The “insurance” model is wrong for health care. Insurance is the transfer of risk from the insured to the insurer (Wikipedia). With health care, the lifetime risk is 100 per cent. That is, it is certain that everyone will, at some time, need health care. Even the healthiest person will need the services of a doctor at some point in his or her life. A risk this high should keep insurance companies out of the business, but they gamble on when people will need services, and make a lot of money there.
Insurance companies exist for the purpose of making profit. Their shareholders demand it. When insurers get involved in health care, they face a dilemma. The insurance model can be summed up in a simple equation :
Profit = earned premium + investment income - incurred loss - underwriting expenses. (Wikipedia)
Earned premiums are the money they collect from people who have insurance. Companies invest those premiums and earn income. From these monies, they must pay employees (underwriting expenses) and disburse payment to providers of health care. These disbursements are the “incurred loss” in the equation.
Insurers can increase profits at every point in the equation, but each increase has its downside. If the insurance company increases premiums, it may lose business. It can make riskier investments, but the potential for increased income is small, and sometimes risky investments lose money. Insurance companies tend to be strongly risk-averse investors. A third place to increase profits is to lower the amount of money paid to insurance company employees. The drawbacks here are obvious.
Last, and certainly the crown jewel of profit-enhancement for health insurers is the item called “incurred loss.” Every time an insurance company denies a claim, every cent collected from the insured, and every cent made on the investment of those premiums is profit: pure, creamy, free money.
Health care insurers have plenty of ways to make this free money. High-deductable insurance only covers medical care after the insured has paid a large sum toward health care. This is the only true health insurance. It is sometimes called catastrophic health insurance. Buyers of these policies pay for their routine care, but have policies that cover the big, scary things, like intensive care unit stays and cancer.
Exclusions for everything from cosmetic surgery to pre-existing conditions are another way to make money. Often the longest part of a health insurance policy is the section on exclusions. Insurers also dictate to providers how much they will pay for various services. Doctors have two choices, accept the insurer’s payment or move to a cash practice. Patients don’t like cash practices, which require them to wrangle with insurers for payment.
These demands on doctors have some truly bizarre results. Getting a wart frozen off at the dermatologist is “surgery.” For people fighting skin cancer, every squirt of liquid nitrogen may cost them as much as a hundred dollars, because insurers pay at a lower rate for surgery, and doctors count and bill each one separately.
Conservatives for Patient Rights believe that the patient is ultimately responsible for his or her health care. The insurance model promises something for nothing. Patients are responsible for their own health and ought to be able to pay for their own health care. No one should be bankrupted by health care costs. No one should have to refuse treatment to prevent bankrupting their family, but both these things happen every day.
The insurance model encourages young, healthy people to remain uninsured until it becomes obvious that they will need health care. Rather than shoulder the burden of paying for the care they will ultimately need, they bet that they will remain healthy. When the unthinkable happens, and these people require care, they either walk away from the bill (transferring the cost to others in the system) or spend months or years paying for it.
Many government entities and companies use something called self-insurance. All participants pay set amounts into a pool of money on a regular basis. . A third-party administrator spells out how the plan works and makes agreements with local providers. The administrator pays the bills according to the plan, and the company reimburses the administrator each month. Once a month, the company cuts a check to the administrator for those benefits. These health plans generally provide good access to care for an affordable price. Because the administrator works for a set fee, there is no motivation to deny claims. People like this kind of coverage. They are essentially paying for their health care in advance. There are no high-risk pools, where people are priced out of the market. There is no motive to deny coverage. People can choose their doctors and deductibles.
Who hates this plan? The insurance companies. They love that rich, creamy, free money.


Comments: 129
I'm grateful for the dental insurance that comes with my level of employment - I really needed it once.
Thank you for giving us the definitions and explanations, Ann.
We should have evolved far beyond that by now, but clearly haven't.
I believe it's more difficult now with the existence of credit ratings and crap like that which say nothing about a person's determination or character, but decides so much from mortgages rates to car insurance premiums.
A very good article. You presented in a thoughtful way the insurance mechanism. I would say that insurance is the transfer of financial risk, not health risk.
I must have overlooked it, so would you point out where the individual has responsibility for their health and how that should factor into the insurance equation.
As far as I can tell people file bankrupcy to close out their debts, if that is okay for debts related to personal consuption, related to bsuiness activities, then why isn't it okay for medical care debts?
Filing bankruptcy destroys a person's ability to get credit. raises their rates for auto insurance, and has negative consequences in a job search. In some states, one may not exclude his home from bankruptcy. This means a person could lose his home for medical debts. Medical debts are not "optional," in the sense that credit card debt is.
Do you feel people shouldn;t be responsible of for their own health? Do you feel people can or can;t do anything to influence their health?
Bankruptcy is what happens to debtors, people who contract debt and then cannot pay it. People who become sick have not consumed something; they have needed care.
People should be responsible for their health and for paying for their health care. One way for them to be responsible is to pay for health care before they need it, from the day they reach adulthood until the day they no longer work.
Naturally people can influence their health to some extent. However some people get sick through no fault of their own. They should not be punished for that, particularly not by being made paupers through medical debts.
In the self-insured model, everyone pays in, and everyone gets the care they need. No one is raking money off the top, and no one is "out of money" to pay for health care. It all balances out. HSAs are great for healthy people who can expect not to have catastrophes. But does that mean that if you haven't saved up enough for your chemo or your heart attack by the time you need it, you should just be left to die?
"No one should be bankrupted by health care costs".
And, all I could think was that basically is one of the things that is bankrupting my family right now. Doctor's bills and other costly things that have basically ruined our credit permanently.
I worked in corporate benefits for years and saw all the devious behavior that the insurance companies used to avoid paying claims for covered services. They cheat us right and left out of what is rightfully ours.
You can add me to that list! I've had numerous claims denied. Most were paid when I complained but why do you suppose they make multiple mistakes in their favor? I don't know what kind of people are your circle of acquaintances but I've known quite a few over the years who have been denied.
I've also had a claim paid at $5,000 less than it cost because the neurosurgeons had sued the insurance company for better payment. Our system of having insurance companies with a conflict of interest has broken down on the American people. The insurance companies cherry pick their clientèle and that should be a sufficient profit boost for them.
I am curious about how many people rreview the bill the insurance companies gets and challenges what is oer charged in the bill?
Insurance companies and hospitals probably don't like me as I always try to make sure the bill is accurate. Last time the hospital said to me "Well, it's the insurance company who will be paying it!" Then I had to take the bill to the doctor for a statement that it was for something he didn't order and my wife didn't have.
You wouldn't necessarily know if you did have a claim denied. Since it would be automatically resubmitted by your physician or hospital's billing department. As well as it would be appealed on your behalf by them. Because if it is denied, the doctor or hospital has to write it off. They can't bill the patient for it, due to contractual rules.
done the bankruptcy before because of medical bills. some hospitals have a free bed plan, if you qualify,it is good for a year
Each time a doctor sees a patient the doctor's card is credited and the patients card is debited. At end of week doctor trades credits for cash at the bank and at the end of the year part of your tax return goes to repay your debt. No interest is accumulated on the debt and at death unpaid amounts not covered by estate are written off as welfare.
This is truly a capitalist free market solution. Financing is easy when you get rid of the Government, bankers and insurance people.
How about some FREESPONSIBILITY.
BTW, Ann, all recent reports show that the average insurance company makes only 3% profit. That's not a huge profit. People yell at the oil companies for making 8% and that's not a huge profit either. I surely wish that more people owned or managed a business when they were young - including our politicians - so they understand these things.
Obama Admits His Plan Will Eliminate Private Insurance
I ask simply because if my OWN company made ONLY 3% or 8% profit, I would have bailed to another industry YEARS ago! I think you are either A) Misinformed or B) Lying.
http://www.wbur.org/news/npr/111494182
The site I showed the other day says that the average is 3%. Based on this one it might be 5%. So? That's not much, Spartan. I would like to see you open up a business and only have 2 or 3 or 5% profit.
BTW, Spartan, why is it that you can comment on things I say but if I visit your posts you delete my comments, even when I have back up proof? Just wondering.
Back when we were talking about oil company profits, it was shown that they only make 8%.
When I worked at Sears as part of our orientation, we were shown the profit pie chart. It was also 8%.
You've really been misinformed about this, Spartan. You really need to start watching something other than CNN.
Capitalism is wrong for the consumer.
If it were not for Pharm companies your life expectancy would be a lot shorter. They are the ones who come up with the miricale drugs that save lives.
If the plan is not good enough for the legislators and leader, it is probably not good enough for the rest of us.
There are always miscalculations and bugs to be worked out with any program. It's understandable. It's expected even.
But really ... imagine the bugs and miscalculations which could, and probably will result from a program as complicated, expensive, and widely implemented as NATIONAL Healthcare will be. Think of ....
Social Security. . . money raided and used for other purposes, near bankrupt
Veterans Administration Hospitals . . . nuf said?
Getting out of Iraq took longer than they thought it would . . .
And we are still in Afghanistan ...
And just who is the Secretary of State anyway? Hilary or Bill?
Closing Gitmo is more complicated than the admin thought . . .
But let's pay some Weigurs 800 million to live on a tropical island (or whatever, they're out on my dime even if it was only $2.80)
How many of Obama's picks didn't pay their taxes until it became known publically . . .
Bernanke doesn't know where 500 billion went...
Fanny and Freddie are still receiving gov monies . . .
Yikes! Someone took Airforce One on a joy ride . . .
I think that they were not expecting . . .
The economy was worse than we thought . . .
I could have calibrated my words better . . .
It was (fill in the blank) far more/ far less than anticipated . . .
The president meant to say ... (Joe and Gibbs)
I think what Joe meant to say ...(Gibbs)
Mmm....
I think I'll implement a National Healthcare program, what could go wrong?
And for the reader's convenience: flag@whitehouse.gov
President Obama stated in an ABC news interview that the legislators have opted not to participate. Maybe that reply was another ad-lib, not on the teleprompter.
I can see why the issue has been tabled. The legislators need time to think up a plausible reason not to participate. I can't imagine what it would be. By not participating, they are telling us that "It's okay for you, but not good enough for us."
I did not ruin my own health like some have stated above, someone else who drove a car while they were sick destroyed three disks in my back, two in my neck and one in my lower back. Her auto insurance only covered $5,000 of over $23,000 in medical bills incurred at the time. With the insurance I had from my work and the pittance from the insurance company that brought what I owed down to just over $8,000. The problem was that the accident left me unable work at my old job and not able to obtain any other work.
It took over two years to go through the hell of getting Social Security and Medicare. Oh, the operation on my neck to remove the two damaged disks cost over $50,000 that was about four years after the original operation on my lower back from the accident. Medicare paid for only part of that and I had to pay what I could until it was paid off. Try living on S.S. it is more like existing on the lowest level.
Now my back is getting so bad there are days I can barely walk and when I do I have to use a cane to get around. My doctor wants me to see a specialist. I had to tell him I can't afford to see one as I know he will say I need another operation on my disk to remove it and that will cost another fortune. Today I went to make a step and the pain was so bad in my leg it just collapsed from under me. So I sit mostly and don't walk any more than I just have to, and yes that also is not good for me since I need to exercise.
I'm not complaining, just telling it like life is for me. The woman who hit me died in the accident and all she owned was the car she was driving. It appears that some think that Medicare takes care of all you need but it does not. Same for the so called drug benefit.
I went to pick up one of my medications this evening and by mistake the pharmacist filled my insulin prescription. I told her I didn't need for it to be filled until next month as I had enough to last until then. Problem is she told me the cost had gone from $40 a month to $125, which means my drug benefit has reached the point where I have to pay for all my medications out of pocket. This is August at least last year the benefit lasted until October before I had to start paying out of pocket. I don't have nearly a thousand a month to pay for my meds from now til next January when the benefits will kick in for the new year.
I know I'm not the only one who this is happening to. The insurance companies recorded higher profits this year than last year, that is from their own records. The drug companies can charge whatever they want to thanks to those in Congress who set up the drug benefit program for Medicare. They charge not only the part they pay for your medications but also add what you pay for them against the total allowed for medications under the so called drug benefit program.
:O\
And when I was injured in the auto accident I had long term disability insurance with my job. That was another joke. The insurance company's doctor decided I was able to return to work. Funny not only did he never see me he and the insurance company are not in this state but a neighboring state. Even though I had a lawyer he said it wasn't worth the fight to go after them as it would mean I would lose what ever I got from them from S.S. and have to pay back S.S. if I got anything from them.
:O\
I think a turning point was when my boss was having a hissy fit one day and dragged everyone into a large conference room and just screamed at them for 15 minutes, basically telling them that they were worthless. I was amazed that no one physically attacked her - it is to their credit that they didn't.
The SS you have earned continues regardless of any compensatory damages awarded by the courts. Millionaires can draw Social Security!
I do write to my congress man and senators...the answers I receive are the same bull crap replies on a standard from reply. The replies are the standard party line and nothing more. They do not address any of the questions or comments that I make.
:O\
First of all, there are too many stakeholders (employees, interfacing corporations, currently insured clients) who would be directly and adversely affected if you simply wrest healthcare from them.
Secondly, like it or not, this is a capitalistic society, not a socialistic one. Healthcare, necessary as it is, as are food, shelter clothing and literature, is a commodity and comes with a price.
So while we agree that healthcare is not insurance, it's also not an entitlement.
It is true that health care is not insurance. And no one is proposing changes to health care or government takeover of same. Insurance is insurance, and that is what desperately needs overhaul and revision!
Whether it is a "right" or not is up to argument. But any nation that can put twelve billion dollars a month into Iraq surely can provide a decent health insurance program.
Your second paragraph is a different issue altogether ... and one for a different thread.
Dan, just above here, doesn't seem to understand it. :-(
Most people who get insurance and have pre exisiting illness, that maybe they aren't even aware of get screwed. I for one cannot afford insurance and am looking for a job that provides insurance for me...even if I have to pay a portion of that. It has made it almost impossible for so many to get insurance without getting one with such a high deductable that it is crazy. The insurance companies advertise that they can get insurance for you and just...say $9.00 a day, but when they find out you smoke or are over 50 years old, that price goes up quickly. They shouldn't advertise something that they don't intend to follow through on.
To those who have insurance...that isn't a guarantee that the insurance company is going to pay for the visit to the physician or the hospital...they have their outs.
I personally like the idea of putting money into an account and letting it build over time and if something happens then I have the money to pay for my health care. By the time the extremely high deductable is met, and the insurance company actually has to jump in, the year starts over as does the high deductable. It is a vicious circle for most people.
When you think about how much money is paid on insurance policies and money that could be put into an account each month to cover your health then most people would consider having one of those accounts and maybe even something that would cover a stay in the hospital or long term care.
Putting money into an account is a great idea - in addition to Medicare! Young people starting out at low wages might not be able to afford medical care for many years. I've read that if you can go ten years with no expenses, the savings route will be the best to go. Few can accomplish that.
The savings account thing is a great idea, but now at 54 and 2 divorces, am I able to even have a savings account. I can't imagine having to do it at the age my children are. They can't afford to put money aside. Thank goodness my son-in-law works for the government and they have a good insurance plan. My son doesn't have insurance and isn't paid enough that he can afford his own place muchless get insurance.
I believe that we should have a good, solid healthcare system run by the government, whether it be federal or state. Years ago, hospitals were non-profit and doctors did not make millions of dollars a year and we were all in a much better place if we got sick.
And because it wasn't a gamble with one's very livelihood, I think people actually took more responsibility. Maybe our lack of responsibility as a nation has more to do with less emphasis on prevention and more emphasis on treatment. Nowadays, it's quicker and easier for a doctor to see you after you've gotten sick - throw an expensive pill or test at you. It's much easier and more lucrative than meeting with you a couple of times a year and monitoring your health and supporting preventive practices.
Faster, cheaper, more profit. That's what our entire country has turned to, healthcare included.
Now the left doesn't like the way that turned out and are ready to throw millions more into the unemployment ranks (which will be the ultimate effect of dismantling the current system).
HMO's were a great private investment opportunity for doctors. They were pitched as 'efficient', one-stop healthcare centers, but they soon were exposed for the for-profit, low-quality care institutions they turned out to be. Senior executives make decisions about benefits solutions, not workers. If you've ever been at the executive levels of a company, you know that. Sure, unions negotiate, but they do not call the final shots in a majority of industries.
“Hello”, my name is Lee P. You are my friend and I’m just stopping by to say hello. I hope that today will be your best day yet and that all your tomorrows will be filled with joy and happiness.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977764200
Our Hospital reported several millions in write offs due to inablility to pay and there are no reports of people not getting life saving care.
If the people in my community are getting life saving care, that seems to suggest that everyone gets treated (if they can reach the facility). How is it we have an medical care access problem?
If the hospital remains in business and their payments come predominately from the insurance companies, how is we have payment system problem?
No one has been complained about the quality of care or the innovation/imporvement in care so what is the health care crisis that requires change by the end of this year?
Second, "life-saving care" means what will keep you alive for the next 24 hours. It doesn't extend to chemotherapy for cancer patients and the like. In fact, if you are not in imminent danger of death, they can and will discharge you if you cannot pay.
I am not sure who raised the concern about whether unpaid care was charity or not, I am not sure why you are so adverse to the idea of charity or how charity should affect medical care.
If a person shows up at an ER not knowing what is wrong and the ER diagnosis the problem (telling the patient) is that providing a valuable part of medical care? If a patient knows what the problem is doesn’t that help them seek appropriate treatment, even turn to the community as a whole for help? If the people do give charity, the government actually encourages this through tax laws, what is so wrong for them to share voluntarily? I prefer the charity route because it has more accountability tha the government.
If the real issue is “The crisis is the fact that at the current rate of inflation, no one except the rich will be able to afford health care.” Then why don’t we focus on that rather than couch it in the terms of “health care reform”?
Health care suggests the whole of health not just the part about paying. It feels kinda of like the slide of hand, make everyone worry about their health when really it is about inflation.
If it is about inflation then let’s talk about what is causing the inflation. Is it the general rise in prices similar to food, housing (though not at the moment), energy? Or is more like leading edge medical care and the associated costs for research and development? Or does it have to do with the supply and demand of health care professionals? Or is it that just analogous to the cost of better entertainment or better living styles that better quality of health cost more? I believe that if we focus on the specific problem we are much more likely to resolve it than if we try to fix everything even those that are working.
And no one is asking for a change in the actual delivery of health care, nor has one been proposed as yet. It is a change in the insurance that one utilizes to pay for health care. The insurance companies have proven to be very poor stewards of the public health in this nation. While we have good quality for the most part and great innovation, the fact remains that many, and quite a few of the insured, do not have access to health care.
Sure they can get emergency care and that is good, but when the emergency is passed and one needs to be treated for the condition causing the emergency to start with, they are met with the question "What insurance do you have?"
We were looking for an orthopedic surgeon and upon entering a surgeon's office, were greeted with the sign "If you cannot pay your co-pay, come back when you can." Granted, that is the only office I've ever been in displaying such a sign.
I've known a trucker who had several heart attacks, always at outlying towns and never at home. Since he had no insurance, they treated him and did an emergency angioplasty, but never went tot hat next step and treat what caused it. Finally, back in town, he had another attack, and local doctors arranged the surgery. I suspicion the hospital wrote off their portion of the final bill.
So their is a genuine crisis in health care insurance even though the actually delivery is very good for emergencies.
If people are willing to be specific/truthful about the problems why should I trust them with the solution?
I can't answer that but would assume that they figure people will read the bill and listen to what is discussed and know which it is. But no, the government does not wish to own all the health delivery facilities and employ all the providers. That would be a massive challenge and unnecessary at this time. I certainly could not make an argument for it. But I would favor a single payer, non-profit insurance system.
“But no, the government does not wish to own all the health delivery facilities and employ all the providers.” I worry about the proverbial risk associated with assuming what others want or don’t want. I would seem like a daunting task. But I have get to hear the government let alone the politician say they couldn’t do it. However, if it were a long-term migration it does seem do able. Put a government insurance company with very deep pockets competing with for profit or even not for profit insurance organizations and over time it is feasible that the cost could risk without premiums risking that all but one insurance provider would be out of business. With a monopoly on the paying it is plausible that payment controls (kinda like Medicare) could force hospitals and even doctors to give up their private practices and either close down or convert to government run. Would it be possible once the government has control of the medical delivery system that they could either reduce sites for care thus forcing a waiting list and at some point deciding based on statistical success which treatments are most valuable to maintain? In all of the government run or controlled programs I am un aware of any system of accountability so it the shift did happen where would there be any alternative to government care? The private companies may be willing to start up new insurance companies and private hospitals, however, if the government (as proposed) is taxing such service there is an additional government control barrier.
If you turn this over to the government without any accountability, I am concerned that things could quickly run amuck.
I feel that independent (from government) cooperative insurance organizations (something like what Blue Cross/Blue Shield) would be well worth trying before we are forced into government controlled programs.
Thanks for the response and the details! I understand your feelings and concerns. I personally feel that the government is the only entity that has a bit of accountability to me. I vote. Senior in general are the most voting group of people in the nation.
I have nothing to say about the decisions or policies of a private corporation. They answer only to the stockholders and the CEOs who seem to feel the companies are their own personal piggy banks. Even the state insurance commissions have no say over the company's payment of benefits, only their following insurance laws.
I feel that the insurance companies have had decades to improve their act and have failed to do so. I grant that there are problems with government run insurance but if we are to keep costs down and get anything meaningful it needs to be similar to the Medicare plan. It has been a remarkable success with a minimum of overhead, much lower than the private company's 30%.
But there is no groups that watches more closely than seniors and are quicker to express their views to their congressional delegation. And every member of congress can be voted out!
I'd have no problem with such as Blue Shield operating a single payer, non-profit system if it could be worked out. I don't really see how but would listen to ideas. I have been burned by insurance companies too many times to have any good feelings toward them or trust in them.
Blue Shield was as good as I've encountered and it was subject to many errors in their favor and the eternal quests for any pretext on which to decline payment. I'll give them credit, when the errors were called to their attention they addressed them cheerfully and quickly. But Medicare is not that sloppy.
It would appear that our feelings are built on differing backgrounds and experiences so we'll probably not agree int he near future but I do appreciate your feelings and thoughts.
“I have nothing to say about the decisions or policies of a private corporation. They answer only to the stockholders and the CEOs who seem to feel the companies are their own personal piggy banks.” The stockholders are the least important in the chain of accountability. How many thousands of CEOs do you think there are in this country, how do you hear about them, do you hear about the good ones or the bad ones, do you believe that every person doing a similar job as all good or all bad? Could your system for evaluating CEOs be flawed?
“I personally feel that the government is the only entity that has a bit of accountability to me. I vote. Senior in general are the most voting group of people in the nation.” It the more personal control we have generally the better we feel. Even with our individual votes being counted there is little individual control of the larger things around us. At least I don’t feel I have personal control so I look for ways that there is some overriding accountability, for without accountability things tend to run amuck.
A company has several layers of accountability. Each company is accountable to their customers, if they don’t meet expectations the customers stop buying. If your government doesn’t meet you vote for a new Senator. Which Senator has stopped funding a government agency because of not meeting the public’s expectations?
If a company is not providing all you want from them there is most likely a competing company who services you can use. If the government isn’t meeting your expectations they have no competitors? Which one is accountable to the people?
If a company spends more than it takes in (even after some borrowing, never in the trillions) they go bankrupt. When the government spends more than it takes it they simply borrow more money (in the several trillions). Which has fiscal accountability?
If a company breaks the law, ordinance, or regulation the company has to pay fines, risk sanctions, possible criminal actions, even going out of business. Companies have lost business or even gone out of business for violations (remember Author Anderson). If the government violates a law, a regulation (the rare ones that they aren’t exempt from), or an ordinance what fine do they have to pay and to whom, what sanctions will they suffer? What is the worst that can happen to the government? Who has the accountability?
Most people equate accountability with whether they like or don’t like someone or something and that the person be fired or the company loose money. Effective accountability is about establishing specific expectations, measuring the performance to achieve those expectations, and changing to improve performance.
You believe government is accountable because you can vote for your Senator. That requires your Senator to be involved in monitoring the government services so they can tell when they are working as effectively as they should, or that your Senator has direct influence over the government employees that provide those service, or that the Senator even knows what to look for when evaluating those services. Which services does your Senator take to task or even reward for the services they provide? On health care which one of your Senators had read estimated 1,000 pages of the health care bills that have come out of committees? Which one do feel will be able to say if the government is providing the expected service based on those laws? More importantly which will say if the bill they passed isn’t working?
As best I can tell, it is rare a Federal regulation or law that has accountability built into it. The accounting regulations that significantly contributed to the financial meltdown in 2008 took over a year and the decimation of the banking system before it was modified. A regulation that had that much impact had no measures for performance, no accountability.
I am glad you are so confident in government accountability through you voting for your Senator. I want specific criteria that all people understand, consequences for not meeting those expectations prescribed, and I want a system that regularly measure performance and reports on progress.
I like to be in agreement, I have worked my whole career to be in agreement with others. However, I feel that the quality of a solution is enhanced by a diversity of perspectives. If we can start with what we want to achieve, develop measures to evaluate the performance of solutions so there is a mechanism to change them we have the best chance of success over time, and the best methods will come from early disagreement with later agreement.
When I was in school one of the things taught was how the older civilizations such as the China and the mid-east had a longer-term view and that the problem with the US was its need for instant gratification. The current politics of “health car reform” seems pre-occupied with what happens in the next few weeks to solve something that is touted to be controlling how our grandchildren’s’ grandchildren receive health care. The use is to be long-term why can’t we break the solution into smaller pieces and work on them separately to come to an agreement?
Thanks again! What you are discussing here now is a form of accountability, no doubt. But I've worked virtually all my life in jobs where I was accountable and yet did not meet the methodology of which you speak. This methodology is actually a newcomer on the scene with it's detractors as well as it's proponents, and pretty well guarantees few will ever exceed the minimum standards. It clearly does not expect the best of anyone!
In setting standards in the method you describe you are guaranteeing a minimum with a maximum not happening. The jobs I've worked on were such that you knew that you weren't cutting it if a boss came along and said to go pick up your last check! Under that system, most exceeded the minimum standards because they had no way of determining just what managements expectations were. And management could hold out much higher expectations of all.
Anyhow, that discussion has little to do with what we have been discussing. The accountability for our elected delegations is exactly what the voters wish it to be as the voters hold the key to their continued employment and all the nice perks they get. They were accountable long before "metrics" became the catch word of the era. Over the course of the years I've seen various representatives of the people loose their standing with the voters and loose their jobs. Granted, with the amount of remuneration the elected delegations receive from the large corporations, it is understandable if the delegates loose sight of this fact.
On the other hand, if it is a for-profit insurance corporation providing the payment, denying legitimate claims will reward them! Is rewarding someone to do something wrong the kind of accountability you like? And I've yet to be given a vote for someone to represent me to the insurance company internally. You can't escape the fact that private, for-profit insurance companies do have a clear and pressing, conflict of interest.
Incidentally, I have had an elected delegate attempt to help me, both with private insurance, where he was helpless, and with government, where he had great influence.
Frankly, I don't think we are going to get a health care insurance overhaul bill at this time. The opponents are conducting a massively financed and ferocious campaign and both false and misleading claims are the tools with which they operate. This is identical to what they did in the early nineties to defeat any changes. Their efforts seem to be working. Before the election, the majority wanted health care insurance overhaul while now it would appear that a majority are too frightened.
You mention doing the changes in small pieces and this is exactly what Obama is working toward. He's well aware of the opposition and money he must overcome. Dennis Kucinich wants to do it all at once but he didn't get elected. I believe that no meaningful bill will be enacted and that the American people will, once again, be the ultimate loosers. This is the entire reason for the hurried aspect of this reform, no one wants to loose an opportunity for something so precious and so difficult!
I might well have agreed with you many years ago, but over the years I've seen too much of the reality of life and big business. I've dealt with too many insurance companies specifically. I know for fact that most with which I have dealt, have no real integrity. I'd prefer to take my chance on something where I get to vote on the board of directors.
“It clearly does not expect the best of anyone!” I am not sure where this comes from. The analogy I learn this approach from was sports, which seems to get quite a few people doing their best. The expectation is victory in sports, the score helps people stay focused and provide feedback on the effectiveness of what they are doing. Many people equate accountability to blame that is an abuse of the idea of accountability that I would like included in our government programs/laws/regulations.
By establishing documented expectations you provide a clear common reference for all on what is to be achieved. This helps people decide whether what they are doing will work toward the desired outcome, rather than spending their time on things that may feel good but will not contribute to the planned benefits. By measuring performance of planned activities you are giving feedback on the effectiveness of the activities. This objective feedback enables people to modify what was planned so they can better achieve the desired outcomes.
For those that haven’t used this type of approach it can be initially uncomfortable. However, those that have implemented effectively find it has removed much of the frustration related to not knowing if what they are doing is working.
My focus in this discussion is for the inclusion of this approach to the issue at hand. However, I believe it could be modified to help people to better understand the roles and responsibilities of elected officials.
As bad as big business has been in your experience, I think government both big and small as been just as bad. Rather than focus in who is good or bad why not establish new expectations for medical care payer (government, insurance companies, employers, individuals) and then develop ways to measure their performance.
I feel a cooperative approach to insurance could be an effective competitive alternative, but I also believe they need to have specific expectations otherwise they can drift and either go out of business or become a for profit organization.
You may feel the sports analogy inappropriate, however, the foundation of is based on clear expectations, concise feedback, and the flexibility to modify actions to affect the desired outcome. I believe these ideas can work for any prolonged activity or organization.
I did hear that today the President began talking about health insurance reform. That suggests a smaller bite rather than all the health care reform he was touting.
I'll acknowledge that the methodology you propose works. But it works only to set minimum standards, not to achieve maximum results. And I've never seen it used in sports. How does that work? You have to make five tackles, ten blocks, and interception of twelve passes? Your people are being ask to do the minimum acceptable.
I've no problem with what you have just proposed here, that standards be set for the health care payer(s). Again, there is a problem assessing what people want and devising a way to measure that if it is accomplished. But with insurance companies, you've got to remove the c conflict of interest to accomplish much.
For large unwieldy organizations, the setting of metrics may be the best idea as it is so hard to have any other standards and if everyone accomplishes the minimum, you will have functionality.
I've never hear Obama talk about any government involvement, other than regulatory, in the delivery of health care services, so for him to talk about the insurance tells me he has realized that his verbiage has contributed to a gross misunderstanding by the American people.
Frankly, we are not going to get a health care insurance bill through at this time I do not believe. Again, the legislators must have the insurance money just to keep their jobs and both sides are supported by these companies.
It's past time for me to go to bed so I better quit for tonight. I hope that my comments here reflect more clarity than I'm feeling right now!
Thanks, Duane!