I sent the following to North Carolina's Senator Kay Hagan today:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Honorable Senator Hagan,
I am 46 years old. I am in great health. In the past fifteen years I have not needed any medical services beyond ten or twelve physicals and some quit-smoking medication (which worked -- I haven't had a cigarette in eleven months).
I do not engage in risky sports, I exercise vigorously three to five times a week and I eat a very healthy diet.
In January, three months after I quit smoking, my Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina health insurance premium rose from $200/month to $300/month. Today I received a letter informing me my premium will rise again in January from $300/month to $350/month.
FROM $200 to $350 IN TWO YEARS! My health insurance premiums are going up 75% IN TWO YEARS! -- For a healthy person who barely utilizes the health care system.
Meanwhile, the CEO of "non-profit" BCBSNC earns $4 million a year and top policy sellers go on company paid vacations.
This is unconscionable, Senator. People are drowning out here. You MUST, please, for the sake of simple human compassion, support a public health insurance option. I think Howard Dean is right that the simplest, fairest and most economical way to achieve this is to let people buy into Medicare.
But however you accomplish it, it has become imperative, beyond any consideration of the protection of the insurance industry, that we, the people, have a public health insurance option.
Please do the right thing.
Sincerely,
Roch Smith, Jr.
----
[Related: The (Greensboro, NC) News & Record's Doug Clark defends insurance companies against these kinds of "attacks."]
Actually, a little thing about policy sales. In every single insurance no matter what sort of sales, there are always tier goals that you achieve and you're paid for that.
ReplyDeleteSo the whole "top policy sellers go on company paid vacations" is actually how people are motivated to do sales work. It's part of the entire sales environment otherwise no one would really be motivated to do any sort of commission based work. Very typical so you can't fault people for that.
Roch,
ReplyDeleteI wonder how many of Senator Hagan's constituents know that she doesn't support the public option.
Jo
Darkmoon,
ReplyDeleteyour response accepts the paradigm of the status quo -- and it is the status quo that is the problem. Whether or not insurance sales people need to be motivated by vacations at the cost of policy purchasers is not the question. The question is whether or not we will allow people to buy into a system that does not reply have these kinds of expenses -- like Medicare.
You are saying, "We don't need to change that part of the system because that is part of the system."
Jo,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. Senator Hagan voted on only one health care bill so far, the one that came out of the Health Education Labor and Pension committee on which she serves.
Although Hagan has been all over the map on her statements regarding a public option, the bill she voted for does provide for a "Community Health Insurance Option" -- a public option.
No. You're not understanding how sales works then. Sales based on commissions are based on tiered levels with "prizes" involved. It happens in every industry, not just insurance. So pinpointing it as status quo is just not understanding the business itself.
ReplyDeleteI'm fine with you wanting Medicare or not wanting the status quo for healthcare (which personally, I think is a waste of money so I'm against it) but using that reasoning is the same as saying that you want to change the cellular industry's standards of tower heights because the one in your neighborhood is too tall. Perhaps it fits the localized problem at the moment, but you cannot make that generalization for the entire industry.
Your comment speaks for itself. I cannot do more to point out your miscomprehension.
ReplyDeleteSo basically, you're saying that the status quo in both how sales function and the healthcare system have to change. I can see how the healthcare can change, but can't really see how you could change sales commission structures in an alternative.
ReplyDeleteJust making sure that I'm clear on what you're saying then.
As I tried to explain above, the discussion is not about how sales are done, it is about how health care insurance is done. It is a question of whether health care insurance premiums are going to pay for vacations for salespeople, shareholder profit and exorbitant CEO salaries or if people are given a new option -- one of buying health insurance in a system where none of those costs exists, ie. something like Medicare.
ReplyDeleteI am content to let you choose to pay health care premiums to an insurer that uses some of your money to send employees on vacations, large CEO salaries and share-holder profits. If that suits you, fine. It does not suit me and my original post says why. I would like an option where those costs are not part of what my money pays for. Just the option, that's all. Then you and I can choose which we think is best.
Roch - having just gotten my renewal letter from BCBS in the mail, my premiums are going up as well. While I'm a little younger, and utilize an HSA to offset a higher deductible plan, I too am upset that my premiums are higher.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious however, why you think the public option is the best alternative - specifically something like Medicare. We've had disagreements before over Medicare, but I haven't heard you suggest why you think this is the best plan to move forward. Further, I've heard no other suggestions from you - how about tort reform, buying across state lines, allowing business to come together to buy group plans, using the tax code, etc...why does it HAVE to be the public option alternative...?
Thanks for stopping by, Everest.
ReplyDeleteOption means just that: "Option." As in give us another option. I am not rejecting any of the other things you mention.
I happen to agree with those who anticipate that an insurer that does not have to pay for salesperson vacations, high executive salaries and other perks while earning shareholder profits might just prove to be a more affordable option for me. If your other suggestions could also help lower the cost of health care, bring them on. This is not an either/or proposition.
Roch,
ReplyDeleteLook closer at Hagan's comments on the "Public Option" and you'll find she supports a very limited version.
She supports a government plan only for those who do not have insurance. This is a blueprint for failure.
Did you get your Blue Cross propaganda in the mail yet? This so called non-profit provides a post card to Senator Hagan telling her to oppose the "Public Option."
If the debate over this issue confuses anyone... knowing that Blue Cross is spending money to defeat it should be enough to convince you how much we need it.
Jo
Thanks, Jo. You are right, that is what Hagan has said about a public option. Who knows where she will come down.
ReplyDeleteI have not received the BCBS propaganda yet, but I eagerly await it so that I can send it to Senator Hagan with this scribbled on it: "Do you see the ways my 'non-profit' insurer wastes my premiums?"
Roch - I get, and share, your frustration with BCBS...here's the problem (and there are a bunch) with the public option.
ReplyDeleteThe govt. plan will mandate both "community rating" which requires insurance companies to levy the same premiums on individuals REGARDLESS of their health status, and "guaranteed issue" which forces insurance companies to issue policies to anyone and everyone that applies. And that makes sense to you? Not only do they have to cover anyone that applies, they have to do so regardless of their health status, with no price flexibility for risk. This goes against the definition of insurance in general Roch - insurance is about the mitigation and management of risk. The more risk, the more expensive to cover....and that's as it should be. States like NY and Mass. that have public-type options with both these requirements are in shambles financially...it doesn't work, and I'm not sure why you think it makes sense at the federal level...We're going to allow people (per the Baucus bill) to pay a small fine - maybe - for NOT buying insurance. So the vast majority of people will wait until they get sick and buy it...any idea what that will do to premiums?
If the past two years have taught us anything, it's that there is a price for risk - at least there should be. If your credit score is 800, you should be able to borrow at a cheaper level than someone whose score is sub-600 - you're repayment history suggests you are far less likely to default. If not, then there is NO incentive to do the right thing. The public option is Fannie Mae for health care - government competition to the private sector that was supposed to reduce cost for consumers (which it didn't) and provide another alternative...have you seen Fannie Mae's balance sheet lately...?
Everest, if I understand Roch correctly, it's not the current public option that he supports, but to extend Medicare to all.
ReplyDeleteEverest, what is "the" government plan to which you refer? I am not aware that there is one yet and there are four proposals, three of which include some sort of public option (so I am not sure either to what "current" public option Darkmoon is referring).
ReplyDeleteI would be interested in hearing, if you have any, objections to allowing people to buy into Medicare.
Both the early House "plans" (all committee versions), and the Baucus bill have both provisions I mentioned...since those are the only plans on the table, those are the ones I referenced.
ReplyDeleteEven though you didn't address any of the points I raised, I'll certainly take the time to address your question....you and I have disagreed before on the effectiveness and efficiency of Medicare. It's a mess financially, and continues to pay doctors less and less for the same services. It's a beauracratic nightmare (ask Dr Guarino), and while you and I have seen our costs go up in the past few years, that's nothing compared to what's happened to Medicare funding. With the baby boomers set to retire and begin using Medicare, the long term unfunded liabilities with Medicare are already staggering and unsustainable...that doesn't sound like a program we should double down on...
Further, you're assuming that health care quality and costs would improve if we all availed ourselves of Medicare? Any evidence that's true? The only part of Medicare that has EVER come in under budget (HT:WSJ) is the Medicare Advantage program, which most seniors like - and because it allows genuine competition, would be gutted by Democrats under all versions of health care legislations currently being reviewed in Congress...
Finally, if you read the Baucus bill you will see that under Medicare, it's proposed that doctors will be docked up to 5% of their payment if they prescribe treatments that are not deemed "appropriate" or "necessary", by a government panel...that sounds a little like rationing to me. You see Roch, most people understand that the government can't cover millions more people, and offer better care, AND save money...most are smarter than that. And that's the pitch they're being asked to believe...
I am pretty sure the Baucus plan does not include a public option. I did not address your concerns because, while they may indeed be concerning, they are not inextricably tied to a public option, even less likely if we are discussing letting people buy into Medicare.
ReplyDeleteLook, Everest, you seem sincere, but your "logic" avails itself of hyperbole and misdirection. For example, why say something like "quality and costs would improve if we all availed ourselves of Medicare?" when, quite clearly, I have not said that we should ALL avail ourselves of Medicare. (Although it certainly sounds more foreboding to pretend that is what is on the table). What I have consistently said, actually, is that I would like to see a buy into Medicare as an OPTION.
If that turns out to be the nightmare you anticipate, then people will not participate. Beyond your suspicion that it won't work, I still don't see any logical reason why it absolutely must not be tried.