Cliff Assness ... I beg to differ. I'm an insurance broker and can tell you that personally I spend $6,840 a year on a plan that I use ONCE a year for an annual checkup. If I actually get sick, then I have to satisfy a $2,000 deductible before I get anything covered. Oh, and did I mention that I'm up for renewal again in October?????? Renewals for the groups of 1 (self employed) segment are running about 18% (unless you have an age change, in which case you might get a 50% increase over the prior year). That is just a waste of money. One of my clients got his renewal from BCBS. He just turned 50 and his premium went up to over $1,047.49 per month from about $700 (FOR ONE PERSON, NO DEPENDENTS). This is for group insurance. Did I mention that he is uninsurable in the individual health insurance market? Yes, he has a pre-existing condition. Way to much money is going to insurance companies (and big pharma) and they're all busy trying to find ways to "ration" your access by offering these high deductible plans ($5,000 and up with stop losses at $10,000-$20,000 for families PER CALENDAR YEAR - in addition to paying annual premiums). Don't even try getting ill with these policies. You will be toast (unless you're Cliff Assness, of course - I'm sure that's just chump change for him and if so, he shouldn't mind ponying up a few bucks for a public option, right?!). We need to take the "profit" out of health care (I'll be out of business, but that's the plain truth of the matter). Five years ago a rep from United Healthcare told me the "game plan" is that your health insurance would work like your car insurance (that is you never get to use it and you will be financially penalized if you do use it). So, in essence, with our health insurance plans, we're paying (through the nose) for something that we are greatly discouraged from ever using and the premiums just keep on going up and up and up. At least my car insurance is $1,400 a YEAR. And my deductible is $250. So, the answer to a public option is clear. If you look at what is good for SOCIETY in general, there is no other answer. The rest (of the rhetoric) is just different people jangling their coin boxes and trying to make people think it's the truth. As a case in point, my daughter moved to Vancouver. She works for a Canadian company, has universal healthcare and the company has an additional insurance plan that picks up the cost of whatever isn't covered by the Canadian system. Might I add that the additional coverage is very inexpensive and paid for by her employer? Meanwhile, because Canadian companies don't have this huge health care burden they can actually afford to employ people (and pay them decent salaries BTW). Ask yourself what is good for America, as a society, as a country. It's time to change the dialogue. Oh, and let's stop with the nonsense buggaboo of "socialism". Enough of beating that tired 'ole tin pan jangle. The "health insurance business" in the U.S. is a broken model that is completely rapacious, inefficient, wastes enormous amounts of time, energy and resources that could be better allocated to more productive segments of society, with a better outcome for society in general. At this point of energy depletion, just think if I spent ONE OR TWO YEARS of premiums in installing a solar system on my house (and every single one of my neighbors does too) how much energy (and money) we would save (and the jobs that would be created), not to speak of the incalculable return on investment for the environment (hence ourselves, since we do live on Planet Earth). The list of what needs to be done is endless, and so is the wasteful spending that enriches the few to the detriment of most of the people in this country. And BTW, I also believe in small government and would consider myself to be more of a libertarian bent, than not. But when the private market so egregiously and greedily tips the scales of what is right and just, it may be time for government to rein them back in or give them a very pointed wake up call through a public option - let the consumers decide (that, of course, is what they are afraid of). After all, it's all about competition, right? The insurance companies current practices are resulting in grossly inflated profits and salaries for a few, while the rest of America is a hostage to their draining health insurance premiums and rationing of care. After all, if you can't afford a) the premiums, b) the copays, c) the annual deductibles and d) the maximum annual out-of-pocket costs, what on earth are you getting for your money, anyway? Have we forgotten what the role of insurance is? It's to make sure you never have to absorb unaffordable health expenses (now we just pay upfront through enormously expensive premiums, regardless of whether we use the plan). Maybe it's time to reexamine the myth that the private sector always is more efficient. The only thing the private sector does is pursue profit, at the expense of anything (and everyone) else. Jeez, the United Healthcare CEO made a BILLION dollars in one year and his company posted a hugely profitable year (while he was cutting salaries at his company, firing people and introducing those handy-dandy new HIGH DEDUCTIBLE plans and paying for PR to convince the gullible American public that it was a great idea). That was about 5 years ago. And that's just fine in most cases as long as companies recognize their social responsibilities, as well. (At least that's the way it used to be, anyway - but since there is so little REAL competition in this country because we have allowed the giants to strangle it - a Company's social conscience is considered quaint these days - used to be they'd be outta business for the schenannigans we've been seeing over the past 10-15 years in healthcare, big pharma, big agribusiness, banking, utilities, etc. - now, what can the public do - there's a handful of competitors to chose from and pricing, products, etc. are very similar - but that's the plan, right?). A country's health should not be negotiable under those terms (as if the only important thing to consider was an insurance company's profits) because the public cost of an uninsured, unhealthy population far outweighs the small segment of the private sector that benefits to the detriment of all other sectors of society (including all the non-health related companies). And finally, in case nobody's noticed, the funny money train has crashed. Now it's time to get lean and mean. Let's start with meaningful health reform that does away with these out of control health insurance premiums and rationing of care under our private sector health insurance. There ain't no mo' money. The sooner we do (do it right though, not with all these backroom deals - the only "deal" should be what benefits society the most, even if it means losing jobs (including my own BTW), the better off we'll be (or at least that is the hope).
And In ConclusionAt this point you might accuse me of offering only complaints about the Administration's plans, without constructive suggestions of my own. There is truth to that. But I make no apologies. If people believe crazy things it’s first and foremost important to change that before progress can be made. But also, I think we're doing okay enough without radical changes, certainly not hastily panicked changes towards socialism, and also because I lack the expertise to recommend the detailed practical steps that would be productive (in contrast it requires no expertise to see that the myths above are indeed lunacy).
I do understand people are frustrated at many aspects of the current system, and it is tempting to tear it all down and build something that looks shiny and new and perfect in the advertisement. Many of the complaints concern the complexity of getting insurance, treatment and reimbursement. I blame this mostly on excessive regulation, a complex employment-based insurance system strongly encouraged by tax law, and litigation for the benefit of trial lawyers rather than patients or anyone else. We do not need a single payer (socialized medicine) system to cut confusion and inefficiency. On the contrary we need unfettered competition and clear legal standards. Another major concern is provision of basic healthcare to the needy. This is an important issue, but not an expensive one in the scheme of things, and not one that should drive the trillion-dollar healthcare debate. You do not reorganize the entire housing industry and tax policy around the need for homeless shelters, you just build enough shelters and let the market take care of, and discipline, the people who can pay for their own housing. Finally there is the concern that healthcare costs make US workers too expensive to compete in global markets. As long as workers get full value for their healthcare dollars, it shouldn't matter whether companies pay in cash or in health benefits. The competitiveness issue is an important one, but healthcare costs versus wages versus taxes to pay for public health care is a minor detail in it. The main thing is not how it’s divided up but total costs, and total value received by the worker. Costs are minimized, and value received maximized, by open competition. I recognize these are general prescriptions rather than specific healthcare reform proposals, but you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows (are non-Leftists allowed to quote Dylan?).
No comments:
Post a Comment