Open Levinson

Paul Levinson's Open Salon Blog

Paul Levinson

Paul Levinson
Location
New York City, New York, USA
Birthday
March 25
Title
Professor
Company
Fordham University
Bio
Paul Levinson's The Silk Code won the 2000 Locus Award for Best First Novel. He has since published Borrowed Tides (2001), The Consciousness Plague (2002), The Pixel Eye (2003), and The Plot To Save Socrates (2006). His science fiction and mystery short stories have been nominated for Nebula, Hugo, Edgar, and Sturgeon Awards. His eight nonfiction books, including The Soft Edge (1997), Digital McLuhan (1999), Realspace (2003), and Cellphone (2004), have been the subject of major articles in the New York Times, Wired, the Christian Science Monitor, and have been translated into ten languages. New New Media, exploring how Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and blogging have changed our lives, was published in September 2009. Paul Levinson appears on "The O'Reilly Factor" (Fox News), "The CBS Evening News," the “NewsHour with Jim Lehrer” (PBS), “Nightline” (ABC), and numerous national and international TV and radio programs. He reviews the best of television in his InfiniteRegress.tv blog. Paul Levinson is Professor of Communication & Media Studies at Fordham University in New York City

MY RECENT POSTS

Editor’s Pick
AUGUST 19, 2009 10:22PM

Private, For-Profit Heath Insurance Is Self-Contradictory

Rate: 4 Flag

Private, for-profit health insurance companies are self-contradictory. They cannot pursue profits - try to make as much money as possible - and support necessary health care. I know this from first-hand experience.

Years ago, when our son was a little boy, he contracted a type of pneumonia that did not respond to the usual courses of antibiotics. After several rounds and weeks of fever on and off and on, his doctor decided to admit him to the hospital. You can imagine how upset my wife and I were. As we were talking about this, in the doctor's office, we heard him talking to our insurance company - Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield. "No, no, he's a professor. They're not those kinds of people. This is legitimate, I can assure you," our doctor said to Empire on the phone. (I was professor then not at Fordham.)

This went on for about 10 minutes. Finally, our doctor got Empire's agreement. By this time, we had walked out into hall, and he saw that we had heard the conversation. He shook his head sadly, and said, this is what you have to go through....

And I couldn't help thinking - let's say I hadn't been a professor. Let's say we were "those kinds of people" - people who had been paying premiums, but for some reason were not held in high regard by the insurer. Our son's hospital bills would not have been covered?

Our son did finally get an antibiotic that worked in the hospital. But my wife and I learned an important lesson about health insurance that day: the companies that provide it are mainly in it for the money. Accordingly, they do anything they can to limit their expenses. That's just good business.

I had actually learned this about insurance companies (actually, a car company that provided warranties) years earlier, when I was driving a new Oldsmobile to another school. The car up and died on the highway - the engine expired. When I got on the phone, later that day, to the car warranty company, I was treated to "do you have any proof that you were driving your car safely"? I replied that unless Oldsmobile which had happily taken my money for the car and the warranty now paid for the car's repair, and I was assured within an hour that this would happen, I would go to the media and tell them about their shoddy way of doing business. And I would have - but some supervisor called me back 10 minutes later and apologized for the first conversation. "He was only doing his job," he said of the first guy I had talked to. Exactly. Of course he was, and that was the problem. Just good business. Limit expenses.

The car was aggravating. The repairs were just about money, for me as well as Oldsmobile. But health coverage obviously can be a matter of life and death.

We can no longer afford to leave such matters in the hands of people and companies whose main goal is not to protect health but make a profit. I'm all in favor of making money. Profit and capitalism continue to do great things. But they've failed in this country to give adequate health care, even for people they accept in their plans.

It's time to break loose from these hopelessly conflicted, oxymoronic for-profit health insurers. And vote out of office anyone who opposes this long overdue, humane, clearly rational reform.

Government programs are certainly not flawless. But at least they don't work against their own stated goals.

 

Author tags:

health insurance

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
"Government programs are certainly not flawless. But at least they don't work against their own stated goals."

Really?

I think you need to research something called the Bureau of Indian Affairs and something else called the Indian Health Service.

I would ALSO advise checking with the people "served" by both BIA and IHS rather than the federal websites for them.
Yes, really.

The government has plenty of flawed programs. But they're not intrinsically self-contradictory, as is the case with for-profit health care, as I explain in my post - and as you fail to address.
Paul, let's take your premise to its logical end. Your premise is that insurance companies inherently do not want to provide the service they have been paid to provide. Wouldn't this apply to all businesses? For example, a college professor certainly has an incentive to get paid but avoid teaching a class and publishing articles.

Now, we know that the reason the professor does teach class and publish articles is that the university will eventually figure out that he is lazy and fire him if he doesn't. If the professor does the same thing at his next university and gets fired again, then he will develop a reputation and be unhireable. Essentially, his professor service goes out of business.

The same applies to insurance. If a company is slow in paying and denies service, then customers will leave that company and spread bad word of mouth, harming the future business. So, there is an incentive to provide good service to current customers to both retain the premium revenue and to attract new customers.

Now, a valid criticism of our current situation is that most people do not have a choice of their insurer. Their employer picks the plan and the customer can't easily change if the service is bad. This is true. The same would be the case with a centralized government run program. The customer would not be able to fire the government and withhold dollars.

So, the most logical answer is to create a true free market for health insurance where every insurer is always at risk of losing customers.

Here's a LINK to an article with a good description of this scenario.
Your assertion that the government programs don't work against their own goals is central to your argument that government running health care would be an improvement.

Indian Health Service provides what can ONLY be described as "third world medical care" to the very people it is charged with providing QUALITY health care TO. For instance: In the United States the ONLY place that I can obtain medical care LEGALLY through IHS is within the confines of the Service District that allegedly serves the tribe that I am a member of. That limits me to medical care within 4 states... NONE of which have I lived in since I was 8 years, 6 months and 8 days old. There are 2.2 MILLION Indigenous People living on reservations in the United States... and a TOTAL of 47 (NO I didn't stutter... Forty-Seven) dentists to provide dental care to 2.2 MILLION people. Care to take a GUESS at how many Indigenous People even SEE a dentist on a regular basis? There are a total of FOUR hospitals within the service area that I am REQUIRED BY LAW to obtain medical care through. FOUR... in FOUR states. Only ONE of those hospitals has a CT machine.

How precisely is third world medical care NOT working against the stated goals of IHS (Improving the medical care of Indigenous people) when NO medical care is a decided improvement over IHS "medical care"?
Paul.
You are absolutely correct. Our insurance model does work against its presumed purpose and healthcare and the economy in general.

Some (see above) get stuck on abstract principles and therefore must create abstract scenarios to fit them. They assume a free market where there isn't one, then frame their analysis as "free market." These companies have well proven they have little good faith intent, raising their rates well above the rate of inflation, and expanding profits by doing that and systematically denying coverage as a matter of course.

Let's assume your employer is dissatisfied with the coverage. They have few choices in the market, and all players are performing the same basic scam. They have to. If they didn't, they couldn't compete. So much for that "free market solution."

Citizens supplying their own insurance service through government IS free market, and only a simpleton would attempt to deny that. Yet, they do.

We don't need the bulk of our HC insurance privatized. The Theory Thumpers -fundamentalists who are usually hung up on a few snippets of sayings by this or that economist - are no less deluded than are the socialist Utopians.

Cash is fungible. Whatever we quit wasting on HC by paying off this bloated protection racket will find its way into other areas of the economy. The world won't collapse, the jackboots of totalitarianism won't stomp on us, and Armageddon will be held at bay.
Well said, Paul.

Mrs. Raptor, you'll still not getting it. I acknowledge that government programs can and do fail. Indeed, I'm no fan of government programs (for example, I would rather see space exploration in the hands of private development, etc).

But there was no intrinsic reason that health care for Native Amercians provided by government failed. Rather, it failed because of lame policies and implementation.

In contrast, I'm arguing that private enterprise - pursuit of profit - is intrinsically at odds with providing good health care for everyone, because in seeking profits, such private enterprise seeks to limit expenses, which in health care can and does mean refusing necessary treatment and medical care.

McGarrett: The difference between a lazy professor and a health plan that withholds service is that people can and do die as a result of the latter. Also, the intrinsic conflict between pursuit of profit and health care I explained above leads to far more failures in health care in comparison to education, since there is no equivalent self-contradiction in education.
Health Insurance Companies are corporations. The purpose of a corporation is to make profit for the shareholders. Unless the insureds were also the shareholders, the insurance corporations have no incentive to provide quality, affordable health care. The corporation is not a legal entity that is consistent with providing what is is incorporated to sell. There are few corrolaries to such an obvious conflict of interest between the stated purpose of an organization and its structure.
Missed a typo: "is is" should be "it is".