I was VP of Insurance for a major corporation and was responsible for purchasing the health insurance for thousands of employees.\u00a0 One of the most important components of this responsibility is to have a firm sense of values.<\/p>\n
Our first priority was to protect our employees.\u00a0 However, it was also important to control costs, for both the employee and the company.\u00a0 There are always important value decisions that informed our decisions.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 \u00a0If 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. \u00a0We 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.<\/p>\n
I soon learned that union programs and government programs have opposite values. If you doubt this, just look at Medicare. \u00a0Medicare Part A covers lower cost but frequently used benefits.\u00a0 Medicare Part B costs you more money, but it still does not provide real protection in the event of a catastrophic injury or illness.\u00a0 If you want full coverage you need to purchase a Medicare Supplement policy from an independent insurance company<\/p>\n
There is a reason for this design.\u00a0 Medicare is designed to provide a lot of people with low cost insurance that covers most, but not all things.\u00a0 We call them voters.\u00a0 Those people who find Medicare inadequate are often very ill and they conveniently tend to die.\u00a0 That means they typically stop voting, unless they live in a place like Chicago.\u00a0 Medicare was not designed to take care of the truly needy, it was designed to appeal to the most voters.<\/p>\n
This is why Jimmy Kimmel\u2019s rant on national TV was 100% wrong.\u00a0 I am glad his son got the surgery he needed, but he didn\u2019t get that because of ObamaCare, he got that in spite of ObamaCare.\u00a0 Kimmel\u2019s son was fortunate enough to have a rich Dad able to pay the cost of the procedure.\u00a0 This had absolutely nothing to do with any pre-existing conditions clause.\u00a0 However, if Jimmy Kimmel\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
Jimmy Kimmel also is ignorant of something really important.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 That was Ronald Reagan and he signed the Emergency Medical Labor Treatment Act (EMTALA) into law in 1986.\u00a0 That law made it illegal for prestigous institutes to dump Medicaid, uninsured or otherwise unprofitable patients on local community hospitals.\u00a0 This was actually the law that would have offer the best chance for a poor child to receive the same treatment as Jimmy Kimmel\u2019s son.<\/p>\n
There were also politicians who tried to circumvent that law.\u00a0 For example, Michelle Obama who was paid over $300,000 per year to \u201chelp\u201d people who were uninsured or on Medicare get transportation away from the University of Chicago Medical Center to a community hospital or clinic.<\/p>\n
Sean Hannity exposed this in 2009, but Democrats were too busy pushing through ObamaCare to notice:<\/p>\n
http:\/\/www.foxnews.com\/story\/2009\/07\/23\/program-linked-to-first-lady-michelle-obama-accused-patient-dumping.html<\/a><\/p>\n ObamaCare was designed to offer low cost benefits to low income people from low cost providers.\u00a0 It is just a coincidence that those also happened to be the people almost certain to vote for Democrats.\u00a0 This is what happens with any \u201csocialized medicine\u201d program.\u00a0 If the government gives you health care, the government feels entitled to decide who gets such care.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 This is one reason why socialists love euthenasia programs.\u00a0 It is the same reason they love funding abortions.\u00a0 Treating dead people is a lot cheaper than keeping someone alive.<\/p>\n But for the filthy rich, like the Clinton\u2019s, the Obama\u2019s and the Kimmels, this does not apply.\u00a0 They can afford the very best doctors and would never consider getting treatment at one of \u00a0those wonderful community hospitals so adored by Michelle Obama.\u00a0 That is only for the basket of deplorables.<\/p>\n TDM<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I was VP of Insurance for a major corporation and was responsible for purchasing the health insurance for thousands of employees.\u00a0 One of the most important components of this responsibility is to have a firm sense of values. Our first … Continue reading