The City's new health care plan (profiled in the latest SW Journal) highlights the trend toward the privatization of health care. The main beneficiary of this plan is the insurance company and the main loser is the consumer, by providing big incentives to employees to choose a high out-of--pocket plan in exchange for low premiums. Sure, the deal looks very attractive at face value (potential savings of $2,000 - 3,000 per year for the consumer) and, a young, healthy individual who is lucky enough to not have an accident in a given insurance year, is likely to save money.
The SW Journal article raises the question of whether it's too good to be true, because all parties seemingly save money - the City, the consumer and the insurer. While this might be the case for SOME consumers in the short run, it surely cannot be sustainable and seems the wrong road to take. It follows the larger national trend of privatizing health care coverage. Advocates of this approach point to better consumer shopping and decision-making about health care services. While I would love to have more information on health services so that I could make more informed choices, this plan does not do this. The most serious flaw with the out-of-pocket plan (in exchange for low premiums) is that it is a deterrent to preventive care. Individuals, and especially families with children, with a cost deterrent to receiving regular checkups and seeing the doctor promptly for a health concern, are less likely to receive early, proper attention and will suffer more down the road, costing the system and consumer more, not less money. Isn't the lack of coverage for the uninsured so expensive for the public hospital system (i.e., emergency room care) precisely because of the lack of good preventive and care in the early stages of a health care need? Preventive care is shown to save the health care system money, and preventive care has never been more important in our modern society now that (preventable) obesity and diabetes are the two largest growing threats to our health, and they are beginning at a younger and younger age. The direction of the new city health care plan falls prey to the dictates of the health insurance system, which claims it can't cover growing health care costs and insists on raising premiums or forcing larger deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses from consumers. For a long time in the 90s, the talk was all about preventive care and, that a good way to promote preventive care was to merge health care services and insurance into a few large health-care systems that would bear the cost of expensive "late-care" service if their consumer didn't get good preventive care services. We don't hear much about this anymore as our health care system never materialized the way it was promised. Sure, it merged and became a small set of large corporations (non and for profit), but it hasn't saved anyone any money. The health care system is more expensive than ever, with everyone looking for someone else to pick up the tab. In the end it's the consumer who pays - either directly through higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs or indirectly through taxes. Neither consumers nor employers can continue to pay unlimited increases in premiums, deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses. The system, as we all know, just isn't working. Health care is a public good (meaning it should be made available to all regardless of employment status, income, age or any other criteria) and should be properly insured - that means pooling risk (costs) and benefits. No one should go uninsured and no one should not have to decide to seek care or not based on the need to pay for it. If the private system can't provide health care for all, then there is a proper role for government. Now that the democratic primary is over, the important and timely discussion of universal health care is as well. I doubt we are going to see the discussion materialize at the national level any time soon (with Bush or Kerry at the helm), and so the fight for universal coverage must be more local. The January 12, 2004 edition of the Minneapolis - St. Paul Business Journal reported the finding of Governor Pawlenty's Minnesota Citizens Forum on Health Care Costs (led by former state Republican senator David Durenburger) that more than half of people interviewed support universal health care. Naturally, the report points out people's concerns about a universal - single payer system, but the main point is that consumers want the assurance of guaranteed and adequate coverage for all. http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2004/01/12/daily11.html?jst=s_rs_hl Now seems to be the time for the City to join forces with other employers (public and private) throughout the state to develop a (non employer-based) universal health care system. To be sure, the City will need to continue to negotiate creative schemes to fund health care for its employees until a better plan is available, but it should also begin to study and negotiate a more permanent and universal health care coverage plan. The current plan may save the City money in 2004, but will likely cost more in the not too distant future. A good article on the case for universal health care can be found at: http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm Jeanne Massey Kingfield REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
