Open Thread (11/2/2009)

Monday, November 2, 2009.

Today is the last day to file nominating petitions for the February 2, 2010 Primary Election.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Oil Man's picture

I am a little tired of hearing the politicians ramble on about reforming health insurance while ignoring health care.  No one seems to be addressing the underlying cost structure or inefficiencies in the system. 

Costs are out of control so step one should be to get employers out of the business of providing health care for their employees.  Employers really know nothing of health care and were forced into this position over sixty years ago.  Give employees the money instead of the benefit so the consumer can make the decision on coverage.  Yes, health insurance has to be madatory for everyone.  Those who cannot afford it will get a voucher just like Medicaid and shop for the best deal given their circumstances.  This keeps the insurance industry going.  Yes, they will have to change sales focus to individuals instead of companies.  They are already doing it for auto and property insurance so it should be easy. 

Inefficiencies abound in the medical industry.  How about embracing technology? Dah!  I am still amazed I can use my ATM card in Turkey, Japan and Argentina and maintain my privacy but I cannot electronicly get my medical information from Carle Clinic to Memorial Hospital both in Illinois.    How come the financial industry can do this and has been doing it for decades but the medical industry hangs on to paper, xrays & charts with signatures with a DEATH GRIP?

So tell your political representatives to quit focusing on heath insurance as that industry knows what to do.  Instead tell them to put their effort into fixing health care costs.

IlliniPundit's picture

I've updated the site for Daylight Savings. Please excuse any wonkiness.

Costs are out of control so step one should be to get employers out of the business of providing health care for their employees.

That would be great if every employee then got a raise for the amount of money that their coverage cost, but is that at all realistic?  Fact is, premiums are cheaper for large groups, think of it as buying in bulk.  Every man and woman for themselves buying insurance?  Scary thought there as I guarantee businesses with corporate HR specialists know 10x more about insurance than most of the employees that work for them.  Not to mention all the unions that would come out in droves about this major reduction in compensation. 

Oil Man's picture

Yes, it is realistic for every employee to get a raise for the amount of the money their health care coverage costs since there is no economic impact to the employer nor the unions.

It is cheaper for large groups and the insurace company only if the people within the group have identical medical coverage.  And it would also be cheaper for large groups and the insurance company if all the people had identical life, car and home coverage.  But with life, care and home we have different insurance needs.  We are different people with different health care needs so why do we settle for identical medical coverage through an employer who's interest is provide the lowest cost coverage?

The reason HR specialists know more about health insurance than most employees is because the employee, receiver of the benefit has no choice therefore no need.  HR specialists evaluate health insurance based upon cost to the company. 

Yes, it is realistic for every employee to get a raise for the amount of the money their health care coverage costs since there is no economic impact to the employer nor the unions.

Given that we hear that a lot of employers have dropped health care coverage, can you identify a few larger employers who have done what you suggest (dropped coverage and given a raise equal to the cost of the health insurance)?  Call me skeptical but I'm thinking the most likely action is to drop the coverage and give no offsetting raise.

We are different people with different health care needs so why do we settle for identical medical coverage through an employer who's interest is provide the lowest cost coverage?

Yes, some choice is good.  Not all employers offer only one plan.  In particular my employer (former employer actually since I'm retired) if offering a choice of four different plans.

Then there is the issue of pre-existing conditions.  I can't say how all employers handle this but from what I've heard there is at most a waiting period at the beginning of employment for those with pre-existing conditions.  If employers were to drop coverage there are many (myself included) who would likely have great difficulty finding private insurance.

 

A very interesting NYtimes article today by my colleague Mitchell Moss on the leasebacks, transit financing, and economic crisis--how banks take advantage of the financial market crash to exploit the transit industry.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/opinion/02moss.html  
Mitchell L. Moss is a professor of urban policy and planning at New York University’s Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. He is also a consultant to energy companies.
Pattsi Petrie

Oil Man's picture

Employers have dropped health care based on costs just like start up businesses do not offer it based upon costs.  They keep health care just like any other incentive, like vacation, holidays, bonuses, health clubs, child care, sick leave etc., above wages if it is cost effective.  Employers have also dropped 401k matching amounts, bonuses, etc., in addition to heath care. 

If you have or had a large employer like the government, you could get different plans but the majority of people work for companies who offer one plan or none at all.  Remember most employment is not with large employers.  Small businesses employ the most people.

Pre-existing conditions go away if everyone has coverage. 

We really need to concentrate more on better health care than better health insurance.

Pre-existing conditions go away if everyone has coverage.

... only if it is mandated by law that no one can be denied or priced out of coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

I have to say though that while we disagree with respect to employer provided insurance, I do agree with the need for electronic records.

Local Voter's picture

The politicians have formed their battle lines regarding heath insurance, namely private verses private/public.  There is a majority on both sides of the isle who favor mandatory health insurance coverage.  They are just arguing about who will provide it to the American people.  It is really a non-arguement since both public and private service providers rank almost equal at getting the job done.  It is really wasted effort better spent on improving the quality of health care for Americans. 

As a small business owner, I would gladly get out of the health care coverage business and turn it over to our employees.  I have confidence they would review it like they do any part of their budget expenditures and chose the policy which meets their needs.  They can have all the money the business spends on their coverage as it is neither a plus or minus on the business since its a cost deduction either way.  This allows them chose health insurance just like they do for all their other insurance needs.  I currently am responsible for picking their health care provider, guess at their needs at the lowest price to me.  Very ineffective with no upside for either me or the employee or the insurance industry.  The politicians have a chance to change this but will they---let's hope.

Trouble is, if the government option comes available, my employer says he will not provide insurance at all., and why should he? Like my doctor at Carle says..." Once you put the free sign up, look out."