I’m Confused…

To anyone that knows me this is not a startling statement for me to make since most conversations that become multi-subject tend to warp my brain cells and I generally get a glazed look and my brain just freezes up on me.

It’s no biggee and I usually can ask a few questions and I can get myself back on track and even sound somewhat intelligent given enough time.

So what is the issue now?

National Healthcare and what I am hearing that is a perception of some people that support this type of coverage. What I am hearing and what I have researched confuses me only in that I am not sure that those supporting this type of coverage really have a grasp on what is entailed in working through the system.

Let’s face it, the current healthcare system has flaws and some major areas of inefficiencies that when looked at screams for attention from someone (and if the federal government is that someone, then so be it). I’m a big boy and although I hate “Big Brother” looking over my shoulder on almost any issue I will give the other side the benefit of the doubt that they might be able to assist some in this area.

But let’s get back to the matter. There appears to be a misconception on the part of some supporters of National Healthcare that just about anything that needs to be done for them medically will be done for them. From the research on England and Canada I am not sure that is a realistic outlook. Now, I am not saying that the U.S. version will be the same as their systems but I would have to believe that there will be some similarities.

Ok, so what?

What I have seen with the two models mentioned above is that both models have a national review board, if you will, that analyzes medical procedures, medications, tests, etc., and makes decisions as to their incorporation into the health plan system or not. I reserve judgment on whether this is a good system or not but from what I have read it can make life miserable for patients sometimes.

A case in point, England recently changes its approach to pain medication for chronic back pain patients by suggesting that they go through a holistic health regimen instead of pharmaceutical route. Now, this seems to me to be really a bad idea.

Chronic pain patients need certain medications to function and to take them off for some other type of therapy does not seem fair or compassionate. Having worked with a doctor who treated chronic pain patients and seeing them first hand in great pain; I side with making sure they receive the necessary medication to allow them some quality of life.

But the main thrust of my argument here is that these systems have a board, if you will, that looks at and makes decisions on what is paid for and what is not and what patient gets the procedure or medication and which patient does not. This is a scary proposition for me because if I have a loved one that needs something and cannot get it through the “board” then I either pay for it or my loved one suffers the consequences.

To be honest, I have not researched the appellate part of the two systems mentioned above but if a single payer insurance company makes you jump through hoops what will on national board do to us.

In closing what I have found in the two plans I have referenced is this; that patients many times are denied medical procedures even life threatening ones because of age or physical condition. Some might call this social euthanasia and although not proven there have been many news articles of people chaining themselves to a gurney until they are seen and other desperate acts.

I guess it will be easier to hate one “BIG” healthcare provider than our own individual carriers, if we have one. At least then we won’t have any other companies to compare our medical care against and that is a frightening thought indeed.

Am I confused again or would this not be a good thing for us?