Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, August 19, 2009
Politics What He Said
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Hell, I can’t, for the life of me, figure out what value the insurance companies add at all. Seems like all they do is skim money off the top, add layers of paperwork, and then screw people when they get a serious illness.
Via Atrios.
1
The value of insurance is to spread costs evenly across the entire pool so that no individual faces the risk of huge costs due to some catastrophic event (e.g., cancer).
Federally run insurance would be far superior because a) it creates a larger and thus more stable pool, b) management won't put the interests of shareholders ahead of clients, and c) no one is skimming off the top as John points out.
I'm all for private enterprise, but insurance is one of those things that government IS better suited to do.
Federally run insurance would be far superior because a) it creates a larger and thus more stable pool, b) management won't put the interests of shareholders ahead of clients, and c) no one is skimming off the top as John points out.
I'm all for private enterprise, but insurance is one of those things that government IS better suited to do.
2
@1 is correct. the point is that a mandatory pool that covers healthy young people by definition will have lower costs and economies of scale. but if you do a national clearing house with single payer national health care, you can fix even more.
5
New York Rep. Anthony Weiner has been saying this stuff for quite some time now.
http://weiner.house.gov/tv.aspx?p=107
http://weiner.house.gov/tv.aspx?p=107
8
I agree with that statement completely. I think insurance companies have a real evil streak. They collect high premiums from poor people and then blow their profits on shit like season tickets for visiting dignitaries (I've seen it happen) instead of trying to old down unnecessary costs thereby - maybe - lowering premiums. I know....dream on.
But the second a public official even suggests there's something evil about insurance companies, he/she would lose the support of insurance company employees, its stock holders, their families, and on and on. It's kind of like being against unnecessary defense programs that keep millions employed even though what they do is of questionable worth. The only benefit: their paychecks help drive the local economies.
It's why health care reform is so scary to some. It's in a way disassembling and restructuring a significant portion of the American economy. It needs to be done, but some are afraid they're going to get hurt in this effort to get better.
But the second a public official even suggests there's something evil about insurance companies, he/she would lose the support of insurance company employees, its stock holders, their families, and on and on. It's kind of like being against unnecessary defense programs that keep millions employed even though what they do is of questionable worth. The only benefit: their paychecks help drive the local economies.
It's why health care reform is so scary to some. It's in a way disassembling and restructuring a significant portion of the American economy. It needs to be done, but some are afraid they're going to get hurt in this effort to get better.
9
#1 is spot on. The larger and more diverse the pool, the less the cost to individuals. Add on an agency that no longer has a profit motive, and premium costs should fall. It's a whole lot cheaper to employ bureaucrats than private-industry people.
What I would like to see out of this is an easier to understand benefits structure. I just had to go to the ER for a sprained back the other day, and I'm quite concerned about how much that is going to cost me (we just changed insurance, I know under my old insurance it would have been $50, but I can't make heads or tails out of the language in my current insurer's benefits schedule, and I have a freaking Master's degree!). I'm, of course, most terrified that they won't consider debilitating back spasms at 10 PM an emergency worthy of immediate treatment (awwww, you can't breathe? Suck it up until morning, and then try to find a doctor under our plan who can see you immediately!). Rationing care, indeed.
What I would like to see out of this is an easier to understand benefits structure. I just had to go to the ER for a sprained back the other day, and I'm quite concerned about how much that is going to cost me (we just changed insurance, I know under my old insurance it would have been $50, but I can't make heads or tails out of the language in my current insurer's benefits schedule, and I have a freaking Master's degree!). I'm, of course, most terrified that they won't consider debilitating back spasms at 10 PM an emergency worthy of immediate treatment (awwww, you can't breathe? Suck it up until morning, and then try to find a doctor under our plan who can see you immediately!). Rationing care, indeed.
10
@6 - Iceland's bank.
Well, that was the deal. And then they failed.
What a long strange trip it's been.
Well, that was the deal. And then they failed.
What a long strange trip it's been.
11
No shit, Sherlock.
All the more reason to reward the Democratic politicians who have stood up for the public option.
60 members of the House made it clear they won't vote for a bill without a public option.
Between today and yesterday alone, FireDogLake and partners raised nearly $150,000 for progressive members of Congress who agree to draw a line in the sand over a public plan:
http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009…
You, too, can offer carrots to these progressive politicians at ACT Blue:
http://www.actblue.com/page/theytookthep…
It's time we beat the damn insurance companies at their own shell game.
All the more reason to reward the Democratic politicians who have stood up for the public option.
60 members of the House made it clear they won't vote for a bill without a public option.
Between today and yesterday alone, FireDogLake and partners raised nearly $150,000 for progressive members of Congress who agree to draw a line in the sand over a public plan:
http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009…
You, too, can offer carrots to these progressive politicians at ACT Blue:
http://www.actblue.com/page/theytookthep…
It's time we beat the damn insurance companies at their own shell game.
12
Well, I know when I go to my GP it only costs $10. And when I had elective (but necessary) surgery recently, it cost me about $150 instead of around $2,000. And my partner's meds cost us $65-$95 a month instead of $1100 - $1600. Our premiums are around $350 a month. So for us, group insurance (through his company) is a good deal. We still support a public option, though.
13
12, it's not so much that everyone's insurance is bad, just that MANY people's insurance is bad. A public option should force the typical insurance company to spend more on care and less on overhead and profits by directly competing with the private market for business. Also, it will allow those who currently can't afford insurance access to the system. What you're not considering in your analysis of the cost is the employer's contribution. Most employers pay somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3 of their employee's premiums, so your $350 becomes $700-1050 a month. So, for someone who's employer doesn't offer insurance, or who is unlucky enough to be unemployed, THEY would be paying all or most of that premium. Would you still find your insurance affordable if it were over $1000 a month, plus your co-pays and deductibles? Chances are, you wouldn't save ANYTHING at that level. It's even worse for generally healthy (mostly young) people. MY portion (1/3) of my premiums are HUNDREDS of dollars a year more than what I actually spend on healthcare. Sure, that's the way the system should work (young, healthy people spend less than what they pay, and sicker people spend more, and everyone comes out even in the wash), but if you strip away huge salaries and bonuses, voluminous paperwork, and massive profits, everyone could pay less and STILL have the system be solvent.
14
Private insurance companies don't contribute to this nation's overall health
in most instances they reduce it. When we're all contributing to the same pot then we will collectively see to it that we have the best care for all of us. Instead of lining the pockets of some fat cats at our lives expense.
in most instances they reduce it. When we're all contributing to the same pot then we will collectively see to it that we have the best care for all of us. Instead of lining the pockets of some fat cats at our lives expense.
15
Um, they pay every dime your health care bills so you don't have to come up with the money yourself?
17
Gomez at 15:
you're a temp whore / part time grocery store checker.
I don't really think you understand how this insurance/benefits thing works considering you've probably never them in your life.
"Um, they pay every dime your health care bills (sic) so you don't have to"
you're a temp whore / part time grocery store checker.
I don't really think you understand how this insurance/benefits thing works considering you've probably never them in your life.
"Um, they pay every dime your health care bills (sic) so you don't have to"
18
and once again, we privatize profits while we socialize losses.
pay the insurance companies until you become more likely to use the healthcare system, then you are at the age where you onto Medicare. insurance takes their profits while you have no bills and then we pick up your final decade or two or three of increasing care.
insurance companies don't like to be demonized. like the emperor and his new clothes - once the cat is out of the bad, they'll be seen for what they are.
pay the insurance companies until you become more likely to use the healthcare system, then you are at the age where you onto Medicare. insurance takes their profits while you have no bills and then we pick up your final decade or two or three of increasing care.
insurance companies don't like to be demonized. like the emperor and his new clothes - once the cat is out of the bad, they'll be seen for what they are.
19
Seems like the general idea, yeah.
Not to mention the inherent effect on labor market flexibility that comes along with having health insurance so tied to a particular job. :( No good.
Not to mention the inherent effect on labor market flexibility that comes along with having health insurance so tied to a particular job. :( No good.
20
But it's just not fair! The staid, boring bureaucrats running a public option plan won't be flying around in LearJets while eating with gold-plated cutlery! (Actual jet/cutlery story, recently divulged, among with many other things, by a health ins. co. PR flack who has changed teams.)
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/16/fo…
It's just not fair to have a public option until the folks who run public option are granted the same obscene executive pay!
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/16/fo…
It's just not fair to have a public option until the folks who run public option are granted the same obscene executive pay!
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (20) RSS