Posted by admin on February 20th, 2010
The world of politics is never supposed to make any real sense. After all, once you pit people’s cherished beliefs against each other, passions are roused and the arguments soon become bitter. It would be better if everyone was just allowed to do what they wanted. But, when it comes to organising medical care for the population, it takes a government to put the right kind of infrastructure in place. People have to be trained as care givers. This takes years and costs a small fortune. Hospitals and clinics have to be built. And then we come to all the support staff who drive the ambulances, keep the places clean and keep the accounts. Ah, yes, the money. All of this work over years has to be paid for. So the $64,000 question is who should foot the bill? It’s at this point that emotions get in the way of common sense.
Talk to one side of the argument and they will tell you people who want access to medical care should carry private insurance. Talk to the other side and they will tell you the state should pay for the service out of the tax revenue. It’s never really clear why people disagree. Only people who are in work pay tax. Only people who earn can afford to pay the premiums on insurance. It’s the same money. The only difference is the way it’s collected – one as tax and the other as premiums paid to an insurance company. But wait! There is a difference! If the state collects in the money, it can use it more efficiently because, unlike the insurance industry, it does not intend to make a profit. So the only reason to support the current system is to allow the insurance industry to continue making an ever larger profit.
As the Senate is currently set up, forty-one senators can stop any reform. That’s forty Republicans plus one other. Yet when you look at the number of people these Republican senators represent, it’s only 36% of the US population. This is somewhat unfair. The party with the majority of representatives was voted in by 64% of the population. The Democratic platform could not have been more clear. It was to be reform of healthcare provision. Yet when you look at the media (which is controlled by big business), all you see reported is the opposition to reform. The “tea party” movement captures all the headlines. But in all this, there is one really big irony that gets very little coverage. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by admin on February 13th, 2010
When time comes for deciding which type of health insurance coverage is most appropriate for your family there are many options you can choose from. And one of the most influential factors here is whether your employer provides you with a group coverage plan or not. In case your employer offers you family coverage through a group plan, you should think well about whether you want to apply for this group plan or get a separate policy for your family. In case there is no group health insurance coverage offered by your employer, you will have to search for a provider on your own, analyzing all the options in order to determine which plan and insurance company will cover your family insurance needs to the right extent.
In general, family insurance plans are individual health insurance policies that allow the policy-holder’s family to be included in it as well. A great number of employers instead of providing group coverage, offer their workers individual plans with including possibilities if they have any family members they want to add. The federal law also restricts the insurance companies from excluding family members with pre-existing conditions from group plans. And in most cases, the employer will pay a part of the worker’s yearly premium. This of course makes family health insurance less costly for an individual’s family budget. Still, if you lose the job your insurance coverage will also be taken away.
When speaking of individual plans, we speak about the health insurance plans you buy directly from a provider. Such plans provide a high degree of freedom, as you can freely choose the company to buy from or the type of coverage you want in your policy or not. In most cases, however, the coverage provided by individual plans will be somewhat inferior to the extents you get with a group plan, still if there’s no other option you can choose a plan that will meet your exact requirements. Keep in mind that in many cases individual health insurance plans won’t allow you to include family your members with pre-existing conditions. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by admin on January 25th, 2010
The US is justly proud of its reputation as the home of modern capitalism and has promoted the idea of free markets to skeptical countries around the world. The fact that a bubble in the property market fuelled this recession does not change the philosophical power of the US economic model. When it works properly, the free market pushes businesses to compete. This improves the quality of service and keeps down the price. The consumer benefits. All federal government need do is intervene when there is clear evidence of a company abusing its dominant position to damage the consumers’ interests. Unfortunately, under the last administration, antitrust enforcement was scaled back. Worse, there were deeply entrenched monopolies and cartels that could not be investigated or regulated. The leading example of this immunity is enjoyed by the insurance industry. Some sixty-five years ago, it was exempted from federal antitrust laws by the McCarran-Ferguson Act. This is a sad example of corruption in government. Vested interests bought enough votes to get the Act passed. Lobbyists’ money has kept the immunity in place ever since.
Why is this immunity as bad thing? Competition improves choice. Given a reasonable number of companies competing in the same market, each must offer features to distinguish their product from the others. Once consumers see one product is better, they will transfer their business. The competitors must therefore match or improve on those features to win back market share. If there’s no effective competition, an artificially small number of products will be offered. The companies will agree not to compete on quality and price which rigs the market and divides it up between the suppliers. In the insurance market, patients have been paying artificially high prices. Doctors have also been paying inflated prices for their medical malpractice insurance. At a time when the costs of healthcare and drugs have been rising faster than inflation, this is penalizing the US consumer and the taxpayer who often ends up subsidising payment of these inflated prices. There is no justification for retaining this immunity. Read the rest of this entry »
