Integrity, Profit, Bonuses, Honesty and Free Market Insurance
Although I have a good time ridiculing insurance companies for the explanations they have given me, this will be a slightly more positive. There is a good reason for the explanations, but for some reason they have not learned how to honestly address the complexity concerning their profit and coverage.
There is a problem today with populist rhetoric that causes a knee-jerk reaction in Washington to insure re-election rather than an intelligent conversation to resolve problems. Each side of an issue rushes to get a "tricky" saying out to the press about the other side and the reporters are more than happy to run with it. Conflict makes for better television and there are so many hours to fill.
Generally, I do not like getting into purely political issues; if you prefer one-sided opinions, there are many other places to get that information on the Internet. However, to be fair to those reading, I should explain my basic beliefs on Free Markets, Government controls and profit motives. In most situations, it is more beneficial to everyone for private competition to determine pricing and availability than government intervention. But, that works only if there is true competition and the ability for each of us to buy a product or service elsewhere. Government's role is to allow for a free enterprise system to work with a foundation of legality and protection.
If someone designs something that everyone wants, he should be able to charge whatever the market supports. If the price is too high, someone else will design it better and cheaper. Eventually, this causes prices to drop and everyone is happy (i.e., HDTV).
Profits and bonuses are not a bad thing. But, as we have learned in the last year, without integrity and honesty in dealings, a few have destroyed the trust we had in some companies. If done openly, honestly and competitively the potential of a large bonus is an excellent incentive for those who have earned it by performing. The problems arise when those who may have not contributed to a business receive large amounts of money for leaving a crisis for others to handle.
Now to Medical Insurance: Why is it that it takes just a threat of Government entering into their business to consider eliminating Pre-Existing conditions? (See previous post) The reason is that the industry has not been free-market or competitive for years, except for large group policies. The bonuses in the past have been primarily due to savings made by denying claims and coverage. Plus, many large companies have very deep levels of management in every state that have gotten used to those bonuses. Not necessarily bad, but the methods are questionable. That is not the main reason for the costs of health care and this is what they should have explained a long time ago.
To be fair, here is the real issue. Unless, most people are covered and paying for insurance, those getting insurance are those who are older and sicker than the younger population and are attempting to buy individual policies. Also, the higher the average age of those working in a company with group coverage are going to pay more because there will normally be more illnesses.
Eventually, the invincible younger people will age and become more concerned about coverage. Is it fair to allow them to "roll the dice" and not have insurance until they are 40 or 50 and then demand inexpensive insurance? Is medical insurance a right....is so, at what cost.? How much more are you willing to pay? Should it be based on income? I am only asking. These are questions that beg a very serious meeting of the minds. Unfortunately, in the current economic situation, those that want to discuss this are not heard by the constant yelling by each side. Today, if someone feels that you are wrong, you get threats; I remember when we used to be able to discuss some things without anger, but I must be getting old.
There are real people hurting and having their lives destroyed while we take sides. It is time for change, but it will take some intelligent compromise. As much as I believe that the private sector should be able to handle this, if the government just threatening to get involved forces insurance companies to look at their past policies, I am all for it.
As the great philosopher Mick Jagger said, "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes.....you get what you need."
TVP
Posted by The Virtual Patient at 3/25/2009 9:46 PM 
Categories: Insurance,Private Policies,Universal Healthcare,Politics
Tags: Politics uninsured universal health coverage cost Private Policies underinsured pre-existing health care
Categories: Insurance,Private Policies,Universal Healthcare,Politics
Tags: Politics uninsured universal health coverage cost Private Policies underinsured pre-existing health care
I totally agree. I have experienced the shortfalls of the private insurance structure and i don't see the problems getting resolved by raising taxes. There is a serious lacking in the moral and ethical aspect of providing heath care in the industry. But, like you said, if the willingness of the government to scrap out the current system persists, they might be able to wake up the private sector and make some fundamental changes in health care insurance so if i choose to invest in health care, i know that i will not be denied.
Reply to this