Here’s my response (for better or worse) to this comment after this post:
“That would be sad for you … I mean millions of uninsured Americans would have access healthcare, and middle class families could actually afford their bills… but if controlling the out-of-control medical industry means that your husband has to take a pay-cut, that would be a bad thing. I bet you’re glad he’s not a teacher or a police officer, that would be really hard.”
Please understand, Anon, that the point of this post is not about my husband taking a pay cut. In fact, some physicians may actually see a rise in their incomes initially under a national plan since they will get reimbursed for patients who don’t currently have insurance.
Likewise, my original post was not about ObamaCare, although I wish more Americans would really take a long, hard look at the plan and not just assume it’s the perfect solution to our healthcare “crisis” but about my being more supportive of my husband – whatever profession he chooses – and he is committed to being a doctor no matter what the future holds. (So don’t take anything out on him, okay?)
That said, I urge you to read more about the perils of socialized medicine (and Obama’s public health care plan is a form of socialized medicine) and the impact it has on everyone’s care.
I’m not suggesting changes don’t need to be made with our current system or with the health insurance industry (government, for example, should remove some of the stumbling blocks that are currently in place to discourage new health insurance companies from forming in the first place; more competition would mean better prices for all of us). I would be against a national healthcare plan whether my husband was a physician or not. But, yes, I am a little concerned about cuts in doctors’ paychecks because physicians train for years and have huge loans (we have over $200,000 in educational loans). They get paid nothing during med school (and have to pay to take tests, buy books, medical equipment like stethoscopes to care for patients) and then they make less than what most teachers make during residency.
We’re already facing a shortage in general practice physicians (as well as some specialty doctors). I can’t imagine what will happen to our pool of doctors if we move to a healthcare system where they work more for less and have decreasing control over how they practice medicine.
I personally know of at least one would-be doctor who is having second thoughts. I have a very bright, compassionate cousin who thought he wanted to go to med school, but he’s having second thoughts. Not because he’s greedy but because he’s not sure he could ask his future family to endure years of training only to be met with a job where he’s not “allowed” to make over a certain amount and more importantly, where his knowledge is trumped by Uncle Sam’s bottom line.
To illustrate further: Now short-sighted politicians want to come in and determine how much doctors should make, what tests should be given to patients, etc. A doctor, who has experience actually treating patients, might say, “I realize this test costs more money upfront, but it will result in better health care for the patient and will most likely reduce future costs.”
How does Capitol Hill respond?
“I don’t care. It’s not in my budget. If you do the test, we won’t reimburse you.”
Here’s another scenario: You get in a terrible car accident and severely injure your leg. Your doctor believes there’s a good chance at performing a successful surgery and then rehabilitating the leg so you can walk again. However, Uncle Sam, M.D., sees that amputation is much more cost-effective than months of rehab. You’re not even asked what you want. You’re just told that the leg will be removed.
I don’t know whether you’re pro-life or not, but think about how easy it will be for government to start controlling how many babies families should have. Prenatal care is expensive and if Washington is paying for it, it just might be tempting for them to say: “Two babies are enough. After that, you’re on your own.”
Or maybe genetic testing will become a requirement. Suppose during this testing they discover you and your husband are both carries of the cystic fibrosis gene (CF runs in my family). They know the medical costs associated with caring for a CF patient – who is first and foremost a human being and not some medical label – so they encourage you to abort (even though your baby only has a 1 in 4 chance of being born with CF), or they tell you they won’t foot the bill if your baby does have CF.
And we think we have trouble getting private health insurance companies to cover things. Just wait! I’m offering worst-case scenarios here, and I realize President Obama keeps insisting we can keep the healthcare plans we have if we’re happy with them. But if there’s a “free” option out there, employers are far less likely to offer health insurance as part of their benefit package.
Are you beginning to you see that the patient’s care, when it is part of a government-controlled healthcare system, is at the whim of bureaucratic budgets and suffers? Don’t think this will happen? It already does with Medicare.
Likewise, everyone keeps saying access to health care will improve, but this is a fallacy. If health care is “free,” then people who would not have immediately gone to the doctor for something routine will show up. There will long waiting lists (like in Canada).
Of course, when you’re healthy, you love socialized medicine because you don’t have to use it much, but when you’re faced with something like cancer and the healthcare system says, “I’m sorry you’ll have to wait to get chemo,” how will you feel about it? (Ask two family friends who came to the U.S. from Canada to pay out of pocket after being put on a waiting list for radiation treatment.)
As for the number of Americans who are uninsured that the media and politicians keep spouting out, it is very misleading. It includes people between jobs who will soon have health insurance again. It includes households with an income of over $50,000. It includes people between the ages of 18 and 34. In fact, this fun-loving bunch represents 40 percent of the uninsured in America; yet, they spend more than four times as much on alcohol, tobacco, entertainment and dining out as they do for out-of-pocket spending on health care. (Source: Free Market Cure)
It also includes illegal aliens. Should we be giving people who are not American citizens and do not pay any taxes free health insurance? I’m not arguing this point one way or another; I’m just pointing out that numbers often only speak half-truths.
Moreover, Obama’s public health plan is not free. The government will still take the money out of our pockets – through increased taxes. We just won’t have a choice like we do now on how much we want to spend.
People want security. I understand that (clearly by my post you responded to), but when the government is the go-to source of our security, we lose freedom, and we sacrifice quality.
Besides, we already have a form of national health insurance, and it’s not working well. Medicare and Medicaid are already deeply in the hole, and they limit the way doctors can treat patients. I’ve heard ample doctors say they are increasingly frustrated with the way the Medicare “rules” dictate how they should practice medicine. They don’t see the patients. How do politicians know what’s best for them?
Ah, but I am ranting again. I just regret that you (and, no doubt, others) missed my point. This is not about me. And for the record: I am part of a middle class family right now. My husband is in his fifth year of residency now makes just a little more than what many teachers make, and we can afford health insurance (and no, medical residents don’t get a special, reduced plan, and I’m not saying they should). We are very, very blessed, yes. However, we’ve also had to make difficult decisions to make it happen. (We just got paid television programming in the last year, for example, because we recognized that the health of our family was more of a need than watching American Idol. Not that deciding between television and other forms of entertainment and paying for health insurance should even be considered difficult.) Ultimately, we believe we are personally responsible for our health – both in how we take care of our bodies and how we choose to spend our money.
As I alluded to earlier in this rant, I do believe we need plans in place to help the poorest of the poor as well as those who are in between jobs, etc. (individual plans are way too expensive right now), but please don’t assume that doctors (and their families) who are opposed of ObamaCare are only concerned about their personal bottom line. I do have a personal, vested interest in this issue. But so should anyone who wants quality health care.
Jessica says
WELL SAID, Kate! And while I already agreed with your stance on this issue, I learned even more about it, and I feel more informed now. You are awesome!
Kris says
You're brilliant! And right on!
Kris says
And I just love how people who want to make snarky or ugly comments hide behind the name of "Anon"!
JenniferG says
Awesome! I feel the same way. Thanks for putting this into words!
I have 3 friends who have experienced this type of healthcare prior to living in the US – all very "LIBERAL" and all very, very terrified. They hated it and said that it was impossible to be treated.
Samantha says
I currently live in the middle of socialized medicare (Canada). While it is great that everyone gets care, the flip side is that everything takes a lot longer than it should. The waiting times are crazy! Not to mention that MY tax dollars goes to performing abortions. (No one pays out of pocket for it) Very sick…
Lerin says
I don't want the government meddling in my healthcare. Elected officials should NOT be telling our doctors which tests to run, and how to care for patients. That's why THEY went to medical school.
I have seen a parallel…
Look at the state of our school systems. The government decided to step in and tell teachers how and what to teach with the No Child Left Behind policies, and our schools are in the toilet.
I'm just saying…
Laura says
Wow! And thank you. My husband is in medical school right now and we have a long residency ahead of us. We also skip out on a lot of common luxuries in order to pay for our healthcare. He is military, but we have to pay for coverage through the school for our son and myself since he is not yet considered active duty until residency begins. While we have educational loans, we know we'll get them paid someday no matter what happens to physician's salaries. But it's just what you said, who wants to go through so many years and such a huge commitment to only be told how to care for patients in your trained field???? It's not about ego, it's about what is right and proper and appropriate. It's about what is in the best interest of the patient!
handmaidmama says
Well said Kate. I, too, do not support government controlled health care. We are a free country that should be free to choose our health care. Doctors should be free to be the doctor they studied so hard to be!
God Bless you Kate!
Anne from Michigan
Aussie Therese says
We have a public health system here in Australia.
I have experienced been treated as a public patient and private. There is a vast difference between the two systems and the price you pay for not having private health insurance is huge.
There are many procedures that are considered elective and you can wait months and months for.
Like Samantha we too pay for abortions with our tax dollars.
Joy says
While I don't disagree that a government plan needs to be looked at very carefully, I do want to clarify something. Insurance companies are already dictatiing what care can be provided. I'm not told what I can order but what will be paid for and most families can't afford to pay out of pocket for much, after already paying higher premimums.
As someone who spent years training and is currently paying back the loans for it, I'm not sure I want the goverment getting a say in how I provide care but I'm sure that I've had quite enough of private insurance putting profits above reimbursing their clients for care provided.
Kate Wicker @ Momopoly says
Joy, thank you so much for sharing your insight and charitable comment. Believe me, I've spent ample time on the phone with health insurance reps trying to get things covered.
However, I firmly believe it will only get worse with a national, government-controlled plan, especially if it ends up being anything like Medicaid. Yes, private health insurance plans frustrate doctors and their, too, but not as much as the government-controlled ones.
That's why I wrote: "And we think we have trouble getting private health insurance companies to cover things. Just wait!"
As I mentioned in my post, changes need to be made, but these changes should be made in a free market. For one, I don't believe health insurance s/b so tied to your employer. We should be able to "shop around" for health insurance just as we do for car insurance. We need more competition to drive prices down, not less (which is exactly what will happen if a national plan is passed). We also need to take a look at what's driving up healthcare costs like expensive malpratice insurance and people going to the ER for routine medical care.
Also, private health insurance companies do have to make some profit just as other insurance companies. If we don't believe any company should make a profit, then we're subscribing to Marxism, which has no place in America. I hate to dwell on the economics since I am morally afraid of what a national plan will lead to with respect to abortion, but it needs to be addressed.
Likewise, the government also will try to squeeze money out of you, but they'll manage their (I mean, your!) bucks even worse than private health insurance companies do. Their track record proves this. Think about Social Security, which is already slated to go bankrupt by around 2017 (Medicaid is expected go bankrupt in 2037). Clearly, government is even less fiscally responsible than most private health insurance companies.
As customers, we have a right to complain about our services and offerings. I've found it sometimes takes multiple calls and a letter to a supervisor to get certain medical tests/procedures covered.
My baby needs me now, but I just wanted to add a few more points. I wish I had more time to really outline some of the changes I feel need to be made.
Blessings,
Kate
Catholic Mommy Brain says
This is a topic I know almost nothing about. I'm always grateful to learn more. Thanks, Kate!
ViolinMama says
This is awesome, and so right on. I'm sure you can tell I'm catching up on your posts. I've been off the computer lately aside from my needs lol.
Thank you, thank you for explaining a hard topic. Right on!!! Right on!