It’s no mystery that there is a need for health care reform in the United States given the increasing number of uninsured and the rising cost of health care. Although President Obama and many others have proposed some type of government involvement to fix what many believe to be a broken health care system, we have to dig far deeper than simply finding a different way to pay for health care. Yes, the system is complex with many factors that go into the cost of health care. To think about all the components at once is mind boggling, which is perhaps the reason why most not bother understanding it. However, if we break it down to the basics we would find that health care is no different than any other business involving the basic economic principles of supply and demand.
Never mind what’s said about the major contributors to the increasing health care costs such as pharmaceutical R&D, Technology, etc. What it comes down to is that there is great demand in the United States for our level of health care, and we “need” it. The more we need it, then the higher the price. Don’t you think that if we can reduce the demand we can resolve the bulk of our problems? Just think about the inelasticity of demand for health care, and how that impacts price. It would be far better to reduce the need for health care, rather than finding more money to pay for it, don’t you think?
So, indeed, health care reform is needed, but it actually starts with you. Ask yourself, “am I as healthy as I could be?” Chances are that you’ll answer no, but don’t be discouraged. There are several studies showing that we’re getting heavier as a nation, and generally don’t appear to be doing anything about it. Reality check, more and more of our children are becoming diabetic, and on average our belt size increased about two notches every five years within the last thirty. That doesn’t have an impact on health you say? Well then you should read about what happened to India after they incorporated the Western diet.
We know what we need to do, such as have a good diet and exercise, but most of us will put that off until we get a condition that has us going to the doctor when it is far more difficult to make that change. The reality is, the more we “need” the doctor, the more expensive it gets. Therefore, using that logic it’s less expensive to be proactive rather than reactive.
Our government can only do so much with regard to keeping health care affordable, accessible, etc. Unfortunately, it will take far more than their efforts to fix our problem. Yes, it’s very complex and confusing at times, causing most to turn away and not bother dealing with it. However, it will eventually catch up to all of us. So what should we do about it? Each and every one of us can contribute to being part of the solution by taking care of ourselves. If we all did that, imagine what would happen.
#1 by Travis on July 6th, 2009
I agree that we need to be healthier, which is why I’m so concerned about the socialization of health care. If all of my medical bills are going to be paid for by the government, why should I bother to be healthy?
#2 by Cliff on July 6th, 2009
Thanks for your comment, Travis. Absolutely, there would not be an incentive to live a healthier lifestyle under socialized health care if the quality and accessibility were to remain as it is today. Not only that, but would it be fair if I were to have someone else to pay for my unhealthy behavior? While I wouldn’t mind contributing to a child’s cancer treatment, or a car accident victim’s treatment, it would be a bit of a bother knowing I’m paying for smokers’ second lung cancer treatment after having learned they never stopped smoking after initial diagnosis. Something has always got to give, and I’d rather it be the demand for health care because that would simply mean that we are living healthier.
#3 by Steve on July 7th, 2009
Maybe the government plan should include a “seatbelt law” type clause. Seatbelt laws were put into place to protect people from hurting themselves as well as protect the financial well being of those that may get in an accident with them. If the government offers healthcare, how about some minimum health requirements to get or maintain coverage? I don’t want to be paying taxes to fund insurance for someone who’s 100 lbs overweight.
#4 by Cliff on July 7th, 2009
Hello Steve, thanks for your input. Currently, the underwriting rating practices for individual and small-group (organizations with less than 51 employees) takes members’ BMI (Body Mass Index) into consideration. Yet, this type of rating is not used for groups with more than 50 employees. If this type of rating were used for all group sizes it may “force” people to be leaner, but it may destroy non-experience rated organizations due to the even higher premiums.
Even without this way of rating, I believe it is important for every organization to support some type of wellness program, which encourages healthy living. In fact, it doesn’t even have to be a program. It could be as simple as sending out an e-mail encouraging employees to go for walks and making better nutrition decisions. After all, one healthy step can lead to another, and can only have a positive impact on an organization. Can anyone think of ways this wouldn’t help an organization? I realize it’s difficult to measure ROI in organizations that have wellness programs, but is there any wrong in having one?