What I wonder tho, is what IF legislators and their staffs were to look at the question from the other direction – the part you so wisely explained had to be left on the table? I mean cost containment – or some nice word that could be invented to make this item more palatable?

Studies show that our health care costs twice as much as that of 11 top industrialized countries (forgive me for not providing references or links, since it’s not my field and I’m pressed for time).
I don’t think anyone would maintain that the cost difference is due to insurance company profits.
The study I read seemed to indicate that our US population actually is sicker – that is we have almost double the rate of cancer, as well as heart disease and other chronic illnesses.
Do you think this can be so, and if even partially true, wouldn’t that be an issue for investigation?

Then there’s the issue of cost transparency and how difficult that is to achieve. I know you understand but I can’t resist providing a glaring example: two colleagues recently had colonoscopies – the one at Good Samaritan cost $600, the one at Stanford cost $5200.
I was told that the doctor looking at the film at GS spends 5 min. while the one at Stanford spends 15, but does time = quality? And even if it did, is that differential reasonable?

It’s true that the gentleman who went to Palo Alto is on Medicare with a Plan F supplement from United American an A+ company out of Texas known in select circles for paying the excess that doctors and facilities are not supposed to charge (but if they do, nothing happens).

The guy who went to GS is 62 with a Blue Cross (oh, excuse me they’re ANTHEM!) Lumenos plan and maybe they were the only ones accepting Anthem’s payout. btw. I’m informed that 100% of Silicon Valley employees with a $1500 deductible HSA or HIA plan from Blue Cross/Anthem maxed out their deductible so the Health Incentive/Preventive/Wellness measures didn’t work and now in April, at Focal Renewal time, theres going to be hell to pay – average 32% premium increase.

Maybe if the guys at Google who work on algorithms could consult with the government and academia to have a look at the numbers (and the codes while they’re at it), we could at least have an idea of where we stand, where things might go, instead of being at the mercy of questionable actuarial beancounters employed by insurance execs who are geared up to avoid any change that’s more than “frou frou” – Consumer Directed Health Care – rah rah! – and that nonsense.

If a person with your estimable analytical abilities might have any thoughts to share with me, I’d be most grateful. And please excuse me if in dashing this off, I’m not making good sense, or making errors of any sort, but I was really excited by what you wrote and it provoked this response.

thanks,

bett martinez well-being@pacbell.net