another quick hit on a busy day...

[lagilman]

rachaelcaine opens the floor to a discussion of health care, which I strongly suggest you go over and take a look at. There's a lot of fear being raised by the new insurance proposals, and most of the OMG it will be TERRIBLE for US! seems to stem directly from ads paid for by... the insurance companies. Wow. Who'd a think it?


For me -- What She Said. I'm self-employed, healthy, with a surprisingly good plan (thanks to living in a state that recognizes freelancers are a viable voting bloc) and I'm still paying through the nose for very basic coverage. I've been told to "get a real job" if it's a problem, but beyond the WTF insult that was to those of us who consider what we do "a real job" to begin with, how many jobs are out there, and of them, how many are offering benefits? More and more consulting, which keeps insurance off the table.

The for-profit insurance model is broken. Waiting around another 60+ years to talk about fixing it is Not Acceptable. The new plan may not be the perfect solution, but not doing anything is far worse -- unless of course you already earn over 100,000 and/or are a Congresscritter with a Federal health care plan....

Comments

[barbhendee.livejournal.com]

You are correct on all counts.

Barb sends a *golf clap.*

You would not believe what J.C. and I are paying for private health insurance here in Oregon.

[fakefrenchie.livejournal.com]

But it's socialist/communist to want everyone to be insured. It's just me that has be insured. Not everybody else. And I might not be able to get the last chance to save my life if they give insurance to everyone. Sheesh! I hear this all the time from my folks' friends. Obama is trying to do something good and even the Democrats are balking. It's enough to make me consider drastic action. Like moving to France. Oh wait. I already did that! Ouf! Thank the Gods.

[lagilman]

well, interestingly enough,a friend of mine who was born and raise din Canada and is now a Canadian citizen, prefers the American system. So I guess it's all in your definition of "wait" and "crap."


The basic problem is, the system evolved int a profit center, which means that the goal is take in premiums and don't pay out costs. Good for insurance companies but not really serving the idea of "health care." If there were a way to find a happy medium, where profits are made, but limited to a certain percentage -- shareholders make money, insurance companies make money, insured aren't bankrupted at either end of their health care. But that would require a corporation to accept a limited profit role, which ain't gonna happen in this corporate culture*. Enter the government.



*not only would I love to be proven wrong on this, I would invest in a company that stated this as its goal. Invest, and move my insurance there, and the whole enchilada.

[mmegaera.livejournal.com]

My private health insurance is through a non-profit HMO (Group Health here in Washington state, which is hailed as a model by a lot of folks in the know, including the people doing their best to get us health care reform). The service is excellent, but my rates have gone up sixfold in the last ten years (although they're still not as bad as comparable for-profit rates). Even a non-profit isn't big enough to have the wherewithall to do something about the waste in the American health care system. Only the government is big enough for that.

[dsgood.livejournal.com]

You know the situation is bad when "I'm from the Government, and I'm here to reduce your health paperwork" is believable.

I'm a former Federal employee, and retained my health plan -- though I now have to pay the part that my employer used to pay. I belong to an HMO -- and in Minnesota, all HMOs are legally required to be nonprofit. So I'm not doing too badly.

[martianmooncrab.livejournal.com]

I used to work for a non profit health insurance provider, and got a real eye opener about the "non" in non profit, its all about the float and how they hang on to it for the interest. And how the CEO drove a company Lexus.

[lagilman]

A non-profit still has to make money to survive, unless they're government sponsored, it's just not profit-driven. There's a world of difference there.


Personally, a CEO driving a Lexus doesn't bother me [a top of the line Lexus starts at about $60,000, which is a lot of money but not at a CEO level, especially if it was as part of a comepnsation package against salary.]

If the company had been shelling out for a high-end Mercedes or a Jag (the 'cheap' XF starts at around $50k, the XJ is closer to 100k!]-- then that's a 'fkcu you, I got mine' car and would piss me off.

[martianmooncrab.livejournal.com]

they were extremely driven to keep money and not pay it out, we got all sorts of belt tightening things thrown at us (plus my job got outsourced to Utah eventually) including no raises, our company employee appreciation funds cut to zero, our company picnic cancelled because they claimed they had no money for it(for all the hard work we did), mandatory overtime on saturdays (or give them grounds to fire you) then they give the CEO a 400K bonus. It was a very high end Lexus.

When you see the premiums go up, and the amounts they pay out go down, where the company mostly owns their buildings, where they claim that costs are more than they can bear, then read that their net worth has increased, well... its not about providing health insurance anymore.

I found them to be quite the hippocrites the year I (and about 400 others total) got downsized, they sponsored the food drives and toy drives for the people who didnt have jobs or could afford a present for their kids.

[lagilman]

Sounds like they should have lost their not-for-profit status PDQ, if someone had sic'd the auditors on them.

(old social worker joke: what's the difference between not-for-profit and non-profit? A: One's intentional)

[anisosynchronic.livejournal.com]

The current system is fascist--the benefits go to the employers, with workers disincentivized to change jobs or start their own companies or be freelancers. But, there are generally few to no controls on the corporations as regards cutting loose employees or having employees get financial remuneration from what they invent while working for the employer, etc.

Then there are Medical Subscriber Accounts, which are welfare for already lucrative insurance companies--they're worse than useless for people with marginal income. Workers whose employers participate in the things pay a fixed pre-tax sum per pay period in, set prior to the start of the calendar year, and essentially are betting that the total for the year, will equal their "out of pocket" allowed reimbursable medical expenses--co-payments, uncovered dentistry bills, prescription glasses, etc. What doesn't get used, the insurance company gets to keep.... The insurance company has the use of the money until after the individual submits a claim, until the company pays the claim. It's a red herring for those with marginal incomes, because they don't have the margin in their incomes to put money into that, let alone bet that their out of pocket reimbursable medical expenses will equal or exceed what theyr'e paying into the MSA...