tct main 2010
 
 Web  TheCypressTimes  
 
OPTING OUT OF THE THIRD PARTY SYSTEM WILL SAVE THE DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP

By Richard Amerling, MD

Now that the Senate version of ObamaCare is moments from becoming the law of the land, we need strategies to safeguard the doctor-patient relationship from government intrusion. The most effective approach is for both patients and physicians to opt out of the third party payment system.

From the patients’ perspective, opting out makes sense. Insurance companies will not be allowed to deny care for pre-existing conditions. Thus, even if the individual mandate is not thrown out on constitutional grounds, it will be smarter to pay the penalty, not buy insurance, and put as much money as possible into a health savings account. Prompt excellent medical care can readily be found in the burgeoning free market. Prices should be transparent to facilitate comparison shopping.

Physicians have an ethical obligation to use their skills and training for the betterment of our patients, and to pass this art to the next generation. For those who choose to remain in practice, opting out of third party payment will be an increasingly attractive option.

Accepting payment directly from the insurer is a relatively recent aberration in the long history of the profession. There was never a crisis in access to doctors’ services in the pre-Medicare/Medicaid era. Physician fees were usual, customary, and reasonable. Doctors charged well-heeled patients a bit more and those less well off a bit less. Pro bono care was a part of every practice. There was, and still is, competition between physicians for patients, and this restrained charges. Patients valued the doctors’ time and vice verse. Doctors worked exclusively for the patient and were their strong advocates. There was a high degree of trust and medical care was used selectively. Direct third party physician payment changed all of this for the worse.

Initially, doctors “accepted assignment” as a courtesy. Medicare eventually required participating physicians to agree to this. Over the years, it became the norm. This was, in some ways, convenient to patient and physician. But by insulating both from the true costs of care, it led to overutilization and massive increases in health care spending. Payers responded with price controls and attempts to micromanage medical decision-making such as managed care, and its new version, pay-for-performance. Price controls on physicians drove volume increases that resulted in overall spending escalation. Higher volume inevitably impacts quality of care. No “quality improvement” measures can adequately compensate for this.

Widespread opting out of the third party payment system will lead to lower utilization with huge cost savings. There is no more efficient model than direct pay since it eliminates the middleman for the majority of charges. Office costs are dramatically reduced when third party billing is abandoned. By setting their own rates, doctors will be in control of their time and patient volume would decrease. Quality of care would improve, again saving money. The doctor-patient relationship, arguably the essential ingredient to cure and comfort, would be strengthened.

The immediate objection to opting out is that not everyone can afford to pay at time of service. The same argument could be made for dental and legal care (Note the absence of crises in the delivery of cosmetic surgery, dental, veterinary, and legal care---all outside third party systems). We have simply become accustomed to having “someone else” pay.

Another frequent objection is that some patients will not go for needed care if they must lay out money. This is easy to assert and impossible to disprove, but should bureaucrats make these decisions? This, plus unsustainable overuse of the system, are the inevitable alternatives.

Universal coverage will complete the move toward centrally-controlled care. Practice will be directed (i.e. rationed) by federal committees using practice guidelines, “pay-for-performance,” and the electronic health record. Individualized care and medical confidentiality will slowly disappear. Importantly for the administration and Congress, more citizens will become dependent on government largesse. Doctors and other providers will become government employees, and be subject to its whims.

It is now left to individual physicians and patients to act in their own interests, and to defend the medical profession and doctor-patient relationship from government intrusion, and ultimately, destruction.

It is time to opt out.


Post A Comment
Comments 11 comments for this article
  <<  <   1  |  2   >  >>
Added: April 19, 2010. 02:54 PM CST
Are human beings totally unique? Undoubtedly. Are they totally separate, rather than being interdependent in a hundred ways? No!

Feral children, who grow up without human contact, have brains that are grossly underdeveloped. People marooned on islands without human contact easily go mad. Without human trust and human community, something vital of our humanity disappears. This is not the Borg. This is just humanity.

Your argument, Ms. Wakfer, assumes the premise that human beings cannot take decisions collectively that have any validity for the individual. Your argument would eliminate, among other things, the notion of a representative democracy such as that under which we live. What you preach is not self-responsibility, but anarchy.

And lastly, because human beings are totally unique separate individuals, each individual will be of different value to each other individual based on the value priorities of the individual doing the assessing.

Sounds great on the surface, till you think about what happens if no one person's judgment of another's value is privileged over any other's.

What if a unique and separate individual in a position of power decides to value the lives of a set of other unique and separate individuals (let's say Jews) at zero, and starts killing them? Is his assessment as valid as the assessment of other people that his valuation is incorrect?

I assert that all people are created equal, and are endowed with certain rights that they cannot sell, trade, or give away, and that governments cannot justly take away. I will stick with that perspective rather than going with yours.
Zander
Added: April 18, 2010. 06:07 PM CST
Self-Responsibility - The Cure
It is clear that Zander did not really think deeply about the ideas of individual self-responsibility that I presented. He continues with his reasons for why his situation was unavoidable and does not even address true catastrophic health insurance rather than pre-paid health programs. But more to the point of his failure to acknowledge a person's responsibility for hirself is his view of "society" as some borg-like entity in which all members are inextricably bound to each other, rather than totally unique separate individuals:

I believe deeply that human beings have intrinsic value. If it is medically possible to treat a condition, and we can afford as a society to enable people to have a certain level of health, I think that we should. I do not see why so many people have to die in pursuit of your individualistic fantasy.

Zander's use of "we" is very telling. In actuality he can only properly speak for himself and those who have given him specific permission to include them in a plural reference. He definitely cannot - and does not - speak for me and the many others who have voiced their opposition to being required under penalty of law to participate in some scheme. Furthermore, only individuals earn/make money and therefore can or cannot "afford" to spend it in some particular manner. Governments take money from those earning it according to the method dictated by the rulers (often with agreement of the majority of voters - the tyranny of democracy) and then spend according to various plans and arrangements, even including placating the citizenry ("bread and circuses"). And lastly, because human beings are totally unique separate individuals, each individual will be of different value to each other individual based on the value priorities of the individual doing the assessing - there is no intrinsic value at some particular level. There is however potential value, but of unknown quantity, only becoming estimable as the person hirself becomes known to the one doing the assessing - and even that reasonably changes with time and circumstances.
It is clear to me that Zander does not understand the implications of what he is promoting - and this is true for the very many who say/write very similarly.
...More at "Self-Responsibility - The Cure for Healthcare 'Crisis' and More" - http://selfsip.org/focus/healthcarecrisiscure.html

Kitty Antonik Wakfer
Kitty Antonik Wakfer
Added: April 18, 2010. 06:02 PM CST
Self-Responsibility - The Cure
It is clear that Zander did not really think deeply about the ideas of individual self-responsibility that I presented. He continues with his reasons for why his situation was unavoidable and does not even address true catastrophic health insurance rather than pre-paid health programs. But more to the point of his failure to acknowledge a person's responsibility for hirself is his view of "society" as some borg-like entity in which all members are inextricably bound to each other, rather than totally unique separate individuals:

I believe deeply that human beings have intrinsic value. If it is medically possible to treat a condition, and we can afford as a society to enable people to have a certain level of health, I think that we should. I do not see why so many people have to die in pursuit of your individualistic fantasy.

Zander's use of "we" is very telling. In actuality he can only properly speak for himself and those who have given him specific permission to include them in a plural reference. He definitely cannot - and does not - speak for me and the many others who have voiced their opposition to being required under penalty of law to participate in some scheme. Furthermore, only individuals earn/make money and therefore can or cannot "afford" to spend it in some particular manner. Governments take money from those earning it according to the method dictated by the rulers (often with agreement of the majority of voters - the tyranny of democracy) and then spend according to various plans and arrangements, even including placating the citizenry ("bread and circuses"). And lastly, because human beings are totally unique separate individuals, each individual will be of different value to each other individual based on the value priorities of the individual doing the assessing - there is no intrinsic value at some particular level. There is however potential value, but of unknown quantity, only becoming estimable as the person hirself becomes known to the one doing the assessing - and even that reasonably changes with time and circumstances.
It is clear to me that Zander does not understand the implications of what he is promoting - and this is true for the very many who say/write very similarly. ...More at "Self-Responsibility - The Cure for Healthcare 'Crisis' and More" - http://selfsip.org/focus/healthcarecrisiscure.html

**Kitty Antonik Wakfer
Kitty Antonik Wakfer
Added: March 30, 2010. 07:58 AM CST
Of course it would work...
But does anyone really think that opting out will be tolerated? Gads! What if you could opt out of taxes or gun control or stupid drug laws without facing the full brute strength and fury of the government at some level? Sheech... It's about CONTROL, people. And TPTB are certainly not going to just let the mundane serfs thumb their noses at it like this.
Anonymous
Added: March 28, 2010. 04:31 PM CST
@Kitty,

If s/he is truly incapable of obtaining sufficient money by way of a combination of savings, sale of assets, loans and through benevolence/charity to pay for some procedure, then the procedure does not take place (and alternatives are utilized). If that means that s/he or a loved one may die, then that is what happens.

Well, at least you're explicit about it. I would probably be dead; my children would never have made it to birth; but at least your principles would survive. Oh, goody.

I am not contending that, throughout my whole life and throughout all of my ancestors' lives, none of us took any steps that in the light of up-to-the-minute medical science could be considered to increase marginally our chances of developing cancer. For example, my father smoked socially before he met my mother. But I consider that to be an absurd criterion, because nobody at all, including you, could possibly satisfy it - something that you, basking in your self-satisfied glow, should consider.

What I do contend is that there are no alternative, sustained courses of action that would have plausibly resulted in better overall health for me or for my children, than purchasing third-party health insurance. Following your recommended course of action would have been deeply irrational for me. You are suggesting a course of action for me that would result in deep personal sacrifice, for the sake of principles I think immoral.

Had I devoted the whole of my life up to the age of 27 to the goal of avoiding cancer, I would still in all likelihood have gotten it. I made reasonable efforts to be healthy; my parents took reasonable steps to teach us healthy practices.

Your arguments are based on a too-rosy view of our ability to avoid disease, a too-rosy view of our ability to pay the full costs of treatment if we are struck with disease, and finally a set of principles that would result in the deaths of many, many people too poor to afford proper treatment.

I believe deeply that human beings have intrinsic value. If it is medically possible to treat a condition, and we can afford as a society to enable people to have a certain level of health, I think that we should. I do not see why so many people have to die in pursuit of your individualistic fantasy.

I have personally witnessed in Africa societies where the full cost of people's medical care falls on them, and you know what? Their societies, in consequence, are afflicted with sickness to a level we would find unimaginable, because even when the incentives are set up for people to avoid sickness, they still don't necessarily have the power, the money, the education, or the ability to avoid it.

It should be perfectly obvious to you that someone needing cancer surgery represents a poor lending risk. Their expected future level of health is likely to be lower, as would be their ability to repay any loan made. Health is like that.

As a last point, I note that you have not yet addressed the more difficult challenge for your case - the topic of the intrauterine syndrome from which my girls suffered. Who would have lent money to them to pay for their treatment? What intelligent actions could they or my wife have taken to avoid the exceedingly expensive treatment they needed? Why would it have been more moral for my children to die than for them to live?
Zander
Added: March 27, 2010. 05:44 PM CST
Self-Responsibility
@Zander
Serious cancer and general health degeneration prevention starts at early age - by parents in choices for/effecting their children and provision of information and good example. There are numerous measures one should take in just the areas of diet/ingestion, sleep, physical activity - these the most important and the least costly. Supplementary measures to these have been investigatable (magazines/books/TV/radio/etc) and accessible for a great many years to those who have been seriously interested. Before the Internet much information was already available, but it has been enormously more abundant and easily found for well over a decade now.

(Very briefly in regards to testicular cancer:
The abstract of a review paper from 1975, "Can nutrition explain the pattern of international epidemiology of hormone-dependent cancers?" [oldest on PubMed search using string: testicular cancer risk factors, which resulted in *1445 hits*]:
"International data on the distribution of hormone-dependent cancers suggest that they are cancers of affluence. Their occurrence parallels that of bowel cancer fairly closely in population and less closely with regard to individual patient risk. The most plausible hypothesis, although based on extremely incomplete knowledge, is that some components of the Western high-protein, high-fat diet acting in early life make individuals prone to develop these cancers." PMID: 1104146 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1104146
From the abstract of a 1982 paper, "Endogenous hormones as a major factor in human cancer":
"Hormone-related cancers account for almost 30% of all cancer cases in the United States. Data from animal experiments and from epidemiological and endocrinological studies in humans support the hypothesis that the individual hormones which control normal growth of target organs can also create the proper conditions for neoplastic transformation. ... Although scanty, the available epidemiological evidence also suggests a hormonal role in the pathogenesis of testis cancer, thyroid cancer, and osteosarcoma." PMID: 7046921 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7046921
From the abstract of a paper published in 1991, "Testicular cancer: the role of the primary care physician in prevention and early detection": "Since the incidence of testicular cancer has doubled in the last 20 years, we must give more attention to educating the public by encouraging primary physicians to incorporate instruction on self-examination of the testicles into regular physical exams." PMID 1882360 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1882360
From the abstract of a 1996 Danish paper, "Male reproductive health and environmental xenoestrogens":
"The incidence of testicular cancer has increased during the same time [last few decades] incidences of hypospadias and cryptorchidism also appear to be increasing. Similar reproductive problems occur in many wildlife species. There are marked geographic differences in the prevalence of male reproductive disorders. While the reasons for these differences are currently unknown, both clinical and laboratory research suggest that the adverse changes may be inter-related and have a common origin in fetal life or childhood. Exposure of the male fetus to supranormal levels of estrogens, such as diethlylstilbestrol, can result in the above-mentioned reproductive defects." PMID 8880001 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8880001)

Even with the abundance of science-based health information available at one's fingertips, currently far too many individuals in their teens and 20s think of themselves as invincible, *if* they even think of their health at all.

Ideas of invincibility, coupled with the attitudes that many of their parents developed with the growth of "health insurance" (actually increasingly prepaid health benefits) promoted by government actions (WWII freezes on wages resulted in non-wage benefits and later employer tax breaks for those benefits), means that most in their 20s these past 40 years failed (and continue to fail) to develop a self-responsibility view of life. Far too many people view their own health recovery/improvement as something to be done "by the doctor" - after something has gone wrong. Prevention of disorders/degeneration has been mostly ignored by physicians, largely because they have been ingrained with the idea in their own training that such disorder/degeneration is inevitable or that their patients won't do what is necessary. In the latter case, those physicians don't even bother informing/warning patients/clients; in the former case those physicians dismiss or are ignorant of science-based preventative measures. But these incidences of physician informational "negligence" does not eliminate the proper ultimate responsibility of a person's health on the person him/her (hir)self. Additionally, one properly does not accept without investigation everything that anyone at all, but especially a healthcare provider, states as fact or recommends. The person hirself is obviously the most *interested* party in hir own body! With some pathologies (perhaps true for some testicular cancers), such responsibility lies with the neglect of the parents to optimally prevent such problems for their children.

A truly self-responsible individual, because of hir savings, prudent spending, truthfulness in social interactions and good work ethic, will be viewed by others - especially friends/family - as a good risk for a loan when a truly unexpected untoward event occurs. Very long term loans of this type and an additional mortgage on one's home will be taken by a self-responsible person, along with sale of assets, sizable reduction in other expenses and even additional income generation. To the extent that a health problem is a result of avoidable risk factors incurred by a child's parents, it is reasonable that *they* should help pay for correction measures - and the child is reasonable to demand payment to the extent of the risk factors. Seeking charity from a (voluntary) organization may be considered too, but a self-responsible person does *not* seek government's use or threat of force to be shielded from one's debtors - bankruptcy. A self-responsible person also does not view hir (near and far) neighbor as the source of involuntary payment for hir own misfortune of any type, including health-related. If s/he is truly incapable of obtaining sufficient money by way of a combination of savings, sale of assets, loans and through benevolence/charity to pay for some procedure, then the procedure does not take place (and alternatives are utilized). If that means that s/he or a loved one may die, then that is what happens. Simply because some enormously expensive procedure exists does not mean that others should be required to pay for it. This is the bottom line that many (?most?) do not want to face. Would such an individual take (steal) the money hirself? While that action would actually be more self-responsible (and definitely so if intention of future restitution is made clear), most would not do it, but are *very* willing instead to use government's threat of physical force on others to obtain the financing.

Insurance in its original meaning was pooled risk for quite unlikely, but possible, highly costly events. One did not insure for expected occurrences - typical accidents/illnesses (eg. broken bones and childhood illnesses) and death. One saved for these events by accumulating cash and assets to be used to cover these and also did a lot of self-care (home remedies) in addition to home cooking and just letting the body heal itself (eg. as with "colds" and "the flu"). Marriage was typically delayed until a young man was in "a good position" and had some savings to provide for a family with an initial home. Many (?most?) women went into a marriage with a dowry - money and/or utensils/linens/clothing/etc for a new home. Both such parties viewed the start of their family (beginning with just them) to be their responsibility, even if one of more set of parents/relatives provided them with gifts.

Voluntary, truly catastrophic health insurance with a high deductible of (let's say for example) $25k would be available now, and with low premium cost, *if* insurance companies were not so greatly regulated in regards to coverage type and location. Such insurance would promote self-responsibility by individuals for saving money and practicing measures for good current and longterm health. But it starts with the mindset that one does *not* look at hir (near and far) neighbor as the source of money for any health needs. All of those in such a true health insurance "pool" are self-responsible since they are ready to pay that deductible every year and not draw from the "pool" except for truly catastrophic occurrences. This is a far cry from what happens currently - complaints can be heard by many for having to pay *any* deductible more than $10 or $20.

You wrote:
"I am glad that you have been fortunate enough to avoid the catastrophes we have endured, and that you have been cautious enough to put money aside against the day they come. But your good luck does not invalidate the idea of third-party provision. You, in your late fifties, may well have had a level of personal resources to put by for health care emergencies that would enable you to weather most things."
"Good luck" is mostly a result of one's good practices. In my mid-60s, my personal financial resources are not enormous, but my good health practices are. Even so I did have 2 unexpected incidences in the past 7 years (last one 6 years ago) which required payment by me (and my husband) to health care providers, the recurrence possibility of both greatly reduced by modified measures in practice since.

Zander, while you may not in the past have considered self-responsibility in the manner that I have described above (possibly for the reasons given), I truly hope that you (and your wife) will do so now and provide the information and example to your children.
This has been a lengthy reply but I sincerely (and I am always sincere) hope that you - and others - will give it serious thought.


**Kitty Antonik Wakfer

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting

Kitty Antonik Wakfer
Added: March 26, 2010. 02:45 PM CST
@Kitty:

The type of cancer was testicular cancer. If you do any research on it, you will see that there is nothing whatever one can do to "avoid" it. Exceedingly healthy people like cyclist Lance Armstrong have been diagnosed with it. I don't pretend to have been as athletic as he is, but it didn't do him any good. There simply is nothing known to medical science that I could have done to make it one whit less likely that I would be diagnosed with it.

I appreciate that it's necessary for your individualistic fantasy to believe that if I got sick, I must in some way have deserved it; but it's simply not the case.

Again, the complications arising from my wife's pregnancy were entirely unforeseeable. We did have the resources by the time we were 30, if we had been uninsured, to have covered the costs of a normal pregnancy ourselves. However, it turned out, again at random, to be a highly dangerous and expensive identical-twin pregnancy with twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome, and the costs of that would have bankrupted us. This is even despite the fact that we are in the fortunate position of having a higher household income than 95% of the people in our state.

Since you seem to know, what are these "intelligent actions" by myself and my wife that could have avoided either of those costs? Or are you simply making that up because it's necessary to your fantasy that intelligent actions exist that we could have taken?

I am glad that you have been fortunate enough to avoid the catastrophes we have endured, and that you have been cautious enough to put money aside against the day they come. But your good luck does not invalidate the idea of third-party provision. You, in your late fifties, may well have had a level of personal resources to put by for health care emergencies that would enable you to weather most things. Would you have been able to do the same when you were 26, like I was, and making decisions about health insurance?
Zander
Added: March 26, 2010. 09:05 AM CST
The Morality of Cannibals.
Obama Care is the enslavement of the medical profession. From the tone of the responses from colleagues I talked with and on Sermo, an exclusive site for physicians, it is now abundantly clear that doctors are awakening to claim their inalienable individual rights as made explicit in the Declaration of Independence, their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We have not been ‘somehow’ excluded from these rights that all men are endowed with simply by becoming doctors.

The underlying reasons for such a viewpoint are the generally accepted morality of altruism and, in politics, collectivism. This altruism/collectivism axis demands the sacrifice of all to all. It alleges your duty to sacrifice your values to everybody else as the moral ideal. If you think this through to its logical conclusion, such morality can never be practiced unless you are willing to starve and die. Observe, even Mother Theresa, the poster child of altruism, stopped short of this extreme. And because of this even she felt guiltily inadequate in front of this moral obligation.

Given the acceptance of this irrational moral ideal, altruism as a moral imperative is the handle its ruthless apostles employ, when they tell us that health care is a right to be claimed by all. In essence they allege that they possess the right to claim value from you with nothing in return. This is legalized robbery and extortion. Ayn Rand calls it the morality of cannibals.

Time and time again doctors have accepted this kind of abuse morally as a form of forced charity. This is not entirely rational; but it is the source of doctors’ acceptance of an impossible maze of rules and regulations governing the practice of medicine today. What is different now is merely the fact that Obama has decided to complete the long ongoing process of the enslavement of the profession.

What is our remedy in this context? Ayn Rand once said that what is needed is a moral revolution resulting in the complete repudiation of the imperatives of the altruist morality and replacing it with the morality of rational self-interest. This moral revolution is the most difficult to accomplish. Selfishness as the concern with the self of each one of us is a fundamental achievement made all the more difficult as the common understanding of the word selfishness equates it with cynical exploitativeness. The teachers of altruism have turned selfishness from a virtue into an intentionally derogatory term making sure that you feel bad should you dare to think about your self.

But the repudiation of the morality of altruism will free the mind from the immoral imperatives towards self-sacrifice and sets it free to truly pursue happiness in life and a chosen career path in freedom and, yes, selfishness. We as doctors have a right to be selfish as we recognize the same rights of our patients. We should begin to look at our profession as traders and wear this badge with pride and honor.

Out of this follows that doctors have the right to proclaim with the full force of reputable determination that there has to be a complete separation of Government and Medicine. – (The implementation of this should be left to the experts so that no one gets hurt in the transition.) – Doctors traditionally have always been charitable. The Government's looters, leeches and moochers have to be taken off our backs and they indeed will run like rats when faced with the moral principles that are based on the rights of man. Of course, this would require that the Government returns to its sole original purpose, the protection of individual rights and is forced by the governed to abandon what it has become, the greatest threat to man’s freedom of action. We have a lot of work ahead of us.

Anonymous
Added: March 25, 2010. 06:05 PM CST
Be Self-Responsible
@Zander
From the fact that you were diagnosed with cancer at 27 - how much, if anything, you did to prevent such an occurrence is another issue - and that you and your wife had twins (pregnancy has a cause, one does not "fall" into it) who had health complications pre and post birth, it does not follow that others should be compelled to pay for your "misfortunes" (both mostly likely not true unavoidable chance, but rather preventable by prior knowledge and intelligent actions by you and your wife). Still, life brings with it unplanned events for which a wide view, long range thinking person plans. Charity and benevolence are voluntary actions - both lose their meaning when compelled. And where the State tries to compel similar actions, real charity and benevolence always decline.

When someone voluntarily enters into a contract with an insurance company for true insurance (catastrophic amount, with large deductible) or even the currently prepaid health service plans, they are in essence "sponging off" those others in the "pool", who have also entered it voluntarily. However, with the US government's newest legislation (and the laws of most European countries), entry into the "pool" is to be forced - with the threat or actual use of physical force if one decides to "opt out". Under those circumstances, the recipient is then effectively the receiver of *stolen goods* - money compelled by government to be paid to an insurance company. Whether the monetary fines and the opportunities for physical force against those who do not comply comes about remains to be seen, but the law does enables government agents to act in ways no other person can do legally.

Private arrangements with providers of health services can and have been made by many (including myself 7 years ago) for an unexpected health related care need, often with a sizable deduction for cash self-pay. (I have not had health insurance for almost 10 years and, at just 2 weeks shy of 65, have no plans to enroll in Medicare.) Having a sizable amount of savings and assets that can be liquidized fairly easily is a demonstration of self-responsibility, instead of irresponsibly operating with the attitude that government will bail-out, always with money taxed (taken under threat of force) from others.

You wrote:
"The principle of third-party payment kept us alive.

"I urge people not to follow your advice, and not to opt out. Life is unpredictable. Your life may depend on it."

I urge others to be self-responsible and *not* follow your example - unfortunately the thinking of far too many people currently is a major reason why health care costs have risen as much as they have in the past 60 years.

Kitty Antonik Wakfer

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting
Kitty Antonik Wakfer
Added: March 23, 2010. 11:30 AM CST
This is a solution only for the very, very rich.
The prices of some health care services are so outrageous that almost no-one, even someone earning a good income, can afford to pay for them directly without a third party involved.

Two examples, just from my own family, where my wife makes a good income and has good insurance.

I got diagnosed with cancer at the age of 27. I was completely healthy beforehand, reasonably fit, a non-smoker, with no family history of cancer, and could not have foreseen my diagnosis, so I would not have put money aside in a health savings account.

Without her insurance, the total cost of care would have been around $400,000, not counting the costs of surveillance now that I am past surgery. What kind of folks have that in the bank?

Then, my wife fell pregnant with twins, who developed a highly dangerous syndrome in the womb (twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome) - again, a circumstance for which we could not have prepared, and which strikes utterly at random.

Fetal surgery saved their lives, and they still required weeks in the neonatal ICU. The total cost, up front, would have been around $1,000,000.

Because we have insurance, we could afford good-quality care. We still paid thousands for it, but I and our beautiful daughters are safe and well.

The principle of third-party payment kept us alive.

I urge people not to follow your advice, and not to opt out. Life is unpredictable. Your life may depend on it.
Zander
  <<  <   1  |  2   >  >>
Reader Login
Username:
Password:
 Save Login?
Free Sign-up
Forgot Password?
Reader Control Panel
Our Newest Articles