Ban For-Profit Health Insurance Companies?

Here's a thought: why can't we have not-for-profit health insurance companies? Why are we forever stuck with companies whose primary objective is to make a profit? And since they are for-profit entities (in the USA), should it really be any surprise that their executives make millions and millions of dollars each year? Why would a for-profit health insurance company behave any differently than, say, a oil corporation or telecommunications company?

It wouldn't, and that's the root of our current problem with health care, IMHO. In any for-profit insurance company, the business model is 1) you bet the company you're going to die, get sick, or have a housefire and 2) the company bets you that you're going to live, be fine, and be careful with those matches. So the goal is that the company will minimize their risk by limiting what behaviors you may choose. No using a charcoal grill in your living room. No smoking or your life insurance rates will go much higher.

The difference between life or house insurance and health insurance is that you can, theoretically at least, live without life or house insurance. Let's forget for a moment that your bank will insist you buy homeowner's insurance if you want a mortgage loan. Health insurance is something different. Most people, at some point, will get sick or injured and require medical treatment. And in most cases, you can't accurately predict when you're going to get sick or injured. And in most cases, a serious illness or injury will cost big bucks. Furthermore, in many parts of the USA, you can't see a doctor without insurance. So if you don't have health insurance or suitcases of cash, many people in the USA can't get even basic health care.

That's a huge difference between health insurance and other types of insurance. And that's why the debate that seems to be missing in our current health care shouting match is for-profit insurance companies. I don't see how we reform any aspect of the completely out of control health care costs in this country without doing what much of the rest of the world has already done: outlawed for-profit health insurance for basic coverage. I referred to this Washington Post article by T.R. Reid in my 9/3/09 post:

Foreign health insurance companies, in contrast, must accept all applicants, and they can't cancel as long as you pay your premiums. The plans are required to pay any claim submitted by a doctor or hospital (or health spa), usually within tight time limits. The big Swiss insurer Groupe Mutuel promises to pay all claims within five days. "Our customers love it," the group's chief executive told me. The corollary is that everyone is mandated to buy insurance, to give the plans an adequate pool of rate-payers.

The key difference is that foreign health insurance plans exist only to pay people's medical bills, not to make a profit. The United States is the only developed country that lets insurance companies profit from basic health coverage.

The current argument over whether we should have a "public option" is little more than a meaningless distraction. To really effect change in the way Americans get access to decent health care, we should be pursuing the establishment of a universal, not-for-profit health insurance system.

As long as we continue the fiction that we can have a for-profit health insurance system that will act in citizen's best interests, we're doomed to continue the mess we're now in.

Jon Stewart Lambastes 30 Republican Senators Who Voted to Sanction Rape

I know why a lot of the younger generation get most of their news from Comedy Central; that's where Jon Stewart lives. I don't know why the "mainstream" media didn't find time or space to blast this story all over the country, but fortunately Jon Stewart did.

Seems that Senator Al Franken introduced legislation that would ban the Pentagon from contracting with any company that forces women employees to sign waivers to not sue the company if they are raped as a result of their employment. Why on earth would we need a law like that? Because one of the biggest military contractors on the face of the earth, Halliburton, has a subsidiary (KBR) that does exactly that. And asserted that one of its employees, a 19 year old woman, couldn't sue KBR because of the waiver, after she was gang-raped by fellow employees and temporarily held captive in Iraq.

You need to watch the clip of Jon Stewart and listen to various Republican Senators explaining on the floor of the Senate why they voted against the amendment. Most of these same Republicans just recently were so outraged by Acorn's bumbling that it was their patriotic duty to ensure that group didn't receive "one penny more of government funds." Banning companies from government contracts if they cover up rape? Not the Senate's business in their view.

Fortunately, 68 other Senators who still had brains voted for the bill. Here's a link to the broadcast ** from The Daily Show. Here's a link to Buzzflash posting of the episode. And it's one sorry episode indeed.

** the link to the Daily Show may not work, and I don't know why... :-(

Feeling Safer In PA?

Back in August I posted twice about gun control (once about gun nuts protesting President Obama in Arizona and a follow-up about Travel Guru Arthur Frommer recommending tourists avoid Arizona because of their lack of gun control). There was no actual violence mentioned in either post, just the potential.

Unfortunately, this article is all about violence. It seems that Melanie Hain was a major gun proponent, and once made her point by carrying a loaded gun to her daughter's soccer game. And Melanie Hain is now dead, apparently at her husband's hand.

A soccer mom who gained national attention when she openly carried a loaded gun to her 5-year-old daughter's game was shot dead Wednesday along with her husband in what appeared to be a murder-suicide, police said.

So this 31 year old mother of three was having "marital trouble" for about a week and things spiraled out of control. It seems to me that a week or two of marital problems shouldn't end up with two coffins and three orphaned children.

Oh right, except for those guns the couple loudly insisted on having in their lives. They proved to be a convenient and effective way to end the "marital trouble." Permanently.

Everybody's Got An Opinion

So President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 and it seems like an awful lot of people have their underwear in knots over it. I was as surprised as anyone else when I heard the announcement, but I don't understand much of the reaction as presented by the major media outlets. Everyone seems to have opinions that they have no problem sharing with the rest of us. It's not really surprising. People in this country have opinions on just about everything, and most are not reluctant to "educate" everyone else about it.

There have been "man on the street" interviews with people, talking heads on commentary programs, etc. The loudest of the opinions seems to come down to a perception that the Prez hasn't done "enough" to warrant such an award. Like those folks on the street get a vote for Nobel Prizes. We are a society of critics and most of the critics think their opinions are much more valid than the next critic's view. I call it "the center of the universe" complex.

I can't argue that Obama has had a string of successes in the realm of peace in the past 9 or so months. I have no idea what factors the Nobel people consider in making the Peace Prize award. I can think of one possible reason for their decision. Comparison to the prior President, who made no effort to foment peace anywhere in his eight years. The satirical comedian Andy Borowitz made the point elegantly:

"(today)... NASA bombed the moon, saying it was the one spot President Bush missed."

As is often the case with satire, he's not far enough off the mark for it to be funny, per se.

The point is, perhaps President Obama has won this prize not for what he's accomplished so far, but because he's redirected this country's role in the world. Instead of dealing with international problems with landing craft and missiles, he's attempted to resurrect American diplomacy. Instead of unilateral actions, he's invited other nations to join with us to develop responses to world problems. Obama thinks about issues before opening his mouth, unlike his predecessor. The Prez is trying to talk with the Iranian and North Korean governments while the world had come to expect the leader of the most powerful country in the world to strap on his six shooter and rattle some sabers.

It's possible that the Nobel folks in Sweden feel greatly encouraged by that. Maybe it's the differences from the recent past that count most in awarding the Nobel Peace Prize this year.