CommenTerry

Stossel is Wrong This Time

More often than not, I find myself agreeing with ABC News reporter and columnist John Stossel. He's a libertarian and I hold mainly libertarian views. But I think he was way off base about a point he made in a recent column he wrote about health insurance.

Now, I agree with much of what he says about the waste and abuse that is encouraged by the nature of health insurance in general. Many of the lesser expensive items it covers, like doctor visits, vaccinations, diagnostic screenings, and some generic drugs, would make more sense to be paid for out of a health savings account. Coverage of these items drives insurance prices up and hides the real costs of health care.

I also agree with him that the government shouldn't force employers to provide health insurance for their employees. Additionally, I agree with his general view that government should not be tampering with health insurance at all. It should be completely left to the free market, just like other goods and services.

However, with all of that being said, I strongly disagree with his assertion in the same article that having the cash to purchase health insurance on one's own (individual insurance) is much more preferable to having an employer spend it on one's behalf for group health insurance, which he suggests is a "bad idea." Granted, for those like Mr. Stossel, who have had a life free of health problems, this might be true. But for most of the rest of us, nothing could be further from the truth.

Though I resent the fact that this is largely due to government meddling, the way things stand now, we cannot generally get economical protection from the costs of expensive prescriptions and hospitalizations outside of group health insurance. That's just a sad fact of life, whether Mr. Stossel chooses to acknowledge it or not. Frankly, if offered an extra $500 a month in lieu of group insurance coverage by my employer, I would decline it in favor of the status quo.

For the average person who can qualify for it (generally a fulltime employee who is fortunate enough to work for a company that offers it), group health insurance is hands-down the best. To those who maintain their eligibility status, it offers five major advantages over individual health insurance policies:

1) They cannot be excluded or forced to buy a "special" policy because of pre-existing conditions or a history of poor health.

2) They generally pay cheaper premiums - even when their employer contributes little or nothing toward the cost.

3) They can't be singled out for cancellations of their policies, due to health problems.

4) They can't be singled out for rate increases.

5) They often get much higher annual and lifetime maximums than they would get with corresponding individual policies. This offers them greater protection in case of catastrophic illnesses or injuries.

Now, those who would still argue that individual health policies are better for the average person, even under present conditions, need to answer the following questions:

Why is it that it is extremely rare for someone to decline group health coverage that they are eligible for in favor of purchasing an individual policy on their own?

I know many people who have postponed their early retirement plans, not because they need the money, but so that they can maintain their eligibility for group health insurance. If individual health insurance policies were so much better, why would this ever be the case?

Why is it fairly common for people to turn down contractor positions offering higher pay with no health insurance coverage in favor of lower paying jobs that do include group health insurance coverage? If you are right, then why would this ever happen at all? 

Test Everyone for HIV? Wrong Answer!

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is now recommending that all patients between 13 and 64 be tested for HIV, as a part of routine medical screenings. The rationale here is the fact that early detection (especially before coming down with AIDS) is the key to the most successful treatment combined with the fact that a large portion of those who are infected with HIV don't know they have it.

However, this testing should still be limited to those who are at risk. I see no need to waste time and money testing people who do not practice unsafe sex, are not IV-drug users, and have not received blood transfusions or accidental body fluid transfers from others. Those who are at risk know who they are and should be honest and responsible enough to get tested regularly. Parents of children and teens who might be at risk should be responsible for getting them tested. Besides, testing people who are not at risk entails a completely new risk in and of itself. That's the risk of false positive results which would be very frightening as well as stigmatizing for no good reason.

It's a shame that medical authorities such as the CDC have bought into modern political correctness. This is the kind of political correctness that is quite evident in those preachy, so-called public service announcements which warn that HIV/AIDS is everyone's problem. In one way, they are right. We are all subject to the possible need for a blood transfusion or accidental transfer of body fluid with someone who is HIV-positive at some time in our life. In addition, children are often born with HIV, obviously through no fault of their own. However, what these announcements never point out is the fact that a return to some good old fashioned morality would greatly reduce the risk of HIV for everyone. This is not a matter of being judgmental; it's a matter of being practical. People weren't meant to live like animals or inject certain drugs into their bodies. When they do, the natural consequences follow. But don't hold your breath while waiting to hear that from any government agency. 

I Don't Mind "Wasting" Money on My Health

People often accuse me and other "health nuts" of wasting our money on vitamins and supplements. A guy I once worked with used to say that the only "benefit" we got from that stuff was "expensive urine." Well, maybe so. Much of it is unproven. However, which would be the worst mistake? Spending the money on those items, only to discover that they were of no benefit or not using them and discovering too late that you missed out on their benefits, such as better health and a longer life? I'll take my chances on the former. After all, it's only money.

Doc, Can You Write a Little Faster?

It never ceases to amaze me how some people seem to maintain such a casual attitude toward their health and treat it with such a lack of importance or urgency. For example, a blood relative of mine, who rarely visits the doctor, was sent to one by the company he works for to get an annual physical exam. As a part of this physical, his blood pressure was taken and it registered at 205/110, a very dangerous level. As a result, he was admonished to see his primary care physician for appropriate treatment for his hypertension as soon as possible.

After making an appointment, he went to see his doctor about a week later. Not surprisingly, his doctor wrote him a prescription for some blood pressure medication. However, instead of getting it filled immediately, he is still holding onto it after almost two weeks. He claims that he just hasn't had time to get it filled yet.

This seems totally insane to me. How could someone be so foolish? It's like knowing you have a ticking time bomb your briefcase, but refusing to put it down and walk away from it because you "don't have time."

If it had been me, I would have seen my doctor immediately, as a walk-in without an appointment. Then I would have urged him to write the prescription as fast as he could write it. After that, I would have run, not walked, to my car and driven well above the speed to limit to my pharmacy, where I would have bombarded the pharmacist with the repetitive interrogative, "Is it ready yet?" Once the bottle of pills was put in my hands, I would have swallowed the first pill before leaving the pharmacy and without the requirement for water!

Why Do They Let Themselves Get That Way?

I can understand why morbidly obese people don’t seem to get much sympathy from everyone else. Most people are probably like me. Assuming they didn’t have some kind of medical problem beyond their control, they know they would hit the panic button and do something long before they got anywhere near 100% above their ideal weight.

What Are You Afraid Of?

We're all afraid of something. What kinds of things are you afraid of? Have you ever taken the time to make a list of the things that scare you the most? Here are the 10 things I’m the most afraid of (with number one being my primary fear). How do they compare with your list?

1. A life-threatening and/or incapacitating illness or injury.

2. Getting into some kind of trouble with the law.

3. Financial problems.

4. Getting lost or having my car break down in a strange place.

5. Being caught in the middle of a personal conflict, i.e., one person demanding that I do one thing and another person demanding that I do just the opposite.

6. Driving in traffic through large metropolitan areas like the DC beltway.

7. Creepy creatures such as spiders and snakes.

8. Speaking (or just having to stand) in front of a large crowd.

9. Being embarrassed and humiliated by failures, mistakes, and gaffs.

10. Social functions where alcohol is served.

Anger Is Usually Unjustified

If we’re completely honest with ourselves, we’ll come to see that most of our anger is completely unjustified. When we start to become angry about something, we need to ask ourselves the following question: Is the thing we’re about to get angry about going to matter to us at a given point to the not-too-distant future, i.e., a year, a month, or even a week from now? In most cases, the answer will be “no.”

Defend Against Germs - Don't Avoid Them

Although I consider myself a health nut, I see no benefit in being a "germaphobe", i.e., one who is always trying to avoid every little germ to keep from getting sick. Germs happen - it is futile to try to avoid them. Instead, I believe the answer is to build up one's immune system - through the use of good nutrition and vitamins - to fight off germs and diseases.

Always Take Time to Laugh

Some people are just too reverent to laugh. They think they are being "spiritual" and pleasing God by being so reverent, but He does not want this. It is a proven medical fact that laughter is good for one's physical health. One who never laughs is jeopardizing his or her health. Something that is a negative for the body couldn't possibly be a positive for the spirit.

Trust the Real Professionals

I'm getting a bit irked by all the negativism about flu shots being propagated by amateur doctors and nurses who think they are somehow smarter than the real ones. I've never had more than a minor reaction to the flu shot. In addition, I've never gotten the flu in a year which I had the flu shot. The consensus of the medical professional has me in the majority.

While I'm on that subject, there never seems to be any shortage of "know mores", as I call them, who think they know more about medicine than those who went to medical school, more about law than those who went to law school, and more about any subject or discipline than those who have had years of experience in those areas. They also seem to have access to information that no one else seems to know about. We should all aspire to be as smart as they!