|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Thursday, December 12, 2002My understanding is that the rise of employer sponsorship of health insurance was largely an end run around wage price freeze laws. That is, health insurance was offered as an employment incentive by larger corporations in lieu of wages or other incentives. Foolish laws often lead to foolish, irrational behavior and often dangerous, unforeseen consequences. Poorly thought out tax and business laws have led to similar consequences. One reason some companies have over-used options grants has been to sidestep the cap on executive salaries. So, something once transparent to investors becomes opaque and easily abused. Laws curtailing the efforts of corporate raiders have led to mergers where the only clear beneficiaries are the newly gilded executives of the acquired firm. At least the raiders acted as sieves separating the chaff from the wheat in the aquired firm. And a plan to fix “the mess”: I have a simple plan to fix the health insurance system. First, get rid of all corporate and government health insurance. Secondly, all insurance providers would be required to provide insurance to everyone at the same price. The first step would bring the consumer back into the equation. I have worked for large employers all my life. My choices are limited, and my visibility into the true cost is almost nil. If I were responsible for the cost, I would select the appropriate insurance AND the appropriate medical care. The second step would once again create a pooled risk. That has disappeared in the current insurance climate. I have a daughter that was born with a congenital nephrotic syndrome. She required dialysis from 1 1/2 months until her kidney transplant at 1 1/2 years. I have looked at private insurance. She is un-insurable given our current system. I have to stay continually employed with large employers until she is 21. Or go bankrupt. Pool the risk - isn't that what insurance was for. Then everyone could be covered. Government's function should simply be to assist low income people to purchase insurance. Not to provide insurance. And maybe that shouldn't be government's function at all. Maybe charitable organization could provide that function. The incredibly reduced tax burden would surely make more monies available for charity. At least if I were king for a day, that's what I would do. posted by Sydney on 12/12/2002 08:19:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
