ere $269.49, per month, that medication can be mine.For most of us, the real value of health insurance does not become apparent until we no longer have it, or the insurance company denies us coverage. For me, it has sparked a sudden interest in the debate over healthcare currently underway in Congress.
As so often happens, the debate has already been hijacked by language. Proponents of the President's plan are discussing universal coverage, touting the benefits of a healthier, more productive population and workforce, while opponents are calling this socialized healthcare, raising the spectre of ballooning entitlements for years to come.
Of course, should I wish to, I could continue to pay for my company-sponsored healthcare over the next few months, under the COBRA program. But I think that the Rolls Royce policy my employer provides (with a minimal contribution from me) is too rich for my blood, when it is all on my dime. $682 per month is just too high a price to pay, given that the Fortune Huntress is in excellent health.
And yet. Do I really want to play Russian roulette with fate? I'm not expecting to get struck down by a dastardly disease. But a sprained ankle jumping for joy when I see Eric this Friday, or a minor concussion in my low-ceilinged basement as I pack up the last of my boxes, would send me on a routine trip to the emergency room. And I wouldn't like to think what the costs of such a trip might be if either event happened after my insurance runs out. So I will probably choose to explore a healthcare option with a ludicrous deductible through one of the insurance consolidators like E-Health Insurance.
As a nation, we spend more money on healthcare than any other country in the world. Yet we don't live longer. The World Health Organization produced a ranking of the world's healthcare systems in 2000. We came 37th, after countries such as Saudi Arabia and Columbia. France took the top spot (very galling, really, when they also guzzle lots of great wine and so much delicious cheese). And our system skews outcomes. I am belatedly reading Freakonomics, which claims that in affluent neighborhoods, doctors tend towards scheduling caesarian sections (significantly more expensive than vaginal childbirth and in some cases unnecessary), to improve their bottom line. There's something patently wrong with a system which puts profits above patients.
I have no desire to see out-of-control spending by the government on healthcare. But I don't like the status quo either. There has got to be a better way to manage the nation's health than charging $270 for a drug which in the UK would cost $12. Let's hope that Congress has the courage to find it.
Well the working population here pays $480 per month per person for a health service free at the point of access, with drugs at a very reasonable $12 per prescription. On that basis 138 million americans (working population) should be able to raise $800 billion - but as tax in US is somewhat lower than here, that might be a bit a big bite out of everyone's income. (I apologise to any economists out there who will no doubt be able to point out a number of factors I have not taken into account. That's why I work in HR......)
ReplyDelete$12 is indeed the "price paid" by (waged)beneficiaries of the National Health Service in the UK (per item, by the way, not per prescription), but it is not the "cost" of the drug, any more than is your $20 pre-pay. It is a contribution to the cost, the rest being funded by (compulsory) taxation. Private patients pay the full amount of prescription charges as well as every other medical charge.
ReplyDeleteThinking that you should be able to find decent healthcare for about half your ex-company's plan.
ReplyDeleteGet your prescriptions filled across the border and pay less than a third of the US cost. I've not worked out how much I've saved over the years, but its substantial!
ReplyDelete