Here's what the Consumers Union has to say about the privatization of health insurance, or as it is referred to by the propaganda driven W, Rove and Co as "health savings accounts." From page 57 of my copy of the magazine:
...The reality is that these schemes shift increased financial risk to consumers and will surely weaken our already fragile health-insurance system. HSAs provide little assurance of affordable, quality health care to those with chronic illnesses, families with children, those of moderate incomes, or older Americans with more health-care needs. HSAs do nothing to address the factors that really drive up health costs: care for those with chronic diseases; overuse of technology, hospital care; prescription drugs, and end-of-life care...It puts a single question in my mind: Just exactly who is the government supposed to be working for?
...So, who, besides the wealthy, benefits from HSAs? Employers do, since they are shifting health-care costs to their employees and are more able to predict health-care expenses. And financial institutions offering HSAs are poised to reap billions in profits from the fees they can charge in setting up those accounts.
A health-insurance system can function only if costs and risks are spread among healthy and sick participants. But healthy employees who don't expect to need much medical care are the ones most likely to abandon traditional plans in favor of low-premium, high deductible ones. Those left in traditional plans will be sicker and more risky to insure. That means a greater likelihood of steep premium increases, pricing coverage out of the reach of more workers and adding to the ranks of the uninsured.
"Consumer driven" health plans, including HSAs, abandon the premise that the community has a responsibility to care for all members. The health-care system needs fixing, but HSAs are a sham substitute for comprehensive reform.
7 comments:
WS...I really like your headline here, and I think that applies to all of politics. If you really want to know about a candiate, from your local official on up to your president, look who is supporting and advocating for that candidate.
With Bush we had the drug companies, the religious fucktards, the overnationalistic flag wavers, homophobic and racist groups, people of wealth, etc etc .
Voting for Kerry were your scientists, school teachers, people of color and diversity, people from the parts of the country with education, rich in culture, college professors and other members of the academic community, environment advocates, etc.
Ya know, I was always told that employer health benefits were a part of the salay package; employers paid less money and provided benefits instead. Supposedly this was done to attract the best applicants for the job. But if employers stop or cut back on healthcare benefits, will they increase salaries to compensate?
Not bloody likely!
I meant "salary", not "salay" - sorry!
Exactly. Communities (society) have an obligation to care for all members. Unless, of course, you are one cruel, motherfucking society.
I believe Neil's comment just might be the correct shoe size and it fits.
But if employers stop or cut back on healthcare benefits, will they increase salaries to compensate?
I agree...not bloody likely, but then talent will walk as well...to a company that achieves professional advantage by offering the attractive benefit package. I should qualify though that this really only works for "in demand" professions.
Lung surgery for smokers?
Liver replacement for drinkers?
Life care for bicyclists and motorcyclists who don't wear helmets?
Heart by-pass surgery for anyone regardless of (old) age?
Stomach by-pass surgery for fat people?
Hip and knee replacements for people who never walked a mile?
Post a Comment