Sixty-one dollars per sneeze

This week’s health-care buzzword — we’re going to have them on a regular basis until the entire system drops to its artificial knees, or a week from Thursday, whichever comes first — is “fee for health,” as distinguished from “fee for service.” It doesn’t sound too distinguished to the Crimson Reach, though:

Quick doctors/hospitals, who wants to get to administer time-consuming experimental or at least palliative care to this incurably-diseased patient on a ‘fee for health’ basis? Don’t all raise your hands at once.

And besides:

[W]hat would ‘fee for health’ even mean? Someone appears to have forgotten that actual healthy people mostly aren’t even seeing a doctor, for anything, in the first place. That’s part of the definition of ‘healthy’. Isn’t it?

Then again, some of us old codgers have the preposterous notion that health care ought to have something to do with health. The Discordable Care Act destroyed that idea forever.


  1. McGehee »

    28 February 2013 · 7:12 am

    Health care is indeed a service, for which one is required to pay — not a right, as some have been prone to claim. Oddly, I’ve been seeing that claim a lot less lately.

  2. fillyjonk »

    28 February 2013 · 8:38 am

    “Fee for health” sounds a bit like a protection racket: “Nice little blood sugar you’ve got there. It would be a SHAME if something were to….happen… it.”

RSS feed for comments on this post