such treatments. But why should an insurance claim need to be filed for a 10 minute session with my doctor? That is what is insane. Think of how much auto insurance would cost if we had to file a claim for every trip to the local Jiffy Lube? Not very many cars would even reach 30,000 miles.

If we can roll back prices for basic medical services to levels that most people can afford without a third party, we would have that level of personal responsibility spoken of by Ms Parker. This needs to be possible for 75 to 80 percent of us, not just the top 5 to 10 percent.

Re: Ben H.,

You are right. Those who can afford it can buy their lives and those who can't afford it are destined to just die or go into extreme debt that they wished they were dead.

If I ever get Cancer or any disease I would choose to not receive any treatment instead of passing on the cost of my health care to my children, wife and parents who can barely get by as it is. Of course this will mean I will die but I will still make sure to pay taxes so that Lance Armstrong will have roads to drive to the hospital on.

Personal responsibility? What a cop-out to solving this crisis. In my own case, I tried to buy health insurance and was denied. The insurance company would not say why, only that they would be glad to insure my wife and daughter. My doctor could not figure out why I was denied. I only assume that it was due to a FALSE alarm on a medical issue several years prior. Since then, I have rarely been to the doctor. At least I was able to afford private health insurance. Take away your employer subsidized insurance and see what the premiums would be. Probably around $900 to $1200 a month for a family with poor coverage. For a family making $60,000 a year, this could equate to about 25% of take-home pay. For families making less, forget about it. They will take their chances and go without, and if they need medical care, it may be at the expense of the taxpayers if at all. IF we are such a great country, why can't we fix this for the 45 million Americans who go without? We can, and should, do much better.

that really makes sense is Anonymous 4:42 p.m. Totally hits the mark. I don't dispute many in country feel entitled to things they should be earning... see it everyday. But reality is, there are plenty of people desperate to "take responsibility" and are forced to walk away. So stop being so down right selfish and self righteous, and come up with a better solution, if you hate this one so much.

Many here think they have health insurance. If you really get sick, you employer will terminate you after a few weeks. Without a job, you have COBRA. How will your family keep your coverage without your paycheck?

I got to see this happened. The victim died, his wife was force to sell their home.

What a horrible article this is.

This doesn't solve anything. In fact, it makes things worse.

Before 1988 health insurance companies were "non-profit." Greed rules the world. Jesus knew it, which is why he stated it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven. A recent report put out by the Bureau of Labor stated the poorest fifth of income earners contributes--as a percentage of their income 4.3%--the most of any income level. All other income levels contribute less than 2.8% with the richest contributing 2.2%. AND low income earners don't "itemize." Therefore a dollar donation cost them a dollar while those who itemize actually pay 65 cents for every dollar they donate.

a good point. I dropped my health insurance more than 20 years ago because I was tired of paying for other people's health care. I've had two major incidents--a brain tumor and a ruptured achilles tendon--and I handled both cases the way I would any other major purchase. I found a doctor I liked, negotiated a price for the service with him and with the hospital, and purchased the product that best met my needs. It cost me about the same as the 20% I would have paid under an IHC 80/20 health care plan. Sure, it took a little work on my part. But that's part of personal responsibility. Purchasing health care without knowing the cost--which most people do--is nuts.

"MIcawber | 7:34 a.m. May 30, 2009
Wait. So did Viktor Frankl actually say anything about American health care?"

Yes, he did. You're just too ignorant to have caught it. Let me spell it out for you:

He said you can't have "freedom" without "responsibility". In reference to our health care mess, that means you can't be a lazy, free-loading dork who siphons their health care off of others' hard work and still maintain your freedom.

But my guess is you're a liberal and that won't make any sense to you....