A common dilemma

I face a dilemma faced by many: My current health insurance costs $700 a month for a policy that has a $2,500 deductible, $5,000 maximum out of pocket costs, and a 70-30 split for expenses in the donut hole between $2,500 and $5,000. “Routine” costs, such as checkups, are not covered. Maximum coverage is $1 million.

So here is how it pans out: I am guaranteed to spend at least $10,900 before I have one nickle of coverage. For the $2,500 after that, I will pay $750, so that for the first $13,400 in costs each year, my insurance will pay $1,750. So my out-of-pocket each year is guaranteed to be $8,400, and can go as high as $12,150 without regard to routine expenses.

Typically my actual costs run less than a thousand dollars. If I have a complaint, I always weigh what I am already paying against and know that I am 100% out-of-pocket. So unless I am seriously ill, and I never have been, I usually opt not to see the doc. Most things take care of themselves. I have a blood test twice a year, and beyond that, not much.

Here’s the problem, and I know it is one that every self-paid insured person wonders about: Given good health, is it worth a guaranteed expense of $8,400 a year, and a total exposure of $11,650 each year when actual costs are probably only going to run a thousand or so? I can do a lot with that $8,400 in premiums I pay, including getting checkups and paying for injuries. Even when I am most at risk, when I drive, I’m pretty much covered, as insurers are liable for 100% of my costs if I am not at fault. I’ve never caused an accident.

Of course, the insurance is to cover all of the people who exceed the thresholds – the cancer and heart patients. I could be one of them, but I am in in pretty good shape, running ten miles a week, lifting weights and hiking. My mental outlook is healthy.

I have been thrown into a pool that attracts people with very high risks, and excluded from the normal risk groups due to a preexisting condition.

My temptation is just to go bare. I think about it. Alot. Knock on wood?

The U.S. and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

The UDHR was adopted by the United Nations in 1948 without dissent. The United States was a member at that time.

So, how are we doing? Despite constant criticism from the left, many progressive reforms from the past remain in force. We have Social Security, which provides retirement security for the aged, disability and survivor benefits as well. We have Medicare for the aged, Medicaid for the poor, the VA hospital system for veterans. We have unemployment benefits for the recently unemployed. We have Workers Compensation, which provides coverage for injuries and income replacement for loss of wages due to those injuries. (Workers give up their right to sue their employers for injuries as part of the W/C system.)

There is no right to food, though we have the Food Stamps program, which is substantial. We have minimum wage laws, but they are inadequate for a single-earner family, often necessitating a working spouse and child care expenditures. To assist low income people with children, we have the Earned Income Credit, which is substantial. We also have programs to assist with child care for the working poor. We have many homeless people, and private and public shelters for many of them, and soup kitchens. Virtually every public service has a provision for the poor and working poor, including utilities and bus rides, college tuition (a few grants and gazillions in loans available), and housing assistance. Most states offer breaks on property taxes for elderly retirees on fixed income.

We appear to be doing a pretty good job fulfilling the mandate of UDHR. Where we come up short is in the area of health care. With an employer-based system, employees lose mobility. Private insurance companies are bound to turn people away, and to inflict heavy overhead burdens on the system to protect their contractual prerogatives. Millions of people are under-insured, and in 2009 alone as many as a million people will suffer medical bankruptcy, with 60% of those thinking they had adequate insurance coverage. Millions more are uninsured, many by choice, many due to preexisting conditions, and others due to inability to pay premiums.

In summary, we have a wide array of social services available in this country. Most of them are under continuing attack by the right. We only need go one step further … universal health care provided by heavily regulated not-for-profit private concerns, or government.

For those of you who look at the left and say we never have a kind word, I beg to differ. Due to leftists who came before us, we have a wide array of benefits in this country for poor and disabled people. Just one step further now …

The gospels and healing the sick

Each morning when I awake, my first task, in which I delight, is to read scripture. Even after all these years, I continually stumble on passages I had previous missed or misunderstood.

Example from this mornings’ wanderings in the Gospel of Mark (4: 3-11)

Jesus and the disciples traveled unto the Sommorah one day, and sought repast from its fishermen. While there, a group of the village elders put upon Jesus to give evidence of his divinity by healing a man whose body was covered with cankerous sores.

Jesus continued with his meal, failing to engage the elders, who became insistent, taking from Jesus the fish in his hand and imploring him to act. The disciples too implored the master to act, as evening was upon them, and shelter would not be offered if Jesus could not perform a miracle.

Jesus arose, and walked to the afflicted man. He looked upon him, and said to those around him “Verily, I say to thee, that a man shall not enter the kingdom of heaven lest his soul first be removed of cankers. And I say to this man that he shall see the kingdom, and his afflictions removed.”

He then turned to address the throng that had assembled. “Verily I say unto thee, that the works of my father on earth are here for all to see, but for those who will not see, I cannot provide. I cannot heal a man whose disease already exists, nor will I take upon myself the burden of healing him when he cannot offer up payment to the doctors and elders of the village.”

Now I understand.

Footnote: There is dispute (which has become heated at times) among scholars about the King James version, which uses the word “exists”, as it is derived from the Hebrew מעודכנת, which meant “medically extant”, but which was translated to Greek to mean אינטרנט, or “of being”. Modern American biblical translations have Jesus saying “Dude, it’s already there. Can’t fix it.”

‘Splain this, please …

The Heritage Foundation’s 2009 Index of Economic Freedom: Singapore, #2. (This was triggered by a A news reporter in that country who was just sentenced to twenty years hard labor for reporting on the country’s Tamil rebel force. In that country, that means “supporting terrorism”. Sound familiar?)

Freedom House ranks Singapore at 4.5 (on a descending scale of 1-6, 6 being the worst) on the freedom scale, placing it in league with Haiti, Uganda and Pakistan.

The moral: Economic freedom often goes hand-in-hand with oppression. Another way of phrasing it: Economic freedom = rule by wealth.

The reason for good journalism

Bloggers are citizen journalists, and most of us are not very good at journalism. “Citizen” journalists distinguishes us from professional journalists, most of whom are not very good at journalism.

I once had an argument with David Crisp, and he gave me a what-for, to which I replied that the job of the journalists was simple: Go out and find out what powerful people are doing, and report back.

But many of them don’t see it that way. Instead, they see their role as mere conveyors of facts that are put out for our general interest. Since we are mere consumers of news, our opinions are of no consequence. Powerful person A says this, and powerful person B says this in reply. They get a quote from both sides, rewrite a press release, and keep secrets from us because they are insiders, and because they have so damned much integrity.

The result? The news. Oh yeah, and Michael Jackson died.

I know they lack integrity, because powerful people like their work. Washington insiders cannot say enough praising words about the wonderful Washington press corp. That ought to be a clue that something is very wrong. Also, the fact that they devote so much time to trivia like MJ indicates that they tend to concentrate on stories that least affect power.

I have come to believe that the kind of journalism we see, of the Russert/Brokaw/Gregory variety, exists as a grand cop-out. If a journalist wants to make a lot of money, he has to get friendly with power and redefine journalism to power’s liking. The human mind cannot live with open deceit, and so self-justifies by changing the definition of the job. No longer is the job of the journalist to investigate and search for truth, but rather to simply relay to us some (but not all) goings-on among the powerful. He is of them, and not of us. He’s doing us a favor. It’s top-down, undemocratic journalism.

Atticus Mullikin is an American expatriate living and working in Maastricht, the Netherlands. He wrote a interesting piece for the European Journalism Center’s Magazine center in late 2007. In it he talks about the epiphanic moment in the movie Jerry Maguire where Tom Cruise’s character realizes that he is no more than a “shark in a suit”, and rewrites his company’s mission to be less about making lots of money and having many clients, and more about the people he represents. After he gets himself right in his own mind, he says “I am my father’s son again.”

Mullikin does not mention that Jerry Maguire loses his job as a result.

Mullikin’s epiphanic moment is to realize that “good journalism is a duty.” He talks about an early twentieth century debate between Walter Lippman and John Dewey, where Lippman argued for top-down journalism: since ordinary people are not capable of making determinations on the complicated issues of the day, they need to follow leaders. The journalist’s job is to “manufacture consent”.

Dewey thought the opposite. He agreed about the capabilities of ordinary people on complex issues, but also thought “that citizens were capable of participating in Democratic government, and that journalism was a primary means to do this.”

So good journalism is about democratic governance, and journalism as it is done in most of the American media is about top-down rule. Says Mullikin:

Knowledge is power. In the United States, there is a struggle between conservatives and liberals, which I touched on in another article. That struggle is, respectively, between old world authoritarians and new world egalitarians, and the primary question is, as with journalism, are citizens capable of governing themselves or do they need to be controlled and guided by elites? It is a choice, really, between the democratic ideal and the Machiavellian “reality.”

So in my own crude way, when I told Crisp that his job was to find out what powerful people are doing and report back to us, I was unknowingly echoing Dewey, and advocating for democratic governance. I am a new world egalitarian, and all of the back-and-forth I enjoy so much with the Budge’s and Natelson’s and Swede’s is an age old clash between my egalitarianism and their authoritarianism – the top-down world.

Mullikin’s is a remarkably insightful article. Maybe a journalist or two will stumble upon it.

Taibbi blows a mighty wind

Let’s start with the obvious: American has not only the worst but the dumbest health care system in the developed world. It’s become black leprosy eating away at the American experiment – a bureaucracy so insipid and mean and illogical that even our darkest criminal minds wouldn’t be equal to dreaming it up on purpose. The system doesn’t work for anyone. It cheats patients and leaves them to die, denies insurance to 47 million Americans, forces hospitals to spend billions haggling over claims, and systematically bleeds and harasses doctors with the specter of catastrophic legislation. Even as a mechanism for delivering bonuses to insurance-company fat cats, it’s a miserable failure: Greedy insurance bosses who spent a generation denying preventive care to patients now see their profits sapped by millions of customers who enter the system only when they’re sick with incurably expensive illnesses.

The cost of all of this to society, in illness and death and lost productivity and a soaring federal deficit and plain old anxiety and anger, is incalculable – and that’s the good news. The bad news is our failed health care system won’t get fixed, because it exists entirely within the confines of yet another failed system: the political entity known as the United States of America.

Thus beings an article by Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone – it’s a devastating critique of medical insurance companies, which are eating our lunch, and the Democratic Party, which is destroying our hope.

It’s not on line as of this writing, so get the magazine (very interesting article in there too on the breakup of the Beatles). Well worth the cover price.

Why is it that in this sick and twisted country the only ‘news’ reporters that actually report on and challenge power are employed by a fake news show on a basic cable network, and the only writing that reports accurately on the politics of health care is a magazine dedicated to rock and roll?

Are our institutions so corrupt that others are filling the vacuum?

Newspaper Headlines

These, according to the Anderson Valley Advertiser, are real (compiled by Jeannie Sellers):

Police begin campaign to run down jaywalkers
Drunk gets nine months in violin case
Is there a ring of debris around Uranus?
Stud tires out
Panda mating fails; veterinarian takes over
British left waffles on Falkland Islands
Reagan wins on budget, but more lies ahead
Shot off woman’s leg helps Nicklaus to 66
Plane too close to ground, crash probe told
Miners refuse to work after death
Juvenile court to try shooting defendant
Killer sentenced to die for second time in ten years
Never withhold herpes infection from loved one
War dims hope for peace
Red tape holds up new bridge
Typhoon rips through cemetery, hundreds dead
Man struck by lightning faces battery charge
Astronaut takes blame for gas in spacecraft
Kids make nutritious snacks
British union finds dwarfs in short supply
Lansing residents can drop off trees
Air head fired
Prosecutor releases probe into undersheriff
Hospitals sued by seven foot doctors
Include your children when baking cookies

An idea for reform

It appears that whatever changes this “health care reform” process brings about will be set up to serve the health insurance industry. They will get the two things they want most – subsidies, and mandates that we buy their products.

There is not much time left before the IRS begins demanding insurance certificates from us as part of our tax return. In the meantime, I think it a good time to inflict the only damage that we can. If you are reasonably healthy, take 17 months and 29 days off. Enjoy life, pay yourself a bonus for once.

If you are at risk, if you are ill and have insurance, hang on to it, and cash in on it to the largest degree possible.

Let’s temporarily turn the cash machine around. It is all we will have left after the Democrats are done reforming things for us.

My shopping experience

I was once fake-employed in order to qualify for a group insurance policy for me and my wife through Aetna. Because my “employment” was in Colorado, and we lived in Montana, there were no networks available, and all of our coverage was with doctors of our own choosing. (Aetna limits which doctors you can see in Colorado.)

I did what health insurance and “free” market apologists said I should do with regard to my wife’s knee – I shopped it around. She needed a total knee replacement. I called Bozeman Deaconess to see how much it would cost, they couldn’t say. I called Aetna to see how much they would cover, they couldn’t say. But they did say this: They would only cover the primary surgeon, and not the assistant. I told the hospital about that, and they said they didn’t care, that they don’t do surgery without an assistant on hand. Since we were not in the network, we’d have to pay deductibles, co-pays, the assistant surgeon, and anything else the insurance refused to cover for any reason. Our exposure was open-ended, and so decided not to have the surgery at that time.

So we were smart consumers, and did just what Aetna wanted – we didn’t have the surgery on their watch.