Look, I can promise you the moon, but will I or can I deliver?
As with the stereotypical codependent female that swoons over the ridiculous lies of the narcissist ‘bad boy,’ the overly amorous, or for our purposes, the overly naive and expectant and perhaps lazy healthcare customer/patient, almost inevitably heads to dashed hopes and even tragedy!
The magical notion that is something for nothing, an always too good to be true moment of truth to be realized at least at some point hopefully, is the bane of humanity’s existence.
It always has been.
The featured article in this post examines the problems fraught with specifically mental health parity.
Quality, affordable, and highly accessible [therefore well supplied to market] medical services are vital for you and me and any complex economy. This being the case, you can then understand how important actual healthcare choice is, on the individual level, in securing.
If the stated objective, as the featured article points out, in instituting through force parity measures is to improve and ensure access to medical services for more individuals, then the actual measures taken are not only not up to the task at hand, but horribly regressive in meeting the stated objective!
Beyond the somewhat limited issue and related sphere of influence in regards to mental health parity measures, let us consider something more generally and totally affecting in the US healthcare market: COMMUNITY RATING.
As you may understand, as the previous hyperlink demonstrates, community rating eliminates medical underwriting. It is also the primary model in the healthcare insurance markets, and that is primarily not due to freely chosen market decisions. In many ways it is mandated, it is forced.
Community rating basically takes away true insurance methodology to facilitate appropriate, behavior-adjusting pricing incentives for all parties.
These parties include medical providers, customers/patients, and the employers, the lattermost of the aforementioned parties which all so often purchase or self-insure individuals’ health care services that may arise from general individual peril–these third party employers truly operate in an opaque market, with real world consequences not being allowed to bring about individual positive changes and ultimately better, more thought-out habits that secure more affordable and effective care.
Hey, it FEELS GOOD to say that everyone “gets covered” and will therefore be cared for–I don’t disagree that such an objective is a good one.
However, the measures taken to substantially achieve this or better give opportunity for individuals to do so are definitely not only incapable of doing so but radically regressive to boot! Healthcare choice to the side of paper schemes and promises simply does not work.
Don’t you want to know for certain what to generally pursue for healthcare choice and therefore access? Because what is choice without actual access? Sir, will that be paper or the REAL THING?
Are you interested in pursuing better healthcare choice?
Good. Truly, if so, then inspect the featured article. In just its confined subject concerning mental health parity we see reduction of healthcare choice.
Is it so hard to understand then, that reducing healthcare choice, which is inseparable from forced interventionist measures stemming from government policies, also reduces healthcare access? And improving healthcare access is the stated rationale behind community rating, mental health parity, and so many other generally regarded healthcare access enhancing measures!
It just does NOT make sense!
Improving healthcare insurance coverage does NOT automatically improve healthcare access. It certainly is not helping to improve healthcare choice. And it most certainly does NOT do any of this because the major issue at hand does not get direct treatment: COST, underlying cost to actual medical care.
Seriously, healthcare access[supply of medical services to meet demand]as well ashealthcare choice[medical services and health outcome quality and individual satisfaction]is on a fundamental level inseparable from healthcare prices.
And healthcare prices do not reduce themselves when input costs to actual delivery of medical care are avoided in favor of simply making a whole lot of coverage promises.
And for that matter, even with forced measures to actually address the underlying input costs, when such is simply mandated by force of law as it were, nothing truly improves.
The underlying reasoning for high medical prices, as with what is previously discussed, also cannot be addressed simply through force from a party far and away removed from the actual medical care practice and practitioner as seller and the patient/customer as buyer.
It comes down to paper future promises versus definite services and healthcare choice concerning the same. Which will you have it? It is one or the other.
Let me ask yet again–which is it that you want in regards to healthcare choice: better looking paper promises or definite services? Decide.
If it is the latter then for starters, check out thiswell produced podcast in addition to perusing our posts on this website, in particular those hyperlinked within this post.
Do you have real gumption? Would you like to secure a good crash course on this stuff? Then considerpurchasing this book. I highly recommend it.
Oh, and if you are still ready for more paper promises, false promises really, then I leave you with the video below.
Are YOU ready to stop being fooled? Are YOU done being used?
Are YOU done being a blockhead? 🙂
WASHINGTON — Obamacare expanded health insurance to millions of Americans. But what good is insurance if there are no doctors available to treat them?
This month, I found out, first hand. I saw a woman falling through the cracks of the new health-care system, and I tried to help her.
The woman — let’s call her Isabella — is a naturalized U.S. citizen and housekeeper for a friend of mine. A few weeks ago, Isabella began having what seemed to be debilitating panic attacks. She was unable to work. She stopped eating. She would frequently burst into tears. She said she thought things would be easier if she were dead. She called at all hours asking for advice. During previous episodes, she had gone to the emergency room or paid doctors out of pocket who gave her prescriptions with no counseling for medicines such as Xanax that provided temporary relief at best. She badly needed mental-health treatment — and there was none available.
Obamacare provides mental-health “parity,” meaning mental health is covered as well as any other condition — in theory, an important advance. But in practice, parity was meaningless for Isabella. She is enrolled in one of the CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield plans from the Obamacare exchange, but when my friend and I searched for psychiatrists within 30 miles of Washington that take her plan, the CareFirst website returned none.
My name is Matthew. I am founder of and manage Sovereign Liberty Solutions.
I am a proponent of free, voluntary association and expression. I understand that there is no single exception or excuse to violate this with the initiation of force, fraud, and coercion.
I welcome a genuine dialogue & seek information, news, analysis, and, of course, solutions, whether it be on the individual level or a more voluntary association [group] or even "national" one.