Wow Hank, that's a pretty sensible post from you at 6:24 yesterday, evidence that you might be a rational human being despite your RWWJ tendencies.

I don't know if Kaiser Health is like the Kaiser Permanente around here, but I hear plenty of unfavorable comments about it for denying claims. As far as I know GH doesn't deny claims because there are no claims. GH offers treatment for members, so I suppose the downside is when a patient wants a treatment that GH doesn't provide. I had that experience 5 years ago when I blew a disc in my neck. Funny how things work sometimes. GH allowed me all the PT I wanted ($15 co-pay), acupuncture ($15 co-pay), and I saw a surgeon about getting neck vertebrae fused. Surgery would have been something like a $15 co-pay as far as I know, yet they would not approve treatment by an "outside the GH system" chiropracter who has a traction-like device because GH "doesn't think it works." After talking with Aunty's husband, who told me to avoid surgery if possible and to try anything else first, I decided to pay $3,000 out of pocket for the traction. Considering that nothing was going to make me 100%, I'm satisfied with the 90% or better that I got from using the traction alternative. What's funny about GH in this case is that vertebrae fusing surgery is only about 80% successful or thereabouts, I could have had the surgery that must cost over $10,000 for my co-pay, but they wouldn't spend a dime on the traction machine.

A bit of thread drift, but I'm trying to illustrate that no model is going to be perfect. I think a useful model on a national scale would provide basic health care to all citizens, and if a person wants something that is significantly beyond basic, then they can buy additional coverage or pay out of pocket. This way everyone from the richer than 1%ers to the poorest of the poor receives a reasonable level of health care, and the rich receive an extreme level if they need or want it. Yeah, I heard about the Death Panels, which we already have in the form of insurance boards who decide to deny claims and care. Big deal, already. Meanwhile, the cost of health care can go to providing health care instead of syphoning off billions for CEO salaries, stock dividends, and the incredible insurance overhead.

All of which is made more important by your post above that providers raised prices in response to people seeking less health care in the recession. If it were truly free market driven, they would lower their prices to attract business like auto manufacturers do.

Sg