Some Doctors Turn to Cash-only Policies (Traditional Medicine; No Insurance)

Baltimore Sun ^ | 4/4/04 | Rebecca Cook, AP

[Xenalyte]

I have 50 large, but I have it earmarked for my dream vehicle: a solid-gold car with condor floormats, which I will drive wearing a bald-eagle hat.

[hometoroost]

"MSA's only work for young people in good health who can afford to save for some far off catastrophy. What about the working poor and the retired?

Actually, the availability of catastrophic coverage at a cheap price makes it MORE likely that small employers will help the "working poor" to buy coverage, not less likely. If you have the ability to put money away and earn interest on it you can start saving for medical expenses at a much earlier age (when your out-of-pocket costs are low). As for retirees, if you start saving early you will have more money when you retire to pay for medical expenses that Medicare doesn't cover.

These plans reintroduce the free market into the purchase of health care services. The reason health care is so expensive is that we've treated it like an entitlement and not as a finite commodity that is best regulated by a free market approach. Having the insurance companies or the government pay for all of the costs of health care is insane. For every dollar that goes to pay for services at least 30% goes to pay for insurance company overhead and it only gets worse when you get the government involved. Then there's the fraud, waste, and abuse inherent in using someone else's money to pay for something. Nobody ever solved a problem or got rich swapping dollars with insurance companies or the government.

Your question sounds like you've been reading the Democrat's talking points on Consumer Driven Health Care. Creating incentives for people to provide their own insurance and use their health care dollars wisely and to get more young healthy people to buy insurance can only help us have more resources to provide care for the few who need help.

[hometoroost]

"I wonder what would happen to the currently overloaded system if everyone had to pay cash? Think fewer people would run to the doctor for every little ache and pain? Think it would relieve some of the burden?"

In one presentation I saw, a company that introduced a high-deductible plan saw utilization drop by the 13% the first year. People do use more services when they don't have to pay for it themselves.

[ClearCase_guy]

BTTT

[BlazingArizona]

Cash for small medical expenses plus a high-deductible catastrophic policy is a great idea, except that insurance companies will no longer sell that kind of policy to individuals because the group business is an easier target. This will only change if Congress were to shift the medical insurance deduction form employer to employee. And if you have any kind of pre-existing condition, your only choice is to crawl off and die.

[kdot]

Catastrophic insurance plans make a lot of sense. The only kick-in-the-pants is when you need a doctor for a more routine visit. Then, you pay the same inflated price for the service as those with insurance and the $10 copay.

[anniegetyourgun]

You know....for being such an anachronistic type, you crack me up! I like your style, girl - even if it clashes with my blonde hair and western gear!

[Xenalyte]

Blonde, blonde . . . we could make you a platinum car. How's that sound?

[anniegetyourgun]

Got one...thanks. Actually, it's a bit of champagne....

[Xenalyte]

That sounds nice! So you'll need an auxiliary vehicle. How about red gold? That'd be different.

[anniegetyourgun]

Especially in "horse."

[anniegetyourgun]

Now that's my kind of "auxilliary vehicle".....

[TASMANIANRED]

I was paying over $200 monthly for health insurance. Last year they came up with a no frills policy for significant illnesses. It is costing $20 a month.

I have banked the difference so my take home never saw any difference. In a year I have my rather large deductable covered with a fairly large cushion.

I have forked out many tens of thousands of dollars over 30 years of working and used it exactly 3 times. It is one heck of a shell game.

[TASMANIANRED]

You must be a kid. I spent a week in the hospital. Had a few shots and my bill was $54.

[mountaineer]

You must be a kid.

Ha, I wish. But I do remember the visits to the pediatrician, where my mother would write out the $15 check (probably less if I didn't need a booster shot) and that was the end of it. Now, I write a $15 co-pay, and have to deal with additional paperwork for the next six months.

[syriacus]

I think fewer people would run to the doctor.

On the other hand, I think the patients would feel more "cared for."

I've belonged to an HMO for almost thirty years. My family and I have been discouraged (by the folks manning the telephone banks) from seeing our doctors for very serious conditions far more often than would happen if there hadn't been a sort of "HMO-triage" system set up.

One time we received a call, asking if my son didn't want to cancel a long-awaited appointment to see his urologist. The "nurse," who called me, told me that she thought the positive test results on my son's kidneys (IVP?, Ultrasound?---can't remember which) didn't mean anything. She said such positive results were common. My son has ongoing kidney problems. At the time she called he already had undergone serious surgery to remove a huge staghorn calculus. He has also undergone lithotripsy for several other kidney stones..

In this day and age my youngest daughter should not have gotten scarlet fever because a strep infection was missed, nor should she have had to go to the hospital emergency room to get her pneumonia diagnosed.

I certainly am grateful to live in a country where I can pay money directly to doctors outside my medical group in order to get the care my family members need.

I shudder when I think of Hillary-care.

[verity]

"I remember it being like that when I was a child in the 1960s."

OTOH, there are many illnessness that could not be treated in the 60's.

[mountaineer]

there are many illnessness that could not be treated in the 60's.

True, but none of which afflicted me, thankfully. I was referring only to regular checkups and the typical innoculations of childhood.

[stylin_geek]

I remember getting in a discussion with a friend of mine (he was a Democrat at the time, along the lines of a Zell Miller) and I told him to look at how many people he knew that ran to the doctor for every little thing, and to think of what will happen when one is allowed, by the health care provider, even more latitude in regards to doctors visits.

This was in the early days of HMO's and people were thrilled at the idea of being able to see a doctor whenever without cost.

My prediction turned out to be accurate, however, it certainly was not rocket science to figure out what the end result would be.

[daviddennis]

I think I'd rather die than pay that much, let alone the $50k someone else mentioned.

Why is it so expensive? I can't believe it cost that much in the old days when people paid for their own health care.

All you should need is a bed, monitoring equipment and someone to care for you. The cost of that someone can be split between at least four beds. If the accomodation costs as much as a Holiday Inn ($100-odd a night), and you're paying $15/hour for a person ($360 per 24 hours or $90/person), then a fair rate might be $200 a night. $250 a night with equipment.

Why over $1,000?

D