To the Editor:

Re “Does Anybody Actually Love Personal Insurance coverage?,” by Rachel Madley (Op-Ed, Sept. 18):

Each time I hear TV pundits discussing how Individuals is not going to need to surrender their personal insurance coverage, I need to scream. I’d fortunately surrender my insurance coverage in favor of a Medicare plan.

Nearly yearly my employer adjustments our plan due to rising prices, and every plan will increase the premium, the deductible, the co-pays or all three. After I belonged to a union, at each contract negotiation we needed to struggle administration over our insurance coverage and infrequently surrender different advantages so as to maintain a good plan. Having a Medicare plan would have spared us an excessive amount of time, vitality and stress.

My finest pal from faculty was identified with Sort 1 diabetes as a youngster. After sizing up her choices, after commencement she moved to Norway, the place she had household, so as to participate in its socialized system, due to the difficulties that Ms. Madley describes.

This technique is inhumane. It wants to alter.

Donna Nicolino

To the Editor:

I empathize with the writer’s excessive frustration with the life-threatening delays and denials of personal insurance coverage and its maddening paperwork. I, too, marvel why so many are wedded to it. Medicare, nonetheless, isn’t any panacea.

I’ve had the identical issues with delays and denials and know others for whom it has induced life-threatening conditions. Furthermore, speaking with the federal government is a minimum of as troublesome as speaking with personal insurance coverage. One can think about how a lot worse it is perhaps when tens of millions are instantly added to the Medicare rolls.

Essentially the most logical answer could be to supply a public choice in order that Medicare has time to develop steadily. If it proves to be higher than personal insurance coverage, then it is going to naturally develop into Medicare for All. There may be additionally the chance that it’ll pressure personal insurance coverage firms to enhance their methods, which in flip ought to immediate Medicare to up its sport as nicely.

Ann Summer time
Princeton, N.J.

To the Editor:

I am an internist and mom of a 25-year-old identified with Sort 1 diabetes at age 5, and Rachel Madley’s Op-Ed hit house for me. My household has “glorious” personal insurance coverage. But, over the twenty years since my son’s analysis, my husband and I (and now my son himself) have spent numerous hours filling out infinite kinds, arguing with our insurer’s pharmacy advantages managers, watching the worth of insulin climb, and worrying about what occurs when my employer-based personal insurance coverage not covers my son.

I do know that the physicians and nurses who’ve cared for my son have additionally spent hours filling out kinds and arguing with insurance-related entities on his behalf. As a doctor, I’ve equally irritating interactions with my sufferers’ insurers. Every insurer has its personal set of byzantine kinds, guidelines and processes to navigate.

I’d gladly relinquish my “glorious” personal insurance coverage for a public insurance coverage plan that coated mandatory, evidence-based take care of all Individuals. I wager lots of my sufferers would, too.

Christine Laine
The author is editor in chief of the Annals of Inner Drugs and senior vp of the American Faculty of Physicians.

To the Editor:

In the 1990s I used to be head of a nonprofit group with about 300 staff. We offered them with personal insurance coverage protection. Each few years we modified insurers. If, in October, an worker was advised, “Subsequent yr, your insurance coverage protection will change from Aetna to United Healthcare,” the response may need been a shrug or a light grumble, or, extra probably, a query: “Will the protection be pretty much as good or higher?”

The response wouldn’t have been, “Oh, no! I love Aetna.” The staff appreciated the insurance coverage however didn’t love the insurer. If something, they only hoped {that a} new insurer may present higher advantages with much less problem.

Had the brand new insurer been Medicare, it’s unlikely that worker response would have been any totally different. However sooner or later, the workers would little doubt have been saying what I, as a senior citizen, now say: “I love Medicare.”

Kenneth Ford
Gwynedd, Pa.

To the Editor:

Doctor, Regulate Your self,” by Sandeep Jauhar (Op-Ed, Sept. 12), is an outdated fantasy that physicians have the facility to alter a system that has develop into corrupted by the medical-industrial complicated.

We would haven’t any want for prior authorizations for M.R.I.s and specialty medication if value had been the identical as in Western Europe. If America had solely adopted the unique V.A. digital file as a free system to all hospitals and physicians 20 years in the past, we might not be held hostage by personal digital well being file firms.

Company greed promotes expensive interventions, price-gouges medicines for continual sickness and fuels the arms race of superior medical units whereas most Individuals subsist on sponsored junk meals.

Let’s begin by regulating company greed.

Marcus T. Higi
The author practices household medication.

To the Editor:

I agree with Dr. Sandeep Jauhar that docs have ceded loads of the regulation of our occupation to nonphysicians, to everybody’s detriment. However clearly it is extremely sophisticated.

I blame a lot of the overuse of know-how on two issues. First, the rise of the medical malpractice trade, which threatens to make any financial savings from restricted testing moot. The penalties from one lawsuit alleging “delay in analysis” usually exceed the price financial savings.

Second, I blame the group of sufferers, of which we’re all half. Everyone knows what is offered, and folks need the checks completed, usually regardless of our efforts to clarify why testing may not be mandatory or cost-effective.

I’d reasonably see a system that correctly assesses the validity of malpractice instances introduced, which are sometimes a “medical lottery” for sufferers and attorneys. As well as, we want a system that helps physicians who don’t order pointless checks.

Quite, we maintain getting extra doctor regulation, however all of the regulators on the market aren’t defending us. So how can we comply?

Laurie R. Goldstein
New York
The author is a retired obstetrician-gynecologist.

Supply hyperlink