Comments on: 3 questions to help gauge healthcare reform’s effects

By: Judy Buckley

Judy Buckley — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:43:22 +0000

I don’t see that the community as a whole owns the means of production, distribution and exchange. We have a capitalist system. If you mean any government involvement is, or is leading to, socialism, I think that’s an exaggeration. By the way, the “free market” insurance industry has yet again, for the 15th year running (ever since I’ve had this job) come in with an initial rate increase of 14% for next year. They are not always 14% – but they are almost always double digits. Sometimes we can “tweak” the benefits or get concessions by moving other coverages to the health care carrier or having employees share in premium costs and higher co-pays, but we’ve pretty much done all that and still another large initial quote. And our brokers go out to market every year for us. As I mentioned previously, with reform that will be the excuse – but they have one every year.

By: Patricia K.

Patricia K. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:34:33 +0000

Thank you, Richard, for your reasoned response on socialism. We’ve been in denial too long in this country–over many social, political, and economic trends. Let’s live in reality and call it what it is.

By: Richard Getz

Richard Getz — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:41:49 +0000

@Judy what is wrong with the word socialism?

“a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”

The definition is what it is, and yes, we are, and have been, heading towards socialism more and more each year for the past 20+ years.

So either you like socialism, or you do not, but one can not argue that we are not becoming more socialist with each administration.

By: Judy Buckley

Judy Buckley — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:22:49 +0000

Lilly, thank you for a thoughtful response (and for not using the “s” word – socialism) – I really appreciate your ideas. I think we already have portability through HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, I think) even though the HIPAA emphasis of late seems to be on privacy and protecting personal health information. I thought what you thought initially when I first heard about HIPAA and that seemed so cumbersome. But, as we’ve learned, it’s just another way of saying when you go to a new employer, the insurance they offer can’t exclude you for a pre-existing condition as along as you don’t have too large a gap in coverage (63 day limit, I believe.) So, I hope this new portability they’re discussing won’t involve numerous insurance companies billing companies.

By: Lilly

Lilly — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:38:26 +0000

Question about the portability of health insurance. Would that mean small business employers would potentially have several carriers billing them? Right now, our carrier requires a % EE participation. We can only participate in 1 plan. Would that go away then? What about the so-called ’savings’ from pooling risk? If the risk pool is changig (EE attrition), does that affect ER rates? Seems like a lot more work (wage expense to the ER) for HR & a huge beauracracy (expense to taxpayers) to oversee it. If that’s the case, why have the employer involved at all?

Its seems more practical to skip the portability and let individuals insure themselves. Remove the 7% minimum on the health expense tax credit on the individual’s annual return. That puts the responsibility back on the individual where it should be. Reimburses (reward) those who participate and eliminate the need for more beauracracy. Site the individual when they can’t prove insurance just the way highway patrol does for autos. Let them take their chances. Uninsured below a wage level still get medicaid. I don’t see why we have to change that piece very much at all.

But then we have the issues with the insurance companies, tort reform, liability coverage for doctors, etc.