Managed Health Care anyone?

[matclone]

Managed care is an health care industry (read: insurance cos.) designed model that is supposed to hold down costs. Part of the idea (which I agree with) holds that costs are better controlled when patients have ready access to routine care--thereby avoiding very costly untreated illnesses. The $10 co-pay, for example, derives from this.

Because the model is dollar driven (and assumes the participation and profits of the middle man), it doesn't take into account the larger health care picture from a public perspective.

I trust most doctors make decisions with the health care of their patient as the primary concern. I trust most patients are at the doctor's office because of real concerns over their health. I don't assume gov't is corrupt or inefficient.

[skipster]

We hardly ever have cut-and-dry systems in the world. Health care is a combination of capitalism and socialism, its not purely one or the other. A purely capitalistic system would not prescribe unnecessary tests because people who did not want them or could not afford them would not buy them and doctors or hospitals would not make money from them. Sure, those who could afford them might buy them, but if they get no benefit from them (like three test results coming back negative), they may not buy them again at a later visit.

I agree that costs may be controlled when patients have ready access to health care, but it only works if those patients willfully access the care, which is another topic altogether. Because this country is made of individuals and its laws are written as individual protections, the public perspective is irrelevant. Taking a "public perspective" implicitly means that one person knows what is better for the person in question than the person in question does. That robs the person in question of his personal liberty to live as he sees fit.

I like what Spider said about for-profit companies. I know he was sounding a bit contemptuous of their dealings, but that is the essence of business in a free world. GM doesn't make cars because they like cars -- they make them so they can sell them and make money to put food on the table. Doctors don't pracitce medicine solely because they like helping people -- they also do it so they can put food on the table. It's not a bad thing at all. Those with the most money are usually the best at what they do. Don't fear profit -- it is merely a motivator to do better (which is why government is inefficient -- it can not profit, so it has no motivation to improve).

[Spider]

GM doesn't make cars because they like cars -- they make them so they can sell them and make money to put food on the table. Doctors don't pracitce medicine solely because they like helping people -- they also do it so they can put food on the table. It's not a bad thing at all. Those with the most money are usually the best at what they do. Don't fear profit -- it is merely a motivator to do better (which is why government is inefficient -- it can not profit, so it has no motivation to improve).

I was just referring to insurance companies, but it is true that doctors can't afford to operate at a loss, and I also believe that they deserve to be well compensated for their knowledge and the responsibilities that they asume when treating patients. I would like to think that doctors (and dentists ) are motivated more by a desire to help people than by money. A business (insurance) puts money first; a profession (medicine) puts the public's welfare first.

[skipster]

I do think that most doctors and dentists are motivated by a desire to help people. But, if that job did not pay the bills and left them starving, I imagine that they might do something else. I'm not saying that money is the only motivator, but I do think that it plays a part.