Dutchess County lawmakers are going to consider establishing a committee to study options to allow county residents the opportunity to group together to purchase healthcare at a discounted group rate.
Citing a study by the Dyson Foundation and Marist College that found uninsured individuals in one of every four households throughout the Hudson Valley, the county legislature will establish a committee composed of three members of the legislature, a representative from the healthcare community, a representative from the healthcare insurance industry, as well as four residents of Dutchess County, who have experience in the healthcare, insurance, or related fields.
Legislator Marcus Molinaro of Red Hook said the rising cost of healthcare and the inability of so many to adequately access some amount of coverage demands that the county consider the plan.
“The goal here to say that there are people in our county who can’t access health coverage for one reason or another and let’s see if we can, through thoughtful conversation and dialogue find a way to provide them some option,” he said.
Basic insurance costs for individuals range anywhere from $350 and above per month, while a family plan may cost over $1,000 per month and is costly for most residents.
Minority Whip, Sandra Goldberg, of Wappinger, said that, “too any people do not have access to group health insurance coverage and the cost of obtaining coverage on their own is cost prohibitive.”
Wednesday, August 3, 2005
Insurance Chief Criticizes Health Savings Accounts
Such plans that reduce benefits to save money are symptoms of the rising costs of health coverage, Garamendi says in a report.
By Debora Vrana, Times Staff Writer
California's insurance commissioner plans to issue a report today criticizing health savings accounts and other "consumer-driven" insurance plans as part of the problem of spiraling costs — not the solution.
Saying the state's healthcare system is headed for a "complete breakdown," John Garamendi sharply attacked new insurance plans — including some backed by the White House — that offer reduced benefits to save money. These plans shift risk to consumers without solving the underlying problems, he said.
Garamendi, a Democrat who has said he would run for lieutenant governor in 2006, backs universal coverage as a key component to any solution. This would ensure every state resident has at least basic health coverage, either public or private.
One expert, however, noted this goal was far easier to advocate than to implement.
"There's no question that universal coverage is one of the solutions we need," said Peter Lee, president of the San Francisco-based Pacific Business Group on Health, a buyer of health insurance for a group of businesses. "The question is how to get there…. This is where universal care efforts, for 25 years, have always run ashore."
Garamendi said the report by his staff, which examines the rising costs of healthcare in California and the growing numbers of uninsured, sets the stage for possible legislation to establish minimum coverage requirements for all health plans.
Once cost problems in the system are addressed, legislators will be better able to look at how to finance a universal coverage plan for California, he said.
Garamendi, who regulates all insurers operating in California, expects to hold several hearings, beginning next month in San Francisco, to examine new kinds of health plans with cheaper premiums and fewer benefits. He said the state must ensure that residents had access to insurance that was both affordable and effective to prevent the burden from falling on taxpayers.
From 2000 to 2004, healthcare insurance premiums increased 61% in California, far outstripping the growth of inflation, Garamendi's report concluded. Premium increases in California have outpaced those in the rest of the country for each of the last three years.
"The extraordinary run-up in costs is pricing out an increasingly large part of the population who can't get insurance," Garamendi said. "We think there should be a basic healthcare program that everyone can participate in."
Garamendi was especially critical of consumer-driven policies such as health savings accounts, which his report called "symptoms of a worsening situation, not solutions."
They "put the entire health system at risk" by drawing healthy workers out of traditional HMOs or PPOs and making the plans more expensive in the long run, the 74-page report said. That, in turn, could lead to more uninsured and more people driven out of costly employer-sponsored plans and into the public health system.
White House spokesman Trent Duffy rejected the criticism.
Consumers are very interested in these new options, Duffy said, and early enrollment data show no evidence the plans are hurting traditional plans. President Bush is "very focused on innovative solutions" to solve the healthcare crisis, Duffy said.
Among plans Garamendi singled out for criticism was Blue Cross of California's Tonik insurance plan. Marketed to 18-to-24-year-olds, it resembles a traditional PPO but excludes maternity care. People who choose such plans to save money may end up on Medi-Cal or other state programs if they become pregnant and then cannot switch to another private plan, Garamendi said.
Blue Cross officials said Tonik was aimed at young adults who otherwise might carry no health insurance. Many parents are buying the insurance, which costs $64 to $80 a month, for their young adult children.
"It's selling very well — there is a tremendous response to it," spokesman Michael Chee said. "It's extremely comprehensive, with dental, prescription drugs and vision. "We've seen nothing to indicate that people are migrating to state-sponsored plans."
Some policy experts support customer-driven health plans as a way to encourage patients, who bear more of the expense, to shop carefully for healthcare. Garamendi's report calls this "flawed logic," arguing that enrollees instead forgo preventive care, increasing costs in the long run.
Garamendi also contends that legislation recently passed by the House of Representatives that would allow association-sponsored health plans is dangerous for consumers. Advocates say the bill would allow small businesses to pool their resources on a national scale to enroll employees in health plans comparable to those of big companies, but the report argues that such plans would "operate across state borders, free from any state's oversight."
Instead, like many Democratic elected officials, Garamendi favors some form of universal coverage. He also backs rules that would require businesses with state contracts to provide workers comprehensive health benefit packages.
By Debora Vrana, Times Staff Writer
California's insurance commissioner plans to issue a report today criticizing health savings accounts and other "consumer-driven" insurance plans as part of the problem of spiraling costs — not the solution.
Saying the state's healthcare system is headed for a "complete breakdown," John Garamendi sharply attacked new insurance plans — including some backed by the White House — that offer reduced benefits to save money. These plans shift risk to consumers without solving the underlying problems, he said.
Garamendi, a Democrat who has said he would run for lieutenant governor in 2006, backs universal coverage as a key component to any solution. This would ensure every state resident has at least basic health coverage, either public or private.
One expert, however, noted this goal was far easier to advocate than to implement.
"There's no question that universal coverage is one of the solutions we need," said Peter Lee, president of the San Francisco-based Pacific Business Group on Health, a buyer of health insurance for a group of businesses. "The question is how to get there…. This is where universal care efforts, for 25 years, have always run ashore."
Garamendi said the report by his staff, which examines the rising costs of healthcare in California and the growing numbers of uninsured, sets the stage for possible legislation to establish minimum coverage requirements for all health plans.
Once cost problems in the system are addressed, legislators will be better able to look at how to finance a universal coverage plan for California, he said.
Garamendi, who regulates all insurers operating in California, expects to hold several hearings, beginning next month in San Francisco, to examine new kinds of health plans with cheaper premiums and fewer benefits. He said the state must ensure that residents had access to insurance that was both affordable and effective to prevent the burden from falling on taxpayers.
From 2000 to 2004, healthcare insurance premiums increased 61% in California, far outstripping the growth of inflation, Garamendi's report concluded. Premium increases in California have outpaced those in the rest of the country for each of the last three years.
"The extraordinary run-up in costs is pricing out an increasingly large part of the population who can't get insurance," Garamendi said. "We think there should be a basic healthcare program that everyone can participate in."
Garamendi was especially critical of consumer-driven policies such as health savings accounts, which his report called "symptoms of a worsening situation, not solutions."
They "put the entire health system at risk" by drawing healthy workers out of traditional HMOs or PPOs and making the plans more expensive in the long run, the 74-page report said. That, in turn, could lead to more uninsured and more people driven out of costly employer-sponsored plans and into the public health system.
White House spokesman Trent Duffy rejected the criticism.
Consumers are very interested in these new options, Duffy said, and early enrollment data show no evidence the plans are hurting traditional plans. President Bush is "very focused on innovative solutions" to solve the healthcare crisis, Duffy said.
Among plans Garamendi singled out for criticism was Blue Cross of California's Tonik insurance plan. Marketed to 18-to-24-year-olds, it resembles a traditional PPO but excludes maternity care. People who choose such plans to save money may end up on Medi-Cal or other state programs if they become pregnant and then cannot switch to another private plan, Garamendi said.
Blue Cross officials said Tonik was aimed at young adults who otherwise might carry no health insurance. Many parents are buying the insurance, which costs $64 to $80 a month, for their young adult children.
"It's selling very well — there is a tremendous response to it," spokesman Michael Chee said. "It's extremely comprehensive, with dental, prescription drugs and vision. "We've seen nothing to indicate that people are migrating to state-sponsored plans."
Some policy experts support customer-driven health plans as a way to encourage patients, who bear more of the expense, to shop carefully for healthcare. Garamendi's report calls this "flawed logic," arguing that enrollees instead forgo preventive care, increasing costs in the long run.
Garamendi also contends that legislation recently passed by the House of Representatives that would allow association-sponsored health plans is dangerous for consumers. Advocates say the bill would allow small businesses to pool their resources on a national scale to enroll employees in health plans comparable to those of big companies, but the report argues that such plans would "operate across state borders, free from any state's oversight."
Instead, like many Democratic elected officials, Garamendi favors some form of universal coverage. He also backs rules that would require businesses with state contracts to provide workers comprehensive health benefit packages.
Tuesday, August 2, 2005
AMEX Enters N.J. Auto Insurance Market Via Internet Sales
August 1, 2005
AMEX Assurance Company,of the American Express Property Casualty companies, is now writing insurance policies in New Jersey.
AMEX is entering the New Jersey market exclusively through the Internet. Its web site is www.americanexpress.com/autohome.
"American Express Property Casualty is excited and pleased to be entering the New Jersey market for personal lines insurance," said American Express Property Casualty companies president Ken Ciak. "The collaboration and cooperation with the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance has been admirable and one of the key factors in our entering this state.? We look forward to offering competitive rates and quality service throughout the state."
AMEX Assurance Company has provided personal property/casualty insurance since 1986. It currently writes auto insurance policies in 38 states and Washington D.C., and recently received an "A" rating from A.M. Best.
Acting Governor Richard J. Codey hailed the news that a fourth auto insurer has entered the state since reforms transformed the marketplace in 2003.
"This is another great day for New Jersey drivers," Codey said. "We are once again showing our drivers that the state is committed to creating more competition and providing the choices our consumers deserve."
Today's announcement follows a trend of increased competition for auto insurance business in New Jersey, including the entrance of Mercury General, GEICO and Esurance, and the continued downward pressure on auto insurance rates. In the two years since the reforms:
American Express Property Casualty companies are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the American Express Financial Corporation and the American Express Company.
In connection with the spin-off of American Express Financial Corporation from the American Express Company, the American Express Property Casualty companies will change its name to Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance. The name change will occur on Aug. 1, 2005 in anticipation of their spin-off from American Express Company on or after Sept. 30, 2005.
AMEX Assurance Company,of the American Express Property Casualty companies, is now writing insurance policies in New Jersey.
AMEX is entering the New Jersey market exclusively through the Internet. Its web site is www.americanexpress.com/autohome.
"American Express Property Casualty is excited and pleased to be entering the New Jersey market for personal lines insurance," said American Express Property Casualty companies president Ken Ciak. "The collaboration and cooperation with the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance has been admirable and one of the key factors in our entering this state.? We look forward to offering competitive rates and quality service throughout the state."
AMEX Assurance Company has provided personal property/casualty insurance since 1986. It currently writes auto insurance policies in 38 states and Washington D.C., and recently received an "A" rating from A.M. Best.
Acting Governor Richard J. Codey hailed the news that a fourth auto insurer has entered the state since reforms transformed the marketplace in 2003.
"This is another great day for New Jersey drivers," Codey said. "We are once again showing our drivers that the state is committed to creating more competition and providing the choices our consumers deserve."
Today's announcement follows a trend of increased competition for auto insurance business in New Jersey, including the entrance of Mercury General, GEICO and Esurance, and the continued downward pressure on auto insurance rates. In the two years since the reforms:
American Express Property Casualty companies are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the American Express Financial Corporation and the American Express Company.
In connection with the spin-off of American Express Financial Corporation from the American Express Company, the American Express Property Casualty companies will change its name to Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance. The name change will occur on Aug. 1, 2005 in anticipation of their spin-off from American Express Company on or after Sept. 30, 2005.
Healthcare premiums to leap again
Health Insurance Rates could increase ranks of uninsured
By Jeffrey Krasner, Globe Staff | August 2, 2005
Most Massachusetts companies and their workers will get hit with increases in their health insurance premiums of 10 percent or more beginning next year, according to the state's largest insurers.
Insurance companies and many employers are already negotiating rates and coverage for 2006. Insurers and industry consultants say employers may end up absorbing a bigger share of premium increases. Many companies will also opt for health plans in which workers have to pay higher-out-of-pocket costs to keep premiums down.
The double-digit increase -- coming on top of five consecutive years in which premiums increased by at least 10 percent -- are expected to lead to a greater number of uninsured people in the state as more companies and workers find coverage too costly.
''As prices go up, some at the margin won't be able to afford to cover their families," said Michael Doonan, executive director of the Massachusetts Health Policy Forum, a nonpartisan research group. That will drive more people to Medicaid, the federal program administered by states for low-income individuals, Doonan said.
Insurers blamed the continued steep rise of health premiums on increasing hospital costs, rising prescription drug expenses, and an aging population.
''Baby boomers are a very demanding group," said Vincent Capozzi, senior vice president of sales and marketing at Harvard Pilgrim in Wellesley. ''They're all in their late 40s to early 60s, and their use of the healthcare system is at a high level."
But the rate of increases is slowing, noted Capozzi and other insurance executives. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, the state's second-largest insurer with about 885,000 members, predicted typical increases of 7 to 13 percent in 2006, compared to the 8 to 14 percent that rates went up this year.
Since 1999, the average total annual cost of health insurance for an employee in the Boston area nearly doubled, to $7,999 in 2005 from $4,144, according to a study conducted by Hewitt Associates, a human resources and consulting firm in Lincolnshire, Ill.
''The projected increases will hit employees in two ways," said Susan Connolly, worldwide partner and consultant specializing in health care benefits for Mercer Human Resource Consulting in Boston. ''Employers are likely to increase cost sharing by adding higher deductibles and increasing copays. At the same time, employees are likely to pay more out of their paycheck to cover a higher insurance premium."
Insurers have tried to control costs through aggressive management of patients with chronic diseases, and plans that require consumers to pay a greater share of costs.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, the state's largest health insurance provider with 2.75 million members, said it expects to raise premiums 10 to 14 percent for employers with more than 50 workers.
By Jeffrey Krasner, Globe Staff | August 2, 2005
Most Massachusetts companies and their workers will get hit with increases in their health insurance premiums of 10 percent or more beginning next year, according to the state's largest insurers.
Insurance companies and many employers are already negotiating rates and coverage for 2006. Insurers and industry consultants say employers may end up absorbing a bigger share of premium increases. Many companies will also opt for health plans in which workers have to pay higher-out-of-pocket costs to keep premiums down.
The double-digit increase -- coming on top of five consecutive years in which premiums increased by at least 10 percent -- are expected to lead to a greater number of uninsured people in the state as more companies and workers find coverage too costly.
''As prices go up, some at the margin won't be able to afford to cover their families," said Michael Doonan, executive director of the Massachusetts Health Policy Forum, a nonpartisan research group. That will drive more people to Medicaid, the federal program administered by states for low-income individuals, Doonan said.
Insurers blamed the continued steep rise of health premiums on increasing hospital costs, rising prescription drug expenses, and an aging population.
''Baby boomers are a very demanding group," said Vincent Capozzi, senior vice president of sales and marketing at Harvard Pilgrim in Wellesley. ''They're all in their late 40s to early 60s, and their use of the healthcare system is at a high level."
But the rate of increases is slowing, noted Capozzi and other insurance executives. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, the state's second-largest insurer with about 885,000 members, predicted typical increases of 7 to 13 percent in 2006, compared to the 8 to 14 percent that rates went up this year.
Since 1999, the average total annual cost of health insurance for an employee in the Boston area nearly doubled, to $7,999 in 2005 from $4,144, according to a study conducted by Hewitt Associates, a human resources and consulting firm in Lincolnshire, Ill.
''The projected increases will hit employees in two ways," said Susan Connolly, worldwide partner and consultant specializing in health care benefits for Mercer Human Resource Consulting in Boston. ''Employers are likely to increase cost sharing by adding higher deductibles and increasing copays. At the same time, employees are likely to pay more out of their paycheck to cover a higher insurance premium."
Insurers have tried to control costs through aggressive management of patients with chronic diseases, and plans that require consumers to pay a greater share of costs.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, the state's largest health insurance provider with 2.75 million members, said it expects to raise premiums 10 to 14 percent for employers with more than 50 workers.
Monday, August 1, 2005
Royal & Sun sells US auto insurance business
UK insurer Royal & Sun Alliance has sold its US non-standard auto insurance business to Wisconsin-based Sentry Insurance in a $200 million cash deal.
29 Jul 2005, 13:39 GMT - The sale is expected to generate a post tax gain of $155 million, which according to the firm represents a price of two times the proforma book value. It will also give Royal & Sun Alliance (RSA) $135 million under IFRS accounting rules.
The move is thought to be part of RSA's strategy to cut costs, improve its capital position and reduce exposure to US risks.
The overall capital benefit of the disposal is estimated at $230 million, which should increase the US statutory RBC ratio of the group's remaining US business from 1.9 at 30 June 2005 to 2.3 on a proforma basis.
The transaction is subject to regulatory approval.
29 Jul 2005, 13:39 GMT - The sale is expected to generate a post tax gain of $155 million, which according to the firm represents a price of two times the proforma book value. It will also give Royal & Sun Alliance (RSA) $135 million under IFRS accounting rules.
The move is thought to be part of RSA's strategy to cut costs, improve its capital position and reduce exposure to US risks.
The overall capital benefit of the disposal is estimated at $230 million, which should increase the US statutory RBC ratio of the group's remaining US business from 1.9 at 30 June 2005 to 2.3 on a proforma basis.
The transaction is subject to regulatory approval.
Health Insurance Faces Uncertain Future
Area health insurance experts are not sure where their industry is headed in the next few years. But one thing is certain: Something has to change.
"If things keep progressing the way they are today, we're in big trouble, said Sam Lombardo, president and chief executive officer of The Benecon Group in Leola, Lancaster County. The independent insurance agency serves both public and private-sector employers that range in size from two to 5,000 workers.
As health-care costs continue to rise, more companies are cutting employee benefits. The effect has been more out-of-pocket expenses for workers.
On average, U.S. employer-sponsored health insurance premiums increased by about 11.2 percent in 2004. It was the fourth consecutive year of double-digit growth, according to the 2004 Employer Health Benefits Survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research & Educational Trust.
Since 2001, employee contributions have increased 57 percent for single coverage and 49 percent for family coverage. Meanwhile, workers' wages have only increased 12 percent, said officials from the Health Systems Studies at the Health Research and Educational Trust.
The increasing costs have hit small-and midsize companies especially hard.
Karen H. Horan, is principal of Capital Benefits Group Inc. The company provides health insurance plans for 80 companies ranging in size from two to 300 employees. In recent years, she has had to tell her clients that their premiums were going up by between 20 percent and 60 percent.
"If things keep progressing the way they are today, we're in big trouble, said Sam Lombardo, president and chief executive officer of The Benecon Group in Leola, Lancaster County. The independent insurance agency serves both public and private-sector employers that range in size from two to 5,000 workers.
As health-care costs continue to rise, more companies are cutting employee benefits. The effect has been more out-of-pocket expenses for workers.
On average, U.S. employer-sponsored health insurance premiums increased by about 11.2 percent in 2004. It was the fourth consecutive year of double-digit growth, according to the 2004 Employer Health Benefits Survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research & Educational Trust.
Since 2001, employee contributions have increased 57 percent for single coverage and 49 percent for family coverage. Meanwhile, workers' wages have only increased 12 percent, said officials from the Health Systems Studies at the Health Research and Educational Trust.
The increasing costs have hit small-and midsize companies especially hard.
Karen H. Horan, is principal of Capital Benefits Group Inc. The company provides health insurance plans for 80 companies ranging in size from two to 300 employees. In recent years, she has had to tell her clients that their premiums were going up by between 20 percent and 60 percent.
Doctors, Insurance and Lawyers, Oh My!
Monday, August 01, 2005
Doctors, Insurance and Lawyers, Oh My!
By Brad Snyder
The seven year old girl told her mom, “A boy in my class asked me to play doctor.” The horrified mother gasped, “What did he do to you honey?” “Nothing, he made me wait 45 minutes and then double-billed the insurance company.” We all know jokes about doctors, but the problem with health care in America is no laughing matter. The major cause for the decline in America’s health care involves its change from a benevolent service to a highly-profitable conglomeration. Proponents of our health care system in America claim we have the best system in the world. I disagree. I say we have the most expensive.
This past Thursday, the senate passed a medical Malpractice bill that limited “pain and suffering” awards in malpractice law suits to $250,000. This goes along with President Bush’s promise to fix our ailing health care industry. The problem as he sees it is frivolous law suits, but he doesn't go nearly far enough. Who benefits the most with his resolve? Doctors! Who can be blamed for much of what is wrong? Doctors! If you could see all the waste, abuse and fraud that go on in medical offices that I see everyday, your head would hurt. (Take two aspirins, and call me in the morning. That will be $150.00 please).
Guns don't kill people…doctors do. Out of the 700,000 doctors in America, there are approximately 160,000 wrongful deaths each year, that’s not counting errors where fatalities do not occur. This means, statistically speaking, approximately 22% of doctors cause injury and death rather than life. The most complex of brain or heart surgeries take place every day without a written protocol, because doctors think they are all knowing and all wise. The number of doctor errors that take place on a daily basis suggests otherwise. Why is President Bush protecting doctors, when he should be protecting you and I.
When doctors and lobbyist at the AMA complain about high malpractice insurance rates, they mean their net income is not as large as they think they deserve. Doctors should stop getting mad at lawyers, and start getting mad at doctors who make mistakes. How often do we hear a doctor speaking out about another doctor?
It is my view that doctors should never have been made the richest kids on the block. Money has corrupted these public servants. They used to be the most respected because they could be counted on to be there, in our time of need, but not anymore. Try going to the hospital in the middle of the night. Most nurses will refuse to wake their ogre superiors, and if they do, God help their poor soul. Physicians’ claim that they are in their profession to “help people” should be looked upon with skepticism. More likely, they're in it for their pocket books and stock portfolios. The real problem with Health care can be summed up in one word: “Greed”.
Aside from their inflated salaries, not all excess can be attributed to MDs. Consider Leonard Schaffer, Chairman of Wellpoint, Inc., the largest health insurance company in the U.S. He makes a whopping $46 million a year, and this doesn't include perks and retirement benefits. Compare that to $600,000, a high end salary for a vascular surgeon. Small peanuts, huh? Companies like WellPoint claim to keep their costs low for the purpose of not overcharging the public with high insurance premiums. But last year, the top six health insurers alone received approximately $150 billion in premiums and paid out only $90 billion in claims. This $60 billion differential is enough money to pay the health care premiums for the 40 million people in the United States who can't afford insurance.
Many Health insurance companies disallow physicians to perform treatment based upon the insurance company’s financial criteria. They systematically deny payment for legitimate claims, and purposefully misrepresent the amount of coverage the insured should receive. A common insurance company practice pays bonuses to claim assessors to meet claims-denial quotas. For many of these reasons, lawsuits against insurance companies are prosecuted under the RICO Act (Racketeering Influenced and Corruption Organization Act). In other words, the insurance world is made up of thugs who might make John Gotti look like a choir boy.
Now, enter lawyers. There are 5 lawyers in a Suburban, and it’s about to drive over a cliff. What’s wrong with this picture? Suburbans seat 8. It used to be that personal injury lawyers crept from their netherworld when someone in a car was rear ended. These low life lawyers were looked upon as outcasts by the legal community, but not anymore. Now we have personal injury lawyers everywhere, and the money they make is obscene. The award sought in a current fast food obesity case is $480 Million. These lawyers aren't just chasing ambulances anymore. They're suing the pants off Joe Camel and Ronald McDonald. Now, when I try to buy a Quarter Pounder with cheese, it costs me $86.95. Ok, I exaggerate, but we consumers pay the price for these petty law suits. No doubt, much of this legal exploitation is absorbed into our healthcare and insurance costs.
If given the chance to further confound the problems of healthcare, Liberal-with-my-money Hillary’s solution is constitutional “insurance for all”. As horrible as this sounds, I am more in line with Hillary than I am the President. Our constitution gives us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Happiness is in our control, but life and health are not. I believe it is the federal government’s responsibility to procure good healthcare for all citizens. Everyone should have access to medication and healthcare without concern for quality of care, because withholding healthcare is a crime against humanity.
I part with Hillary in that this should not be done at taxpayer’s expense. Doctors, lawyers, and insurance companies along with pharmaceutical companies should be made to renovate this impairment they alone have fashioned. It’s their screw up, they must fix it. The government might act as enforcer and perhaps even mandate price controls for medication and medical services. But much has been given to these highly paid professionals of the healthcare industry. It’s time they give back from their pots of gold, in their land of plenty. Doctors should be “encouraged” to volunteer their time and labor in free medical clinics and hospitals primarily for the uninsured. Those who cooperate can be enticed with lucrative tax breaks. Those who do not will face salary caps.
Like auto insurance, health insurance should be required by law. But for those who can not afford it, catastrophic and emergency health care (not health insurance) should be provided by the generosity of participating medical providers. Medicaid qualifications would be the rule de facto for participants of this free medical service. Can you imagine insurance execs, doctors and lawyers working together for the common good of their fellow man? A pipe dream? Naïve? Over simplified? Perhaps, but the dream is far greater than the nightmare we currently have, and anything else Washington has on the table.
Doctors, Insurance and Lawyers, Oh My!
By Brad Snyder
The seven year old girl told her mom, “A boy in my class asked me to play doctor.” The horrified mother gasped, “What did he do to you honey?” “Nothing, he made me wait 45 minutes and then double-billed the insurance company.” We all know jokes about doctors, but the problem with health care in America is no laughing matter. The major cause for the decline in America’s health care involves its change from a benevolent service to a highly-profitable conglomeration. Proponents of our health care system in America claim we have the best system in the world. I disagree. I say we have the most expensive.
This past Thursday, the senate passed a medical Malpractice bill that limited “pain and suffering” awards in malpractice law suits to $250,000. This goes along with President Bush’s promise to fix our ailing health care industry. The problem as he sees it is frivolous law suits, but he doesn't go nearly far enough. Who benefits the most with his resolve? Doctors! Who can be blamed for much of what is wrong? Doctors! If you could see all the waste, abuse and fraud that go on in medical offices that I see everyday, your head would hurt. (Take two aspirins, and call me in the morning. That will be $150.00 please).
Guns don't kill people…doctors do. Out of the 700,000 doctors in America, there are approximately 160,000 wrongful deaths each year, that’s not counting errors where fatalities do not occur. This means, statistically speaking, approximately 22% of doctors cause injury and death rather than life. The most complex of brain or heart surgeries take place every day without a written protocol, because doctors think they are all knowing and all wise. The number of doctor errors that take place on a daily basis suggests otherwise. Why is President Bush protecting doctors, when he should be protecting you and I.
When doctors and lobbyist at the AMA complain about high malpractice insurance rates, they mean their net income is not as large as they think they deserve. Doctors should stop getting mad at lawyers, and start getting mad at doctors who make mistakes. How often do we hear a doctor speaking out about another doctor?
It is my view that doctors should never have been made the richest kids on the block. Money has corrupted these public servants. They used to be the most respected because they could be counted on to be there, in our time of need, but not anymore. Try going to the hospital in the middle of the night. Most nurses will refuse to wake their ogre superiors, and if they do, God help their poor soul. Physicians’ claim that they are in their profession to “help people” should be looked upon with skepticism. More likely, they're in it for their pocket books and stock portfolios. The real problem with Health care can be summed up in one word: “Greed”.
Aside from their inflated salaries, not all excess can be attributed to MDs. Consider Leonard Schaffer, Chairman of Wellpoint, Inc., the largest health insurance company in the U.S. He makes a whopping $46 million a year, and this doesn't include perks and retirement benefits. Compare that to $600,000, a high end salary for a vascular surgeon. Small peanuts, huh? Companies like WellPoint claim to keep their costs low for the purpose of not overcharging the public with high insurance premiums. But last year, the top six health insurers alone received approximately $150 billion in premiums and paid out only $90 billion in claims. This $60 billion differential is enough money to pay the health care premiums for the 40 million people in the United States who can't afford insurance.
Many Health insurance companies disallow physicians to perform treatment based upon the insurance company’s financial criteria. They systematically deny payment for legitimate claims, and purposefully misrepresent the amount of coverage the insured should receive. A common insurance company practice pays bonuses to claim assessors to meet claims-denial quotas. For many of these reasons, lawsuits against insurance companies are prosecuted under the RICO Act (Racketeering Influenced and Corruption Organization Act). In other words, the insurance world is made up of thugs who might make John Gotti look like a choir boy.
Now, enter lawyers. There are 5 lawyers in a Suburban, and it’s about to drive over a cliff. What’s wrong with this picture? Suburbans seat 8. It used to be that personal injury lawyers crept from their netherworld when someone in a car was rear ended. These low life lawyers were looked upon as outcasts by the legal community, but not anymore. Now we have personal injury lawyers everywhere, and the money they make is obscene. The award sought in a current fast food obesity case is $480 Million. These lawyers aren't just chasing ambulances anymore. They're suing the pants off Joe Camel and Ronald McDonald. Now, when I try to buy a Quarter Pounder with cheese, it costs me $86.95. Ok, I exaggerate, but we consumers pay the price for these petty law suits. No doubt, much of this legal exploitation is absorbed into our healthcare and insurance costs.
If given the chance to further confound the problems of healthcare, Liberal-with-my-money Hillary’s solution is constitutional “insurance for all”. As horrible as this sounds, I am more in line with Hillary than I am the President. Our constitution gives us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Happiness is in our control, but life and health are not. I believe it is the federal government’s responsibility to procure good healthcare for all citizens. Everyone should have access to medication and healthcare without concern for quality of care, because withholding healthcare is a crime against humanity.
I part with Hillary in that this should not be done at taxpayer’s expense. Doctors, lawyers, and insurance companies along with pharmaceutical companies should be made to renovate this impairment they alone have fashioned. It’s their screw up, they must fix it. The government might act as enforcer and perhaps even mandate price controls for medication and medical services. But much has been given to these highly paid professionals of the healthcare industry. It’s time they give back from their pots of gold, in their land of plenty. Doctors should be “encouraged” to volunteer their time and labor in free medical clinics and hospitals primarily for the uninsured. Those who cooperate can be enticed with lucrative tax breaks. Those who do not will face salary caps.
Like auto insurance, health insurance should be required by law. But for those who can not afford it, catastrophic and emergency health care (not health insurance) should be provided by the generosity of participating medical providers. Medicaid qualifications would be the rule de facto for participants of this free medical service. Can you imagine insurance execs, doctors and lawyers working together for the common good of their fellow man? A pipe dream? Naïve? Over simplified? Perhaps, but the dream is far greater than the nightmare we currently have, and anything else Washington has on the table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
:.
