[geeks] The ugly insurance rant...

[Hicheal Morton]

Somebody wrote
> Yes, but why do we have this insane notion in the US that health
> insurance needs to be tied to an employer?

The reason that insurance is now included in one's employment is the
imposition of "wages and price controls".

When the government inflicts the people by declaring and enforcing "wage and
prices controls", workers can no longer get raises, bonuses, etc., etc.
Richard Nixon was the last one to do this.  Before this I paid for my own
insurance.  A family major-medication policy was approximately $400 per
year!
When businesses could not offer wages, they offered to pay their workers
insurance fees.  This permitted employers to "give a raise" by shifting
money to a benefit (which was allowed).

After "wage and price controls" were lifted, the situation did not change
back.

The results?  The government began its march to control the medical/health
care industry and, because of government intervention, medical and health
care costs began to rise.  Now medical costs are the biggest headache for
employers.  The concept of pensions has changed to employee-funded
retirement plans like 401K's, etc.  Employers couldn't pay both the medical
costs and a pension for workers.  That caused the rise of HMO's, PPO's, and
other deluded attempts to control medical costs.  When I worked for Federal
Express (1992-1996), our manager told us that if medical costs were not
controlled, in 10 years all the money earned by Federal Express would go for
medical costs--no gas, no planes, no trucks, no nothings.

"Thank you!" tricky dick.
"Thank you!" federal government.
Thank all of you statists, socialists, and liberals!




On 8/27/07, J...onathan Katz <jon at jonworld.com> wrote:
>
> The whole notion of insurance is that everyone paid into a pot some kind
> of
> rate and that money was somehow invested to generate cash on its own. At
> the
> same time it served a community (or those who paid into the pot) when they
> needed it, usually on some kind of shared basis (80/20, etc.)
>
> Many insurance companies (the original incarnation of Blue Cross Blue
> Shield, etc) were non-for-profits. Most hospitals were (and many still
> are)
> 501c3s. The whole point is the entire pot would be cycled-through.
>
> Then someone realized that you could make money from the entire healthcare
> sector. Plus, the population of our country isn't evenly distributed
> across
> age. A good chunk of our population is getting old, and as people get old
> they break. From a capitalist perspective the baby boomers are a gold
> mine.
>
> And then there was deregulation. The FDA and FCC allowed drug companies to
> advertise directly to consumers on TV in the late 90s/early 00s. The
> critics
> at the time said this would increase drug costs. It clearly has; Marketing
> eats up more money than R&D it seems.
>
> Plus care of the GI bill the baby boomers are better educated. In the 20th
> century our society transitioned from agrarian to blue collar to a white
> collar workforce. Better educated people do things like invest and take
> legal action.
>
> So as boomers got older and things went wrong they sued. They also
> invested
> leading to a more profit-driven society. And doctors over time became
> known
> as those who are well-to-do...
>
> At the same time we have...
> The healthcare industry trying to make a profit from care, drugs and
> goods....
> Things like lawsuits digging into that profit
> ... and that profit has to come from someone and somewhere, that's our
> increased cost.
>
> I think that is how we got here.
>
> I think the group that wants "single-payer" or "socialized" medicine likes
> to tie the notion of insurance to an employer to help justify their
> position. Not everyone is always employed all the time, therefore they
> don't
> have insurance. It creates a "crisis."
>
> One of the things the insurance companies are doing to be more
> "transparent"
> and less "evil" is to change how they operate.
>
> The EOBs we get are easier to understand.
> Insurance is changing from magically paying 80% of the cost to giving
> people
> "play money" that they get to choose how to spend. Preventative
> maintenance
> (like annual physicals) don't count against the play money, and doing
> things
> like going to the gym and participating in fitness programs give people
> more
> "play money" for their insurance. They're also trying to get people to
> comparison shop for the best deal. The x-ray at the hospital down the
> street
> may cost $300, but 5 miles away it may cost $150.
>
> On 8/27/07, Jonathan C. Patschke <jp at celestrion.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Bill Bradford wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 04:27:44PM -0500, Jonathan C. Patschke wrote:
> > >> Is medical insurance that big of a deal?  Outside of my brief stint
> > >> at state employment, I've never had my employer provide it.  In fact,
> > >> I haven't even had insurance for the last two years or so.  I just
> > >> eat well[0] and take care of myself.  I only get sick enough to miss
> > >> work every four years or so.
> > >
> > > When I made less money, I alway declined the health insurance because
> > > I would rather have that much more money/month.
> >
> > Yes, but why do we have this insane notion in the US that health
> > insurance needs to be tied to an employer?
> _______________________________________________
> GEEKS:  http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/geeks