There is no Public 'Option'
I used to have health insurance. When I stated my business, I became a group in league with the local Chamber of Commerce. Me and my wife would be insured for ~$450/month. The boy would cost $8.
The following year, my rate went up to $550. Next year to $650. That's when I said 'no more'. You see, I was clearly being screwed. Nothing drives the cost of my health up by 20% in a year. But more frustrating is the real basic what-you-get and what-you-really cost thing.
My wife and I are very healthy. We eat well, we exercise, don't smoke, don't usually drink to excess. Sure, she goes for the annual OB/GYN, but I've been to the doctor's office once in the past five years. But what's crazy, I mean bat-shit insane, is the young one. At the time, he was at the practice every few weeks. For $8/month. In my area, a recent development boom brought lots of new bedrooms and babies, so there were hundreds of these little $8 guys sucking up all the health for peanuts. Are phony low rates being subsidized by exorbitant adult rates?
Why does it cost what it costs to insure people? Because it's a business interested in profit, and it doesn't make what it sells. Basically, this is retail, but they don't buy the product. They just sell it. Meanwhile they pile up money and expenses. Administrative assistants, garage attendants, junket budgets,. The health economy is really screwed up, if only because nobody has calculated what it costs to insure a healthy family.
I want a government-run health insurance company with fixed salaries, nobody gets a second secretary, and no bonuses will be given out. It will force the real companies to react, because in the first month of this project we would all be crazy to stay with the crap we have.
Instead of a silly 'office of consumer protection', we might be better off with an office of Consumer Attention. Pay attention, you! And stop getting screwed! As in other cases, the economy would have sorted this out a long time ago were it not for the huge money, many enablers, and our general confusion as customers.
So once again, if the Republican 'deny it, do nothing and go find money' policy toward public health was going to work, it would have worked. Open a new Insurance company, FHIC, drive a lot of companies out of business, or force them to correct themselves. I don't believe people will ever not want to become doctors, but I can't imagine anyone ever wanting to be an insurer. Just take some of those top salaries out of the math, and we're golden.
The following year, my rate went up to $550. Next year to $650. That's when I said 'no more'. You see, I was clearly being screwed. Nothing drives the cost of my health up by 20% in a year. But more frustrating is the real basic what-you-get and what-you-really cost thing.
My wife and I are very healthy. We eat well, we exercise, don't smoke, don't usually drink to excess. Sure, she goes for the annual OB/GYN, but I've been to the doctor's office once in the past five years. But what's crazy, I mean bat-shit insane, is the young one. At the time, he was at the practice every few weeks. For $8/month. In my area, a recent development boom brought lots of new bedrooms and babies, so there were hundreds of these little $8 guys sucking up all the health for peanuts. Are phony low rates being subsidized by exorbitant adult rates?
Why does it cost what it costs to insure people? Because it's a business interested in profit, and it doesn't make what it sells. Basically, this is retail, but they don't buy the product. They just sell it. Meanwhile they pile up money and expenses. Administrative assistants, garage attendants, junket budgets,. The health economy is really screwed up, if only because nobody has calculated what it costs to insure a healthy family.
I want a government-run health insurance company with fixed salaries, nobody gets a second secretary, and no bonuses will be given out. It will force the real companies to react, because in the first month of this project we would all be crazy to stay with the crap we have.
Instead of a silly 'office of consumer protection', we might be better off with an office of Consumer Attention. Pay attention, you! And stop getting screwed! As in other cases, the economy would have sorted this out a long time ago were it not for the huge money, many enablers, and our general confusion as customers.
So once again, if the Republican 'deny it, do nothing and go find money' policy toward public health was going to work, it would have worked. Open a new Insurance company, FHIC, drive a lot of companies out of business, or force them to correct themselves. I don't believe people will ever not want to become doctors, but I can't imagine anyone ever wanting to be an insurer. Just take some of those top salaries out of the math, and we're golden.
Advertisement
The insurers are 'betting on the come'. Thats a term in poker for those who may not know.
The kids are future payees. The insurers have a precise knowledge of their illness and mortality rates and know those rates are very low in the U.S. and with only a minor investment they assure that those kids will be around someday to fork over the big bucks. The insurers also know the cost of covering the kids will be well received by parents and perhaps interpreted by parents as the insurers being empathetic to parents and their children.
This is manipulative in every way. It is based upon statististical probability which is applied to a marketing strategy devised to enhance profitability.
June 22, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love the "Office of Consumer Attention" idea. Where can I sign a petition?
June 22, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You said it, and you said it well! The only way it will ever work is to mandate that everyone has coverage (ok, actually the only way it will ever work is with single-payer with everyone included); but I will address the complaint that some have against a mandate:
If we agree that pre-existing conditions should not be excluded, then why in the world would any healthy 20 year-old bother? Just go an pay out of pocket for a Pap Smear (Max $300, which if it is INSTEAD of paying a few hundred every month, looks like a bargain). Then, if the Pap is positive, or if you start feeling sick, or you're having pain in the right lower quadrant (apendicitis), you just crank up the internet and sign up so that your malady is covered.
The problem? The problem is that it is cheating to only pay once you have a problem. The only way it works is if we all (blindly) pay - healthy or sick, young or old, and if we all do it cooperatively, we take care of all of us.
Remember this: Good Health is a temporary situation, and we all need to invest in the good health of our country. To those who call it socialism, I say: "We are competing and losing to socialist states, and we taught them all about capitalism."
How can a company here that has to take care of its employee's health care compete with a country in, say...Canada, England, France, Vietnam, China, Guatemala, or even Iraq -- when NOT ONE COMPANY IN THOSE COUNTRIES HAS TO PAY THOSE COSTS?
Of course for me it isn't just dollars; it is the right thing to do. Our country cannot be a major power if our public health is delivered at the local CVS. How insulting to all of our citizens that we really don't even have a public health infrastructure in place. Look out for the swine flu!
June 22, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do we have to mandate that everyone has coverage? What about the 21-year old recent college graduate who doesn't think they need coverage?
June 22, 2009 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the same reason that a person who has no children pays taxes to educate other people's children; for the same reason that a person who doesn't travel all over the state pays state taxes to get highways maintained; for the same reason a person who is a pacifist continues to pay taxes to our federal government; for the same reason a person pays through their taxes to fund the local rescue squad and fire departments (and don't get a refund if their house doesn't burn down); it's called the COMMON GOOD.
It is the only system that will make health care a viable option. As I said elsewhere, good health is a temporary condition, and one that is unpredictable, and so if the only people who pay in advance for health care are those who already know they need resources, it is obvious to anyone at all that it is unsustainable.
Just as it benefits society to have a citizenry that can read and do math, and also can reach beyond the basics; it also benefits our society to mingle with others who are healthy, and well-taken care of. If the wealthy shop at a grocery store staffed by people who have communicable diseases, it is the link between those who "deserve" health care being exposed to those who "don't" according to the current republican talking points. If a pandemic hits, we need a public health system in place. We can't depend on people lining up in grocery stores for flu shots.
Bottom line: THE COMMON GOOD. It is a concept that I think you disagree with, but I believe in it. If any percent of the population is denied basic health care, it puts us all at risk.
Are you one of those who fears the "Europeanization" of our country? If so, what about Europe do you fear? Is it their comprehensive and affordable public transportation system? Their universal health care, even though their outcomes are better than ours? Or is it just a phrase: "socialism!" ie, a "talking point" to appeal to your wedge-issue voting block, that continue to screw themselves every time they vote for the likes of McCain/Palin/Cheney/Bush?
OK, MCB, I have answered your questions honestly and specifically without any of the things you often accuse me of. Do you have a response?
June 22, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am still waiting for an answer to my other question from Sunday -
Hey, congrats, MCB! Your blog has gotten more than 250 responses! Good for you! Please don't respond that I am such a creep that you can't accept a compliment from me. It takes a provocative blog to get this much traffic -- I made some disparaging comments, but anyway, congrats.
Posted by CVille Dem
June 21, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
user-pic
Cville - what's it going to take for you to stop making personal mudslinging attacks? Why not just disagree with the points without insulting people's intelligence?
June 23, 2009 6:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I meant what I said when I complimented you on writing a blog that garnered so many comments. There was no "mudslinging!" Do you know what mudslinging is?
The burden of that 2x4 on your shoulder seems to skew your interpretation of what you read. I don't know what is the matter with you, but I won't waste time responding to you any more.
PS: Again, this was one more honest response, and no mudslinging or name-calling, or any of the other things you accuse me of.
June 23, 2009 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did take that as a compliment. But I am assuming that it was just a one-off compliment and that you would continue to throw out personal insults rather than just debate the issues. That was why I asked the question.
I only "accuse" you of mudslinging because it's true.
June 23, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, one last thing; rather than deal with the important points in my response, you ignore them and whine about something that I wrote (which was in no way insulting or "mudslinging," as you label it. When you are on the wrong side of an argument that is what you do.
You asked ME a question about young healthy people, and why they should be mandated to have insurance. I answered you, and this is what I got back:
Why did you do that? Why didn't you respond to the answer I took some time to write to your very reasonable question? Because you can't answer it?
June 23, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was just waiting for an answer to my question from Sunday before I answered your question from last night. Yes I know what "mudslinging" is and I consider comments like "waste of real estate" and "HCPM" to be exactly that.
In response to your question - I don't use terms like "Europeanization" because that means different things to different people. But I don't think that the European or Canadian models are significantly better than ours. If those models were so much better then we wouldn't have so many foreigners travelling to the US every year for medical procedures. We also wouldn't see private sector health care growing in Canada if the public option was so great.
Do I oppose a government option? No. Do I oppose a government takeover of the entire healthcare system? Absolutely. Do I want everyone to have an affordable healthcare option? Sure. Should we force everyone to be covered for the "national good"? Sure
I do think we need to fix the system but I am skeptical that having the government run it for everybody is the best option. I think we could reduce costs significantly and overhaul the current system without putting the government in charge to run it.
I don't consider my views to be much different from the NYTimes poll results over the weekend. I am part of the 72% that would support that would be in favor of the government offering everyone an option (but as long as it's not the ONLY option). But I am also part of the 77% that are either very or somewhat satisfied with the current quality of the care I get today. I'm also part of the 68% that are concerned that a public option will restrict access to treatment. I am part of the 53% that are worried about being forced to switch doctors. And I am NOT part of the 28% who feel that Obama's plan will improve the economy.
I hope that gives you some perspective on my view.
June 23, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, as long as we have a country, we should sorta act like we'd tolerate each others' survival.
June 23, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is not in the quality of health care in this country, but the cost of it. Specifically the cost is influenced by (1) lawsuits (2) regulations (3) supply and demand. Force med schools to increase enrollment and license foreign doctors quicker, to increase the supply of doctors. Limit lawsuits against drugs that were properly (not fraudulently) FDA approved. This will remove some of the insurance premium factored into costs. Reduce the multi year process to develop drugs. Extend the patent time of drugs so costs can be recouped over a longer timeframe. Take away bad doctors licenses, instead of awarding huge monetary settlements( which just drive up everyones cost).
AND HERE IS WHERE I AGREE WITH YOU: Mandate everyone have medical coverage, at least for catastrophic events( and I add STOP providing free treatment for those who refuse). We do it for car insurance. I have friends who could pay for insurance, but choose not to, they rely on the public medicaid and free treatment at ER's. They work off book (artist/musicians) and pay no taxes and qualify for free coverage. They are abusing the system. As long as treatment is provided for free, people will not pay voluntarily for insurance, as least if they think they don't really need it right now.
June 23, 2009 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit. Make them finish the drug. Sue them. We've handed the drug industry almost every molecule and pathway they've gotten. Funded with tax dollars through NIH, NCI.
They have plenty of salaried lawyers now. It doesn't cost them more to defend themselves, especially if
they don't market harmful or contraindicated drugs.
If my son gets the wrong hand cut off, I'm going after every human in that operating theater, to the exclusion of all else, until the boy is made whole or the offender is destroyed.
Same with drugs.
June 23, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, the first person to actually have logic and reasoning skills to reply to me!
June 23, 2009 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I grudgingly accede to your mandate.
June 23, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Because it's a business interested in profit, and it doesn't make what it sells. Basically, this is retail, but they don't buy the product. They just sell it. Meanwhile they pile up money and expenses. Administrative assistants, garage attendants, junket budgets,."
How could any of us put it more succinctly. ha
I hereby render unto you the Dayly Line of the Day Award for this here TPMCafe Site, given to all of you from all of me.
June 22, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
In case anyone drops in . . .
I posted the following earlier today here in my Cafe blog. I figure it won't hurt to repost it in this thread just on the chance that any "mythmakers" drop in to attempt to upset the apple cart with a bunch of side-tracking spin and spew.
~OGD~
June 22, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really fine OGD. I mean really fine. Sorry I missed it.
But I have not missed it now.
Yes, ever single goddamnable point made by the economic oligarchy must be met head on. (blesses himself)
Really I mean did these Democrats really write this?
Maybe there is a god after all.
June 22, 2009 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
what continues to amaze me is people actually believe the congress represents them .
they dont.
they are totally corrupt and represent the people who have money, so influence.
all the same arguments wont change that.
so seems to me we need to start there.
yes there are still a few left with integrity but not enough to make a difference.
but what of all the people that by into the hate talk radio shills?
how do you reach them?
i have no confidence you can and its getting worse.
so even if obama really does represent the people (and i cant tell if he does) on the issues, when 90% of dems are also corrupt there is no chance no make any change that matters.
June 23, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
My excuse for crappy typing and bad outline is my 102 degree fever.
June 23, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink