Posts Tagged ‘Health Insurance’

Lack of Economics In Health Care Debate

Thursday, May 21st, 2009

Another journalist talking about health insurance without a basic grasp of economics.

How truly annoying.  S/He bashes the Republican Patients Choice proposals because it “only” provides a tax credit  of $5,700 For Families  ($2,300 For Individuals)…for the record, that ain’t a deduction sweethearts — that is a CREDIT, works same for everyone, unlike current tax deduction schemes which are unfair.

His reasoning for bashing the plan is that it “The total 2009 medical cost for a typical American family of four is $16,771″.

OK, so should the Republicans going to give a tax credit of $16,771 for every family?  Where the heck are they going to get the money for that?  Maybe by taxing every family $16,771?

Note to universal health care advocates:  The Money Has to Come From Somewhere.   Universal Coverage is not FREE!

The point of the Republican plan is not to give people a free ride, but to offer a helping hand.  I’m not ga-ga about it, but lets be fair in our criticism, shall we?

High Deductible Health Insurance is a Good Thing

Thursday, May 21st, 2009

I believe in  deductibles.  I don’t believe that general doctors visits, teeth cleanings, general wellness care should be covered by “insurance”.  I don’t even believe that most medical tests should be immediately covered by insurance.

Paying for your own health care costs is a good thing,  it makes you think.  There is over $700 billion spent on unnecessary medical tests every year.  Beyond cost these tests can lead to a great deal of pain and suffering on the part of the patient.  (Here’s a newsflash, not everyone over 50 should get a colonoscopy, for people with certain conditions the risk of perforation is simply too high).

I know a lot of people don’t want to second guess their doctors, but you really, really, really should.  They are human, they don’t know everything — and in many traditional health care scenarios they make more money when they advocate more testing (also, they may get sued if they don’t advocate the test…but that is a subject for another day).

ABC News Paints Insurance Industry as EEEVIIILLLL

Wednesday, May 6th, 2009

I’m not saying they’re innocent, but I don’t think they’re any worse than your average politician.

Notice the title of this article “Health Insurers Try to Scuttle Obama Plan“.

They could have chosen “Health Insurers Offer to End Pre-existing Condition Clauses”, “Health Insureres Offer to Abide by New Government Regulations”,  “Health Insurers Offer to Compromise to Bring Affordable Coverage to All”.

But no.  Someone at ABC has determined that a nationalized plan is the way to go.

More Medicare?

Tuesday, May 5th, 2009

Allowing Buy In For Americans Under 65.

It looks like it will be expensive AND increase Medicare’s woes.

The one bit of hopefull news:

Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, said that the industry opposed a Medicare buy-in and that there were better ways to help people: The industry has promised to stop rejecting applicants with medical problems and to stop basing rates on health conditions - if a comprehensive health overhaul required everyone to buy insurance.

This might actually keep people OFF Medicare to begin with and help us solve Medicare/Medicaid’s coming crisis.

I wrote a letter to the Nation on our “Health Care System from Hell”

Saturday, May 2nd, 2009

On health care I agree…we have a System From Hell.

In previous letters I’ve read about the nightmare that is Medicaid — I don’t want the same people who engineered the Medicaid system running my health care.

Why not adopt something like the Swiss have?

1.  Require everyone to buy some sort of private health insurance, but subsidize those who can’t afford it on their own.
BENEFITS:
-  Separates insurance status from employment status.
-  Forces everyone to take responsibility for choosing their own benefits (although I think minimums should be established at federal level, see below).
-  Allows everyone to see how much their health care really costs.  Right now I don’t think some people realize their place of employment may be doling out $12,000 a year in benefits.  If EVERYONE, not just the self insured, realized how much health care really costs I think there would be more political will power to force cost saving measures like letting Physician Assistants/Nurse Practitioners/Midwives/etc. handle more general care.  (Another great cost saving measure nixed by the Bush administration is allowing more centers of specialization, i.e., clinics that only do heart surgeries.  These were found under independent review to be 1) safer 2) less expensive, but they competed too much with existing hospitals which have more $ and better lobbyists).

2.  Set a federal minimum level of care (this could easily be modeled on the policies provided to government workers or union members).  Allow these “minimum standard” policies to be sold EVERYWHERE.
BENEFITS:
-  Many states have very arduous coverage rules that drive up costs for everyone.  For instance, here in Illinois maternity coverage covers 3 shots at invitro fertilization.  This drives up costs for everyone who wants maternity.  Invitro should be optional coverage…but any woman who needs maternity coverage should receive it at reasonable cost.
-  This could allow economies of scale for insurance companies.

3.  Require that premiums be based on amount of deductible and demographic — not on health status.
BENEFITS…self explanatory.

4.  Make it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage or make exclusions to coverage based on health status.
BENEFITS…self explanatory.

5.  Possibly end the tax-free status of insurance.
BENEFITS:
-  Again, might give energy to cost cutting reforms.
-  Might actually wind up creating universal coverage that is revenue neutral.
-  It would be fair.  Right now wealthy individuals are getting an effective tax deduction at the federal level as high as 35% (even higher under Obama’s tax code).

6.  Possibly phase out the for-profit model of health insurance companies(?)  Have health insurance companies beholden to shareholders and to patients and you know who will lose out.  Forcing a publicly traded company to go private is impossible…but perhaps if there was public interest in such a company it could develop.  And if it a minimum standard of care could apply to every state–this would make it much easier for such a company to gain ground.

I’ve read that Massachusets is financially underwater because it implemented rules similar to the ones above…but listening to accounts of the Massachusets plan in action I’d say that they charge too LITTLE to some of their residents.  For instance, an artist profiled on NPR making $10,000 a year wound up paying only $4 for her cancer treatment.  Call me heartless and cold, but a *childless* woman can afford to pay more than that, even when she makes only $10,000 a year.  And quite frankly, I know too many artists who work part-time/full-time on top of painting/photography/writing etc who aren’t asking the rest of the world to subsidize their passion.  Unless you’re mentally or physically handicapped or caring for multiple dependents you can do a payment plan.

I’ve written a lot about getting insured if you’re unemployed or self employed like my husband and I, and have pre-existing conditions.  It is possible now, but expensive, and at times unfair (I have laughable maternity and am currently trying to save $16,000 to have a baby).  Still, its better than nothing — at least we hope.

Finally, everyone interested in this topic should read “Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine Is Making Us Sicker and Poorer” …it is simply one of the best books out there on “rationing” and real health — and it is wonderfully NON-partisan.

UPDATE:  They accepted my letter AND gave it a starred review!  http://www.thenation.com/bletters/20090427/michelman

It was in response to this article:  A System From Hell

A System from Hell Yes, But…

Saturday, May 2nd, 2009

Kate Michelman should not be on the edge of bankruptcy.  She cashed out her emergency savings and her 401K when her unisured daughter was in an accident at 23 years old, then her husband became ill a few years later.

She should have went onto Medicaid.  Of course, Medicaid is a nightmare of beurocratic red tape…which is why I like a system like the Swiss have that uses private companies, but has strict government guidelines to ensure they don’t dump or reject the sick.

Why Republicans Should Back Universal Health Care - From the Atlantic

Saturday, May 2nd, 2009

From the article:

“The time for universal health insurance coverage has come. Everybody seems to know that — except for the Republicans, all too many of whom cling to traditional denunciations of universal coverage as socialism.”

Sigh.   Most Republican politicians acknowledge that there is a problem with Health Care in this Country.  They just don’t agree that Universal Health Care ala Canada or Great Britain is the way to solve it.  Neither do I frankly.

But there are other systems we could try.  I think the Massachusetts experiment is interesting, although I believe it undercharges many people for care — and is hence in a fiscal bind.

I DON’T think we should have a government provided plan primarily because I think it will become subject to political accounting whims, like Fannie and Freddie were.  Officials will be encouraged to cook the books and hand out ever more generous benefits.

Hard choices need to be made in health care, I would like consumers to be able to make those choices.  I think government should establish a bare minimum, but the rest should lie on our shoulders.

Full article here.

In Defense of Rationing Health Insurance

Friday, May 1st, 2009

“Rationing” is a bad word (although it is done, even in the U.S. by insurers and the government–just often not effectively.)

This book talks about why sometimes that may not be a bad idea–at least not for the *patients*.  Did you know that in places where there are MORE specialists death rates are higher?  Now you do.  There is lots more in this book:  Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine Is Making Us Sicker and Poorer

When its better not to offer your employees health insurance…

Friday, May 1st, 2009

….when its cheaper for them to get it privately, even if they have a pre-existing condition.

Sometimes its better not to offer employees health insurance.  (You can still offer them money for health expenses TAX FREE through a Health Reimbursement Arrangement).

Why health insurance through a small employer can be bad…

Small businesses in Illinois (and maybe your state too) get audited every year by their health insurance agency.  If someone on the company plan gets sick, the health insurance agency is allowed to raise the cost of premiums for everyone on the plan…by a lot.

However, individual policy holders do not face the same audit.  Insurance agencies are only allowed to increase their rates by the same amount for all people covered by the plan, regardless of health.

That means a small business could see their health insurance go up 50% — while an individual policy holder only sees their rates go up 5%.

Depending on your state laws, it might be better to have your employees get insurance through HIPAA or from private companies.  You can wind up saving your employees and your business a lot of money.

Note:  these laws change all the time…it maybe that Illinois businesses do not face this yearly audit anymore, although thats not what I’m hearing…

Another article about self employment and health insurance blows it…

Friday, May 1st, 2009

Another article on self employment kind of blows it on describing health insurance options.  In the article there is a trucker who is unable to get health insurance through COBRA so he goes uninsured.

Look, if you aren’t elligible for COBRA you are still elligible for HIPAA Section 15, or possibly a high risk pool in your state.

…and incidentally, in Illinois HIPAA coverage is actually cheaper than COBRA.

Read more about health insurance for the small business, free agents and the unemployed