Discussion»Questions»Politics» What does "patient centered healthcare" mean? Right wingers say it's what we ALL should want. And, we MIGHT too, if we knew what it meant.
Patient centered healthcare means healthcare decisions being made by the patients and their doctor....not the government or the corporate insurance companies. I have had private insurance and I have had gov insurance. The one interfered with my healthcare decisions was the gov insurance. My doctor would prescribe something and the gov insurance would refuse to pay... saying it was not approved/allowed fory diagnosis. Doctor more than once had to call and argue with them to get it approved.
@m2c -- I have "government insurance" (Medicaid). It has been fabulous for me.
Meanwhile, my sister and her boyfriend, who have "corporate" insurance (Southern California Kaiser) have had to do MASSIVE battles with their insurer, and the boyfriend has spent $20k out-of-pocket in the past 2 years to get treatments which Kaiser won't approve.
So, what makes your personal anecdote more relevant or informative than mine?....;-D...
I don't know. But my experiences and those of others I know personally are what I have to go by. I know if I had to pay that much out of pocket....I wouldn't be having that insurance company much longer.
Did I bash a evil stupid liberal? My state is not ran by liberals. My friends husband had the same issues with Medicaid but has not had any with Medicare...so far. But he also never had regular Medicare, he has always had Medicare Advantage which is run by private insurance companies. He has had more than one company over the years as policies can change yearly.
@m2c -- Ok, so we've established SOME people have bad experiences with government health care, while SOME people have good experiences. Similarly, SOME people have bad experiences with corporate health insurance while some people have good experiences.
Which brings me back to my original question: Which set of personal anecdotes do we believe?
Or, should we look for something more analytical and which incorporates a larger sample size?
That is where I prefer people to be able to choose their provider....so they have the option to fire a under performing company. Whether that is through something similar to Medicare Advantage or private insurance. I don't like the idea of Medicaid...there is no choice involved in choosing your insurance provider. I would prefer program something like what Medicare has. If you qualify you can take traditional Medicaid or you can pick from different policies/ins companies for a policy that better suits the Patients needs.
Personal choice, the possibility of being able to change providers makes for better service.
No not for ALL. I would support Medicare for the poor (those who would qualify for Medicaid) Either actual Medicare with the option to use Medicare Advantage or coming up with a similar program for Medicaid with the something similar... Medicaid Advantage.
@m2C -- Why do you single out poor people? Everyone who earns wages in the US pays FICA/SSi taxes. Why shouldn't EVERYONE be allowed to use Medicare/Medicaid Advantage as you envision it?
(Hint: this is coded language for "Why is your position so incoherent and hypocritical?")
Patient centered healthcare means healthcare decisions being made by the patients and their doctor....not the government or the corporate insurance companies.
@excon -- You can have all the "patient-centered health care" you want...provided you're willing to pay for it out of your own pocket.
The moment you introduce an insurer who is paying for your care (whether it is a government entity or a private company), that insurer will place limits on how much health care you can receive, just as an auto insurer will not pay you $1,000,000,000 when your '74 Pinto gets crushed in a wreck.
So, if someone is promoting "patient-centered health care" they are either explicitly saying, "If you're poor/old/sick/unlucky, F**K YOU!" or the person is spouting a meaningless pleasant-sounding buzzphrase.
Why should non-poor people have to wait until retirement to receive their Medicare/Medicaid when you're willing to allow poor people access to the program prior to retirement?
(Hint: You have no principled reason for doing so. Instead of actually THINKING ABOUT how health care should be financed/distributed, you are stuck in Presentism minutiae. This is how my 85-year-old mother with dementia tries to defend her indefensible actions)
Note: Apparently once thread replies get 9 levels deep, the system resets and puts replies at the "0" level.
I said I would support a program similar to Medicare with Advantage. Many states already merge the two for their poor elderly by paying the Medicare premium and things Medicare doesn't. I would prefer a different program specifically for Medicaid but would be ok if they choose to merge the two programs (for cost effectiveness) but both programs currently limit participation by income or age/ability and do not believe we should expand those programs. Cost effectiveness is the only reason I would be ok with the merger.
But socialism puts the gov in charge of our healthcare decisions. Instead of individuals and doctors, as I said to OS we need a system with choices where the providers can be fired if they do not do a good job....free market competition is good for consumers. Even if it is actually the government's money being competed for. As it is with Medicare Advantage and could be with a similar Medicaid system.
Re:"we need choices to find the company who will write the check. "
Please find me a company ANYWHERE you will write you a check for $200,000 if you promise to pay them $4,000/year for the next 20 years...unless you change your mind.
The fact that you make such a nonsensical statement illustrates that you haven't the slightest clue how insurance actually works.
@m2c -- I repeat my previous objection. You don't say WHY you support such things and ONLY for poor people.
You just say such things exist (or could exist) and you support (or would support) them.
In psychology, this is known as being stuck in the Concrete Operations level of thinking. X exists (and I like it or don't like it). You have yet to demonstrate the ability to do Formal Operations, the process of thinking about abstract concepts which tie concrete examples together.
Children less than about 12 years old get stuck in Concrete Operations. People like my demented 85-year-old mother get stuck in Concrete Operations. People who haven't had the benefit of a modern-style education (commonly available in rich Western countries) get stuck in Concrete Operations. People with severe ideological bents who don't want to think abstractly about their beliefs get stuck in Concrete Operations ("Trump rules! Why? Because Trump is Awesome!").
Medicare and Medicaid are not meant for the entire population. They are meant to help those in our society who need it most. Medicaid is to help the poor just as food stamps and other welfare programs.
Yes working people currently pay FICA taxes, these taxes do support Medicare..so you say why not give them Medicare now? FICA also funds SS so do you propose that we also go ahead and start distribution of their SS benefits as well? If not, why not? If so, how do propose to pay for it? Not everyone qualifies for SS and Medicare there are requirements, x amount of working years of paying into the system, x dollar amount pay into system. If these are not met then a person may still get assistance but is comes out of a different money account and is actually considered welfare. This is really not any different than allowing those who qualify for Medicaid to use the same system.
my2cents 