A summary of health insurance costs for 2007 appears in Michelle Andrews' article for US New found at
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/2007/09/14/health-insurance-costs-rise-again.html.
indicates that prices rose (a little over 6%) because basically the plans are the same as the prior year. If you got a 6% raise for doing nothing different on your job, then this is okay. If you're doing a little bit less, as insurance companies are and you still got that raise do you have incentive to improve? In our family, raises have been frozen by companies for four years while our health insurance coverage has diminished and our health insurance costs have gone up--yeah, not a great prosperity model.
While I think it's great that the Washington types are talking about health care reform, they're pretty far removed from the desperation that is the mother of invention model of getting things done. In the meantime, for all those healthy people who are very happy with their health insurance coverage for their non-illnesses such as speaking to a nutrition nanny or someone who will congratulate them for getting screenings, you've made a worse deal than all the slobs fighting for insurance coverage for needed medical care, surgeries and medicine. What did you get for your money? Go ahead, you're healthy, look at your insurance statements, there aren't that many if you are as you imagine a vision of health--what were the charges for your screenings? Check up? Consultation with a nutrition nanny? Now go to your pay stubs. What did you pay for insurance? You paid what? As you listen with a sympathetic and far-removed ear to the horror stories of people racking up hundreds of thousands in medical bills and battling insurers for coverage, tell me why it is you have insurance? Isn't it for that "just in case scenario"? Just in case your days at the gym and healthy diet don't prevent you from getting sick? Well, keep yourselves aloof, but you are the worst consumers of all. You're probably paying triple or quadruple for your non-medical medical care when you figure your cost of premiums into your outlay.
So why not ask for a refund? Let's go along with insurers and support them in charging anything they want for as little coverage as possible? But here's the rub. IF a person spends less in medical costs then premiums, for any calendar year, or if the insured never spends the dollar amount of his deductible and therefore never becomes eligible for insurer reimbursement, the insurer MUST refund the insured's premium money within 30 days of the new year. Not possible because insurance is about pooled risk? Not really, not if we're excluding the sick, the chronically sick, those who need continuing medication, and most recently those who are old. Insurers are basically selling nothing and taking in a lot of money to do it. The article cited above notes that there are more uninsured citizens because of the cost of health insurance--they are smarter consumers then those of us who think we've gotten a great rate based on the fact that we don't need medical care. And your screenings? What if they come back requiring further action. Why get them if you can't afford the treatment for any discovered condition? So let's go the refund route. If health care reform is not possible, why have health insurance. With the employment rate in the dumps and the cost of gas out of the ballpark, why pay for insurance coverage?
