TRUE VALUE

I was VP of Insurance for a major corporation and was responsible for purchasing the health insurance for thousands of employees.  One of the most important components of this responsibility is to have a firm sense of values.

Our first priority was to protect our employees.  However, it was also important to control costs, for both the employee and the company.  There are always important value decisions that informed our decisions.  We decided that the most important standard was to make health insurance affordable so that it was available to as many employees as possible. But we also wanted to be sure that those who needed the most help got that help.   If there was a choice between a small increase in premium and a small increase in co-pay for routine procedures and a reduction in coverage in the event of a catatrophic illness or injury we would always opt for the plan that protected those with the greatest need.  We would rather see all employees pay a little extra for real protection if they needed it than to see someone with a catastrophic injury or illness stuck with inadequate coverage.

I soon learned that union programs and government programs have opposite values. If you doubt this, just look at Medicare.  Medicare Part A covers lower cost but frequently used benefits.  Medicare Part B costs you more money, but it still does not provide real protection in the event of a catastrophic injury or illness.  If you want full coverage you need to purchase a Medicare Supplement policy from an independent insurance company

There is a reason for this design.  Medicare is designed to provide a lot of people with low cost insurance that covers most, but not all things.  We call them voters.  Those people who find Medicare inadequate are often very ill and they conveniently tend to die.  That means they typically stop voting, unless they live in a place like Chicago.  Medicare was not designed to take care of the truly needy, it was designed to appeal to the most voters.

This is why Jimmy Kimmel’s rant on national TV was 100% wrong.  I am glad his son got the surgery he needed, but he didn’t get that because of ObamaCare, he got that in spite of ObamaCare.  Kimmel’s son was fortunate enough to have a rich Dad able to pay the cost of the procedure.  This had absolutely nothing to do with any pre-existing conditions clause.  However, if Jimmy Kimmel’s son had been born to one of the millions of people enrolled in an ObamaCare HMO the odds of that child getting expensive surgery at Cedars Sinai would be close to zero. Instead his family would be getting a small benefit to help them plan the funeral.

Jimmy Kimmel also is ignorant of something really important.  There was a President who did want to see people with Catatrophic illness able to obtain treatment at the best hospitals whether they had insurance or not.  That was Ronald Reagan and he signed the Emergency Medical Labor Treatment Act (EMTALA) into law in 1986.  That law made it illegal for prestigous institutes to dump Medicaid, uninsured or otherwise unprofitable patients on local community hospitals.  This was actually the law that would have offer the best chance for a poor child to receive the same treatment as Jimmy Kimmel’s son.

There were also politicians who tried to circumvent that law.  For example, Michelle Obama who was paid over $300,000 per year to “help” people who were uninsured or on Medicare get transportation away from the University of Chicago Medical Center to a community hospital or clinic.

Sean Hannity exposed this in 2009, but Democrats were too busy pushing through ObamaCare to notice:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/07/23/program-linked-to-first-lady-michelle-obama-accused-patient-dumping.html

ObamaCare was designed to offer low cost benefits to low income people from low cost providers.  It is just a coincidence that those also happened to be the people almost certain to vote for Democrats.  This is what happens with any “socialized medicine” program.  If the government gives you health care, the government feels entitled to decide who gets such care.  Since the goals is to give small but popular benefits to as many people as possible they are unconcerned over the small percentage of really sick people people who are so darned expensive to treat.  There were even studies by the Obama regime on how to reduce the enormous expense many people incurr during the last few months of life.  This is one reason why socialists love euthenasia programs.  It is the same reason they love funding abortions.  Treating dead people is a lot cheaper than keeping someone alive.

But for the filthy rich, like the Clinton’s, the Obama’s and the Kimmels, this does not apply.  They can afford the very best doctors and would never consider getting treatment at one of  those wonderful community hospitals so adored by Michelle Obama.  That is only for the basket of deplorables.

TDM