Politics’ regular season has begun once again. We’ve been watching the training camp stuff all summer, and now it’s time to play for the money, I guess. I’m not great with sports analogies, so that’s as far as 
I’ll go. No, wait – I lied… President Obama had the opening pitch on Wednesday night (okay, that’s really it) and I’d say he did a pretty decent job of explaining what it is he wants to do. It doesn’t exactly comport with what I think needs to happen to bring the United States to a place where we behave like a civilized modern industrial nation, but it’s a bit clearer than it’s been up to now. While my inclination is to support this – particularly if it includes the so-called “public option” – I am a bit concerned about what this will mean for people who have no coverage at all, or just the sort of lousy coverage I used to carry years ago. I’d like to hear more about that interim period during which the uninsured receive “basic” health insurance. That seems a bit problematic, to say the least, in that it sounds like it would insure people who are more prone to illness (i.e. poor families) in the least effective and most expensive way available.
I’m here to tell you, I have had catastrophic policies before. I have also had standard individual indemnity policies. They pay for nothing. As long as you are healthy and lucky enough to remain out of the hospital, you will see not one dime out of these plans. They have enormous deductibles and don’t pay for any preventive care. From the insurer’s standpoint, that’s a great deal, if the insured doesn’t get badly ill. But if you end up in the hospital, they’re on the hook for some major medical costs – that’s why they tend to cap your benefits… to ensure that you don’t get too expensive in the throes of your misfortune. My first plan ever was a Mutual Of Omaha policy (actually, several policies) that worked like this – if you had a partially reimbursable expense (I never actually did, but it was theoretically possible), you pay for the care and they would send you a check…. eventually… maybe. It was kind of iffy, to say the least, and definitely set up to keep the money flowing in one direction – from you to Omaha.
The funny thing was, they were in the process of discontinuing this class of policy, presumably because it was not profitable. I’m not surprised, frankly. Any policy that encourages you to ignore your illnesses for as long as possible, to not receive any diagnostic care or testing, to avoid contact with health 
professionals who might actually help steer you in a positive direction (i.e. eat better, don’t smoke, etc.), is not going to have particularly good outcomes. People are going to get badly sick, discover illnesses at later stages (when treatment tends to be most expensive), and ultimately cost more than those who receive strong preventive care. That, I think, is one of the traps the Obama health plan might fall into – offering minimal care to people who can’t afford better, even though that approach eventually costs more (and creates greater misery in the process). What the hell, we are the wealthiest, most powerful nation on Earth. It’s a scandal that almost 50 million people have no health coverage. We need to make certain people get the right kind of care, because it’s the right thing to do. Oh, and it will save money besides.
So, hey… here’s an avid single-payer advocate saying, let’s encourage our legislators and our president to pass a bill that will help those most in need. Let’s put that stake in the ground – then we can start working on putting a stake through the heart of this ludicrous privatized health insurance scam we call a “system”.
luv u,
jp
