Does anyone smell a PR marketing scam? Good question to ask the Boston Globe they should put “Paid Advertisement” at the beginning and end of this article.
Blue Cross is asking the state for more flexibility and they could provide a lower monthly health insurance rate.
The state’s largest health insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, said that with more flexibility from the state, it could offer slimmer coverage for an average of $210 a month
See the problem here? The state defined the minimum credible coverage allowed, which by most accounts is crappy. Blue Cross’ answer is to make bad health insurance worse and in effect taking the “insurance” part out of health insurance. If people are paying monthly premiums there should be some benefit if they are admitted as an inpatient. In its present form there is a $500 copay for hospital visits and a deductible overall of $2000. Blue Cross’ new plan not only raises the deductible to $3000 with an out-of-pocket limit of $6000 but also removes the hospital flat copay amount and to have everything be subject to the deductible. What kind of insurance security blanket does that provide anyone?
From Blue Cross (emphasis mine):
“If it’s buy or die, they could buy at $210 or $220,” said Allen Maltz, chief financial officer for Blue Cross. “It would be a comprehensive plan, covering hospital, office visits, prescription drugs. It wouldn’t eliminate categories of coverage.“
A little play on words here from Blue Cross but it’s disingenuous, they should put a disclaimer in tiny letters after saying that once their $3000 deductible is met, or maybe have the FedEx guy read it after they make that kind of dumb remark.
Blue Cross and the other insurers needed to review their insurance plans and see where they could tighten up and reduce cost. Instead they just removed additional coverage on an already bad product and are trying to push it with the Globe’s help.
<
p>
And thinking about “fundamental health system reform”, why did the Glob essentially blacklist coverage of the Health Care Amendment for the three-and-a-half years it existed (Aug.13 2003 to Jan. 2 2007), including the illegal act that finally killed it on Jan 2? I firmly believe that a major part of the answer can be discovered by following the money trail of advertising revenue from the health insurance industry to the Glob’s Accounts Recieved ledger. This would jive with JohnK’s above-stated concerns, now wouldn’t it?…
How much can health care cost? I always felt, back when I had insurance, that my $20 co-pay was enough to cover the cost of the doctor seeing me. And then I was paying out of pocket for a while on Cobra, but got sick of sending $400 dollars a month for nothing. Now I’ve saved about $1200 bucks, which ought to cover me if I slip on the ice and need a cast on my wrist, right? I’m not gonna need a heart transplant, and wouldn’t want one anyhow.
<
p>
That FedEx ad was a classic! But this Kaypro Computer ad is perhaps even more apt. Is it the same actor? I can’t tell.
Ain’t going to go far if it’s you break your back rather than your wrist and have to spend any time in the hospital.
<
p>
Funny thing about accidents is that we very rarely plan when they’ll happen and how bad they’ll be….
If I did break my back or got lukemia or something like that, how much does something like that cost? And what would they do, take all my money? Would they make me sell my guitars? Would they take my parent’s house? Refuse to treat me?
There’s a component of the uninsureds in Mass as well as nationwide called the “free riders”. They’re usually the young, healthy who, when struck by some life threatening illness or accident, incur large medical debt which is rarely, if ever, collected by the providers.
<
p>
Other than in the case of life threatening illness, or accident, the “free riders” don’t use health care providers.
<
p>
You say:
<
p>
<
p>
If directed to the young, otherwise healthy person who doesn’t typically buy insurance and doesn’t use providers except in emergencies, I think that’s just the type of “crappy” coverage, with no catastrophic cap, that should be available.
We need people going to their regular check ups, not buying crappy catastrophe insurance.
<
p>
What we need is a universal insurance system where everyone’s covered through the taxes they pay. I’m with PP on divorcing employment from health insurance, but I recognize health crises are too big for any one, normal person to deal with.
<
p>
As a part of any universal insurance program, there’s a real social contract that takes place. People who accept joining such a program would have a duty to meet certain, minimal standards – so I would fully support a penalty for people who did not go to their yearly check up, etc. It’s the routine visits that could save this country tens of billions – as well as save too many lives for me to count.
Doesn’t personal responsibiity and liberty count for anything to you?
<
p>
Under penalty of fine or jail you must:
<
p>
-get a yearly physical?
<
p>
-get your teeth checked?
<
p>
-mandatory blood pressure and cholesterol?
<
p>
-How about fines or imprisonment for being overweight?
<
p>
<
p>
Enough with the “crappy” insurance. Catastophic insurance is just what many healthy young people need. Besides, right now, many, the “free riders” have nothing.
<
p>
what a parent needs. The argument is flawed by limiting this to young people. There are families and persons who are not young that are required by law to buy insurance by the summer. Requiring persons to pay for insurance that doesn’t cover anything so that it’s “affordable” is the question that needs to be addressed here. What is affordable about paying a few hundred dollars a month so that nothing is covered for you or your family? They are offered the same coverage by doing nothing at all. That’s the main point. Is this the solution we’re going to provide for coverage? No, it’s can’t be. As long as we are working with this commercial model then we need to have these folks provide a more affordable plan that is actually a real health insurance plan.
is being reviewed as well. A Health Blog has a posting about a Young Adult Plan.
I agree, we need a system where the doctors and hospitals just get all their bills and salaries paid out of the state coffers, and we could eliminate the whole billing system and insurance system and concentrate on the health system.
<
p>
They do a CT scan on me, or put a cast on my leg? They don’t bill anybody, they just run the hospital, re-order the supplies, and have the state re-imburse them for all of it.
There are predictable results, when the state starts making our health decisions, both medical and financial (who will get what care, when, where, by whom, and for how much).
<
p>
The prospect of excellence, rewarded is what drives our system.
The reward is money.
No reward, no excellence.
How many bright young minds might be changed, after considering that a tough 7-10 year medical education will only land them a measly state job?
<
p>
Will the state also take over the institutions of medical education?
<
p>
What of the rights of current owners of private facilities and medical related concerns?
<
p>
Will standards be lowered, for the sake of inclusiveness?
<
p>
Will the state doctors be uninionized? Can they strike?
<
p>
What happens to medical malpractice? Are state doctors immune from liability? Who pays?
<
p>
What new government bureaucracies will be created to administer “health”? And, if you do socialize health care, how small a leap is it to complete the transition to full dependence upon the state for all of our basic needs?
<
p>
These are but a few of the hundreds, perhaps thousands of legitimate questions to be asked, when you are considering the nationalizing of one of our most critical systems.
I’d prefer to be my physician to be someone who practices the craft out of compassion, not greed, and sees his/her “reward” in the health and wellbeing of his/her patients.
<
p>
Of course doctors should be reasonably compensated, but I personally want no part of mercenary health care, thank you very much.
I frankly made it a new years resolution to avoid doing extensive commenting on threads involving the sorry state of health care financing in the US. Until and unless there is a serious move towards the German model, there will be a continuing deficiency in the US, which will never be solved.
<
p>
There are too many pigs at the trough in the US, and that was just shown a couple of days ago when it was announced that the Boston Catholic archdioces was selling its hospitals to a for-profit corporation.
Ascension Health is a non-profit Catholic group. The difference, not to be harsh is that Ascension actually knows what they are doing. The Boston Catholic archdiocese on the other hand, no so much. I have worked on the tech side with both organizations and there is a considerable difference.