Memo:
From: Lindsey Jackson, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana
To: Blue Cross Blue Shield Montana clientsIn today’s world, planning health care expenses can seem like an overwhelming task. However, by proactively managing your health care and thoroughly understanding your insurance benefits, you can feel better about how you choose to spend your health care dollars.
Toward that end Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana is pleased to present Health Insurance Essentials education sessions through our Blue University℠ team; this is a select group of our staff dedicated to educating our members about how to most effectively use their benefits while navigating the sometimes confusing waters of the health insurance industry.
Beginning January 18, 2011, Blue University℠ will be hosting the Health Insurance Essentials program throughout Montana to help you learn how to:
Wisely use health insurance benefits
Access the right provider network
Proactively manage health care costsSign up today for one of the sessions below. If you have questions, call Lindsey Jackson at 406.437.5369 or send her an email at Lindsey_Jackson@bcbsmt.com.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana | 560 N. Park Avenue | Helena, MT 59604 | 1.800.447.7828 | http://www.bcbsmt.com
An independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent Blue Cross and Blue Shield Plans. Registered and SM service marks of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, a registered mark of BCBSMT, serving the residents and businesses of Montana.
To: Lindsey Jackson, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana
Re: Your offer to provide “Health Insurance Education”
Dear Ms. Jackson:
Thank you for your generous offer to provide me and former fellow Montanans with “education” regarding what you do for a living, which is screw us personally and mess up our health care in general.
I have another view of who is in need of education, and offer the following:
1. For-profit health insurance is bad public policy. Health insurance profit and quality patient care are at odds with one another.
2. Due to the profit motive, health insurers seek to avoid any client that might potentially be unprofitable.
3. Because of #2, health insurers created the term “preexisting condition.”
4. Because of #2, health insurers created “rescission.”
5. Because of #2, health insurers invest heavily in politicians so that laws contrary to public policy are passed. Hence, Obama’s health care “reform” package.
6. Because of #2, people with “preexisting conditions” (a term created by insurers) are forced into high-risk pools where generally they have to spend $12,000 or more before insurers pay $1.
7. Because of the high cost of adversely selected pools, people don’t buy in. Hence, millions of people who might get sick are uninsured, and you have conveniently avoided them. (That’s bad public policy.)
8. Because of #2, health insurers dumped senior citizens on government.
9. Because of #2, health insurers created the hugely profitable “Medicare Supplement”, where you pay 20% of approved Medicare expenses often at a higher price than Medicare charges for the other 80%!
10. Because of #2, health insurers created the hugely profitable Medicare “Advantage”, a subsidized programmed subtly designed to remove profitable clients from Medicare, leaving Medicare with the sick ones. (We spend our working days pining for the day we can get on Medicare and away from you. When finally we are able to join Medicare, there you are again. Weird!)
11. Because of health insurers reluctance to pay claims at all or in full, doctors and hospitals over-bill, hence driving health care costs upward and upward.
12. Because of greed and the profit motive, health insurers often skim 20% or more off the top of each health care dollar for their private use.
13. Because health insurers fear real competition, they convinced their in-pocket politicians to remove any kind of public option from health care “reform”, and want to force private citizens to buy their crappy products.
Hence, because of private health insurers, the United States has the worst health care system of the 34 industrialized democracies, with massive expenses, poor outcomes, and millions of uninsured.
You did this to us. You are leaches on our system. Your bosses are probably sociopaths. We can’t get rid of you because you are politically entrenched in our corrupt political system. You are part of the corruption.
So, how’s my education going, Lindsey? Want me to come lecture, or is the conference really for the purpose of blowing smoke up people’s asses?
Most sincerely,
Mark
PS: Lindsey, why don’ you write me?
______________
PS: It is true that BCBS of Montana is technically “not for profit”, meaning its overhead is 14% instead of 20%. However, its agents and executives are driven by the same motives and play in the same arena as the for-profits, and so are the same animal with a lighter coat.
Piece of Mindful 
From: Lindsey Jackson
To: Mark T
Dear Mark,
Thank you for your interest in our program. Yes, we spend 14% of premiums on hookers and blow, but notice it is not as bad as the others, who spend 20% on hookers and blow. We use cheap hookers and cut rate blow, all for you, the customer.
When that spending is out of the way, we have 80%+ left for actual medical procedures. You imply that could be spent better. Why don’t you go out and start your own company that will spend that 80%+ better? I’m sure customers will flock to your company and give you their business. Especially those who are spending $12,000 before first dollar coverage. Looks like you’ve spotted an under served segment. You could even cut your hooker and blow part to 13% and really make us look bad.
I have a feeling you are not too keen about running such a company, mainly because you could not resist the temptation every business has of heading down to South America and transferring wealth to yourself. Heck, I used to head downs to Venezuela and load up, until Hugo Chavez was elected. Drat! Now they are keeping all that wealth. How unfair! I can’t wait for the coup. But I digress.
For reasons of scale and other, I notice you are a big fan of government running the health care enterprise. Good luck with that. I know several GS 15s in the Dept. of Interior who could probably help you out there. They do their jobs so good now, they have nothing to do. Many days they don’t even show up for work. We need to harness some of that ability.
Slobbering kisses and all that,
Lindsey
LikeLike
You know, Fred – Given the example of 33 other countries who do it better than us with less cost, universal coverage, and better outcomes, your comment here is, frankly, stupid.
LikeLike
What is this now, “Trotsky’s Rule of 33”?
So, the socialist states are going broke; their health care systems are a shambles; their public transportation systems are seized up; cars are burning; and the rocks keep flying through the shop windows.
Trotsky says, “Rule of 33!”
Oh, OK, Rule of 33. That settles it.
At least Fred shows some creativity.
LikeLike
Only one small problem – none of what you say is true. Otherwise, you’re dead on!
This is what I love about right wing economics: What you guys want to do has never really been tried, and even in small doses, never worked, but you hold out faith that it will work in the end. That’s religion.
On the other hand, the European economies work OK, and they deal with their problems as they arise and adjust as necessary. But your religion says that they must fail. So you hold out hope there too.
Salvation awaits!
LikeLike
Since you obviously do not read the European newspapers, I can understand why you think I am lying. But, actually, if I were lying, I could make up much better stories about the chaos and disintegration of Euro-socialism.
What the hell is this stuff about rightwing economics and “you guys”? There is only one economics: Whatever works for me.
For example, take this really dumb idea of Social Security Retirement Benefits. In just four more months, I will have collected enough payments to equal what I was forced to contribute. After that, it is money for nothing. That works for me!
LikeLike
Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, said: “Modernising the NHS [National Health Service] is a necessity, not an option – in order to meet rising need in the future, we need to make changes. We need to take steps to improve health outcomes, bringing them up to the standards of the best international healthcare systems, and to bring down the NHS money spent on bureaucracy.”
An Impact Assessment calculates that a minimum of 15,800 staff will be made redundant [unemployed] in 152 PCTs [Primary Care Trusts], 10 SHAs [Strategic Health Authorities] and in the Department of Health.
–The Daily Telegraph (England), 01/20/11
///
Rule of 33! Hahaha.
LikeLike
You’ve been playing Google again, haven’t you.
Here’s the deal: none of the 33 are going to trash their health systems and imitate us. If ours were any good they would steal the idea.
NHS is very popular but underfunded, and there are still remnants of Thatcherism there in the government, even after the pension debacle. They spend like 7-8% of GDP on health care (US: 16%), of course, covering everyone. They complain, but they will not go our way. They are not stupid.
The only country that has ever gone from public to private health care? Iraq, at the point of our gun
LikeLike
You’ve been playing Google again.”
Do not project your shallow education on me, Trotsky. I read the Telegraph every night before bedtime. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is my hero.
“Here’s the deal: none of the 33 are going to trash their health systems and imitate us.”
Here’s the deal: Read the quote from the New York Times, below, instead of speculating about the future of socialized medicine. (You might also want to check that vote in the US House of Representatives yesterday.)
LikeLike
The myth about choosing doctors, which seems to be what you rare referring me to in the NYT, is widely believed here in the land of the well-informed. Here’s what you seem to miss: There are 33 or 34 different systems out there, each with relative strengths and weaknesses.
Switzerland, for instance, is all private insurance, but heavily regulated so that they cannot pull the shenanigans there that they do here – preexisting conditions and all that rot. They are required to offer basic coverage as outlined by law, and cannot turn anyone away. Citizens, on the other hand, are required to have insurance, and if they cannot afford it, there is some subsidy.
That seems like a workable system to me – if we are married to the private insurance model here, then we should adopt the Swiss model.
The UK, on the other hand is a true government-run system. It’s underfunded, and Brits like to complain about their NHS – but as Michael Moore pointed out in Sicko, it’s not complaining in the sense that they want to do away with it, but merely fix the things that are wrong with it. That can actually be done under parliamentary government.
And on and on – France is rated the best health care system in the world. Taiwan is the most recent entrant back in the 90’s, and it was a rocky transition and people were not happy at first, but now is very popular. (they used as their model the Canadian system, and ours – our Medicare, that is.)
And as they say, if our system was so damned good, people would steal our ideas, but they don’t.
LikeLike
Say, did you pull a fast one by changing the Rule of 33 to the Rule of 34 and then subtracting the British NHS disaster so you still have a Rule of 33?
Anyway, you keep jumping way down the line and keep trying to promote other countries healthcare systems. Let us back up to the beginning.
This is America. This is not France, regardless of what John Kerry has told you, and this is not any other euro-socialist country. And although certain places on the Left Coast might look like Taiwan, this is not an oriental country by any stretch. This is America. We are unique, and because we are unique, we go our own way.
Next, I am completely satisfied with the American healthcare system the way it is. So why should I listen to you? Why should I go through the trouble and expense of changing something that already works perfectly well for me? Because you have a problem with it?
So, rather than move to France or Switzerland (they won’t let you in—you’re too poor!) or Taiwan to enjoy their fabulous healthcare systems, you want to move their fabulous healthcare systems to America for your enjoyment. Why stop there? Obviously, you have a fetish for things not American, so why not move their fabulous economic and political systems while you are at it?
As for me, I think their crappy food is enough.
PS: You need to contact the New York Times, the London Daily Telegraph, and a dozen other newspapers and tell them that they have fallen for the “myth about choosing doctors.”
LikeLike
In every system that I have read about, people are able to choose their own doctors. In the UK, doctors are mostly government employees.
The idea that people in other countries cannot choose their own doctors is public relations fiction, something that resonates deep inside people, and so has the power to alter attitudes. That’s how it’s done.
Speaks for itself
LikeLike
Yes, it does speak for itself. And you are completely incapacitated by it.
LikeLike
The New Plan: Kill socialized medicine in Britain. Say it ain’t true, Trotsky!
Imagine this horror: Getting to choose your own doctor, hospital, and treatment. And not having to wait months for medical treatment! Gawd. That sounds almost like that awful system in America. What is next?
///
“One of the plan’s boldest components is the pledge that patients will now get to choose their doctors, their hospitals and their treatments — a radical proposal for a service in which patients can now sometimes wait months for specialist care.”
— The New York Times, 01/20/11
///
Quick, Trotsky, call the Times and tell them their story violates your Rule of 33!
LikeLike
Monopolies (or near monopolies) don’t have to answer to anyone, especially those who give them money in expectation of affordable service. One interesting statistic would be the percentage of 65-year-olds who drop BSBCMT policies when Medicare kicks in. Extending Medicare to younger cohorts, say in 10-year increments would be simple, popular, and “predictable” for employers worried about trends in insurance premium rates.
Oh darn, that would be way too simple, and would eventually kill one of the golden geese that lays the campaign-finance eggs for ethically challenged senators from small, federally-dependent Western states..
LikeLike
Yeah, extending Medicare down the age ladder would be simple, except that the way things stand now, Medicare must be extended up the age ladder before it goes broke.
However, I do agree with you that it would be a good idea, since the necessary bureaucracy is already in place to run such a program. (Forget about the money for a minute.) But it would be a good idea for other reasons:
1. Lowering the age threshold for Medicare coverage would demonstrate to more Americans what horrors await them if the government controlled the entire healthcare system;
2. The mess would be easy to clean up by simply raising the age threshold again.
LikeLike
Mark, you have got it exactly right. Our worst enemy is the ignorance of the situation and lack of solidarity that exists among those “satisfied” with the status quo (always beware of those satisfied with the status quo).
It is a kind of smugness afforded to those fortunate enough to, above all, enjoy good health, and (second best for sure) have a seemingly decent coverage. So many are only awakened to the injustice, I imagine, when the tables turn against them- health, or the seemingly good coverage actually gets put the test. Insurance companies in the US actually have physicians on staff whose sole function is to pick apart claims looking for an excuse to deny coverage. That is different to picking through in order to find the Truth.
Here’s an idea. Many insurers worldwide in and some states (I think) In many places insurance adjustors do not exist, rather independent claims assessors. Conflict of interest immediately removed. Previously doctor’s played the role of independent assessors of medical treatment. That is quickly fading.
Mr Bucks: I can tell you from first hand experience that in Germany, where I have been living for five years, the greatest threat to universal mandatory coverage is lack of funding. Why? Because recently those people earning more than 50,000E per year can opt out of the system and go private. It’s cheaper for them, actually. By allowing those out who could most contribute, it’s no wonder there could be a shortage of funds. In Germany there are also powerful lobbies.
Would universal healthcare be free? No, but it could be in sum less expensive for everyone, less interested and the premiums (better yet payroll contributions) could be equitably distributed.
there are two approaches to acceptance, I think.
1) Principle: health care is simply a right. it’s part of a philosophical tradition that started in the 18th century, defines European, Latin American worldview and is the basis of the US COnstitution and the UN Universal Declaration of Rights
2) Interest: This seems to be the position most attractive to opponents to the system. Sheer interest of self-preservation should lead to adoption of a system whereby everyone contributes and benefits collectively, just like a lottery. After all that is what health, genes/circumstances/choices, is.
Also called common sense. BTW, if Europeans are anything it is pragmatic.
LikeLike
Ayn Rand got hold of these people who comment here, probably in their youth, as she doesn’t have much appeal to mature thinkers. Her ethos is one of self-centeredness, redefining it as a virtue, and thereby building a stone wall around them. Try to reason with them, as you have, and you will get “my money” “leave me alone.”
The concepts that you outline in your comments are teachable, but only to the reachable. You’re wasting your time with the Randians who comment here.
Thanks for your input.
LikeLike