Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Dumb California Democrats' Jobs Tax For Health Care
Instead of attracting business to California, and keeping businesses we have, why not tax all businesses -- including mine -- out of the state?

I pay my assistant as much as I can, buy her lunch when she's here, toss her bags of liquid velvet (Ristretto Roasters coffee, every few months, whenever I order some for myself), and give her nice bonuses when I do a magazine article.

Yet, here's the deal: Even though she's part-time, I could end up paying 7.5 percent of the money she makes into a new state healthcare fund. What does that mean? I couldn't give her any raises for a long time, and I probably can't give her bonuses, for one. Here's the essential paragraph from the the bill, California AB 8:

16)Effective January 1, 2009, establishes an election for employers to either: a) make health care expenditures, defined as any amount paid by an employer to or on behalf of its employees and dependents to provide health or health-related services, or to reimburse the costs of those services, for its full-time or part-time employees, or both; or, b) pay an equivalent amount to the Fund, and establishes a minimum spending requirement for employers equal to 7.5% of Social Security wages for full-time employees working 30 or more hours per week and part-time employees working less than 30 hours per week.

And, oh no!...I'm not sure if I'd also have to pay in for my bookkeeper, who, luckily, only works a few hours a month and lives in Oklahoma.

Here's more on the entire stupid health care plan.

What I don't understand is why all these idiots (and not just the current idiot Democrats in power) keep tying health care to the workplace. We don't tie, say, car insurance to the workplace, or grocery bills to the workplace. Why can't everybody do as I do, get their own health insurance and pay for it themselves? And especially as it's extremely unfair to have the single person subsidizing the worker with the family of five sucking off the workplace hog.

Posted by aalkon at July 15, 2007 1:44 PM

Comments

I'm not going to cry conspiracy, but I think those who would have health insurance tied to employment have a mindset that contributes to what may as well be a conspiracy.

If health insurance is tied to employment, then people get used to the idea of health care being provided by someone else. Once the idea of purchasing health care for oneself becomes so foreign to most people, those people are then softened up to accept socialized medicine.

Redesigning laws to foster an economic climate where people are purchasing their own health care directly is met with almost instinctual resistance by those for whom socialized medicine is the ultimate goal.

Posted by: Mario at July 15, 2007 7:51 AM

Right on. I've posted before about how this indirect funding of health insurance contributes to the idea that anything and everything is "free."

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 15, 2007 7:57 AM

Here in NJ, it's impossible to get a decent plan as an individual. The only semi-okay plans in existence (which, believe me, are quite expensive with only middling coverage) are available only through the workplace. Which means that if your employer doesn't offer insurance, or if you are self-employed, you are effectively screwed.

Posted by: kishke at July 15, 2007 8:02 AM

There's just something about your closing language here, "the family of five sucking off the workplace hog." that made me really really want to scrub my mind's eye with Clorox and barbed wire...



Apart from that, yeah, employer deductibility of health insurance premiums is heinous and unfair.



To pile Ossa upon Pelion, it's also regressive. And leads inexorably to the wrong *kind* of health insurance. If you want insurance that's actually insurance it has to be both actuarially sound and free of moral hazard. In particular you have to overpay for coverage of your actual health risks when you're young so that you build up a balance to cover your higher risks that you can't otherwise afford to cover when you're old.



No way to export the personal costs of your personal decisions onto others. By no coincidence at all, portability follows.



--


VK

Posted by: VorticityKappa at July 15, 2007 9:06 AM

Sorry about the mind's eye poke.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 15, 2007 10:53 AM

I agree that there would be some real benefits to separating insurance from employment. But, real changes have to happen (as the VK post above indicates in a much more well-informed fashion than I could make) first. As I've mentioned previously, current individual plans are prohibitively expensive or totally unavailable for individuals, who are middle aged, with one - just one - hospitalization for a non-chronic illness (pneumonia). I have no idea what it might look like for families, but it must be ghastly.

Question for Amy: Can you turn your assistant into a contractor rather than an employee? I haven't followed the details of this bill, but that change of status can often help employers avoid onerous obligations.

Posted by: justin case at July 15, 2007 10:59 AM

Turning an employee into a contractor can be a great work-around, but watch out for these rules.
http://www.taxes.ca.gov/ICorE.bus.html

Unfortunately, I think Mario's post above nailed the cause of this legislation and we are all going to see more of it.

Good luck!

Posted by: Shawn at July 15, 2007 11:15 AM

She is an independent contractor...so maybe she doesn't count as a part-time employee.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 15, 2007 11:16 AM

People don't seem to understand that "free health care" isn't free. We would pay for it in higher taxes. I prefer to pay for what I use, and let everyone else pay directly for what they use, and directly pay my assistant as much as I can, as I value her contribution. Right now, she's on a movie -- as the lead in an independent film -- and she's got the morning off, so she called me to tell me she could go through my notes for the column for this week before they start shooting again. She's amazing. I told her, "If I believed god, I'd call it a godsend, but instead I'll call it a her-name-here-send!"

Regarding the health care tax, I'm a healthy, 43-year-old woman who takes good care of herself, hence I have Kaiser Permanente. I try to get my ass to my primary care doc once a year for a physical, but otherwise, they don't see me. I do get a few Ritalin prescrips yearly from the shrinkie at Kaiser (20 minute visit to make sure I'm not hearing voices that aren't coming out of the TV), and I went to the opthamologist for the first time in my life to get a prescrip for eyeglasses. I have Kaiser really as a disaster-prevention measure. If I had Blue Cross, the money would have to come out of what I pay my assistant. Same as if I bought clothes and eyeglasses retail. And I'd like to pay even her more than I do -- providing the government doesn't make that impossible.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 15, 2007 11:58 AM

> the idea that anything
> and everything is "free."

Did you see the dustup between Moore & Gupta? Gupta called Moore's bluff that the British weren't paying for their healthcare through taxes, and Moore was paralyzed and speechless... Believing things can be free is part of the liberal code. They want to believe that the only reason we aren't sitting at home watching Tivo all day with hot, fresh meals from Wolfgang Puck delivered through Federal Express is because of some policy, a policy written by a bitter old white guy.

At this hour, this is the top post on Reddit.

http://urltea.com/zdx

Which is reminiscent of this form a few years ago:

http://urltea.com/zdz

This ain't a liberal problem, it's human nature problem. But liberals seem never to grow out of it. If you want things that have value, someone's going to have to create them, and those people are going want to be paid...

Posted by: Crid at July 15, 2007 12:09 PM

People don't seem to understand that "free health care" isn't free. We would pay for it in higher taxes.

Exactly. But the reason that nationalized health is now favored in many surveys of Americans is that many people find themselves paying a bunch of money out of pocket for mediocre care anyway, so why not just go ahead and make it a national program paid through taxes? If we want to see health care moved in the opposite direction - toward individual responsibility - there are huge obstacles to overcome, because so many people can't afford individual care as is currently offered.

Using Amy's example above, she might be have real trouble paying for he own health insurance if she were to have a single, serious adverse incident - exactly why she has insurance in the first place. Private insurers have a real incentive to be selective in who they cover, and protect their financial stability by excluding people (either by policy or by pricing) who are a risk. Until individuals and, especially, families can be covered by private insurance without paying thousands a month in premiums, there's little chance that people will seek to divorce their health insurance from their employers or the state.

Something has to give, somewhere. Given the current climate, I think nationalized health care, and concomitantly higher taxes, is the more likely direction. Not pretty, but true, I think.

Posted by: justin case at July 15, 2007 12:26 PM

Believing things can be free is part of the liberal code.

Dude, I know! I've read articles and heard so many people talk about "free" health care with respect to Moore's new movie (Man, I am so tired of his sanctimonious, dishonest "gotcha" tactics that just rile people up without contributing meaningfully to any debate.), and I'm always thinking, "Be freaking honest people, it's not FREE, it's just paid for before the money gets to your wallet." Sheesh.

Posted by: justin case at July 15, 2007 12:39 PM

Using Amy's example above, she might be have real trouble paying for he own health insurance if she were to have a single, serious adverse incident - exactly why she has insurance in the first place.

I got into Kaiser at a young age specifically so I wouldn't be in the position of discovering I had some "condition" and having it become hard to find coverage. It's called "personal responsibility." More people should try it.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 15, 2007 12:48 PM

> if she were to have a single,
> serious adverse incident

People have been saying this a lot in recent years as if it were an insight, or a new circumstance, or a fundamental flaw in the assembly of civilization.

Yes, absolutely: A bad thing could happen to you and you could be permanently fucked. It's been that way since the dawn of time. The best hour to reflect on this remarkable principle is in the hour before you conceive a child. This is not a pattern that's going to go away.

So why the tone of surprise and resentment in their default rhetorical perspective? We have to to wonder how people got the idea that through some unseen sex dance between ethereal morality and distant social machinery, they'd always be taken care of.

Here's how they got the idea: Life is good. Particularly in the west, and particularly in the United States, a lot of ugly shit is under control.

But good-life people don't admit that, because then they have no excuse for being the unhappy, small-minded whine-tards that they are.

Human nature sucks.

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week. Try the veal, tip your waitress.

Posted by: Crid at July 15, 2007 1:12 PM

I agree that it's time for employment and health coverage to go their separate ways. From what I've read, it seems that health insurance was originally an incentive employers offered employees during WWII, when the labor shortage was such that we had laws in place to prevent salaries from rising at an inflationary rate.

Group insurance is definitely the way to go -- in a group, risk is spread equally among the more and less healthy, and premiums reflect that. When you're an individual, your premium is a reflection of your current medical history alone. Never mind the 25 years of premiums paid when you were young and healthy.

I will say, however, that in my experience, employees generally pay for their own dependents' coverage. The dependents may have access to the group rate, which is likely to be lower, but that's as far as the benefit goes.

Like the idea of six weeks paid maternity leave discussed a few weeks ago, I don't think these kinds of benefits exist in the mainstream workplace. Maybe a Google or a Microsoft could afford to post the resulting payroll numbers and not take a hammering from stockholders, but most companies would get nailed to the wall for subsidizing health coverage for their employees children.

(And like so many discussions of business models, we can look to Walmart for the logical extension of this -- they offer virtually no insurance at all and their stock price is just dandy.)

Posted by: Harriet at July 15, 2007 1:12 PM

I got into Kaiser at a young age specifically so I wouldn't be in the position of discovering I had some "condition" and having it become hard to find coverage. It's called "personal responsibility." More people should try it.

True, true, true. But this also highlights the inflexibility of the private insurance market, too - get in early, or you can be excluded forever. Which makes it hard for people whose employers covered this stuff for years and who now want to work for themselves (would it have been irresponsible for them not to double up with their own coverage, too?). My point here is about practicalities. Our health care system right now is under great pressure for serious reform; currently, the way private insurance works makes it far less likely that reforms will go in its direction.

Posted by: justin case at July 15, 2007 1:22 PM

So why the tone of surprise and resentment in their default rhetorical perspective?

Cause they look at Europe, and Canada, e.g., and think the grass is greener? As a whole, we don't care about people's historical condition. It's about how things are NOW. I think you know this, too - you're pretty insightful about the human condition. People think they have it shitty, and therefore they effectively do, and they then want something done about it. That's where we are now with health care: massive numbers of people say the system is broken. Voila, it's "broken," and people are going to press like mad to "fix" it, even if the new system ultimately proves to be less effective.

Posted by: justin case at July 15, 2007 1:30 PM

I got into Kaiser at a young age specifically so I wouldn't be in the position of discovering I had some "condition" and having it become hard to find coverage.

But that would avail you nothing if they were free to drop you as soon as you became expensive. The reason they are not free to drop you when you get really sick, and must keep renewing your policy so long as you do not let it lapse, is on account of govt. regulation. In a truly free market, your protection would last only as long as your next renewal date.

Posted by: kishke at July 15, 2007 1:48 PM

> It's about how things
> are NOW.

Here's how things are NOW: Health care costs are high because prices and value aren't discussed at the transaction, and never by one of the parties (the customer). I say this every time Amy posts on this topic, so here it is again: Americans are better than anyone in the world at pricing things. This brilliance is arguably the brightest spark in humanity's last millenium. Until this genius is unleashed in the trenches --by Americans navigating their own path through medicine-- this 'crisis' is not going to go away.

And as was also said earlier: For Americans to admire Europeans for their health care is like a working stiff homeowner admiring his teenage son for spending his time watching video games instead of getting a job.

Socialized health care is fuel on the fire.

Posted by: Crid at July 15, 2007 1:59 PM

Until this genius is unleashed in the trenches --by Americans navigating their own path through medicine-- this 'crisis' is not going to go away.

This seems to make intuitive sense. But how might it work in a such complicated business? Some things to consider: can sick people be expected to shop for good prices or haggle over procedures, do we just let the desperately poor die for lack of care (medicine ain't quite the same as cars or toasters or other goods), is it reasonable to expect that people know enough about medicine to judge what treatments they need (doctors hold a huge informational advantage in any negotiation). I'm not saying you're wrong, here - in theory. But practically...

Posted by: justin case at July 15, 2007 2:24 PM

It would have to matter on an individual basis, Justin. Their family medical histories and personal lifestyle practices.

Placing the burden of responsibility on the capable (is a broad category) would be a long term benefit for society as a whole. Even the ones who are in denial about being capable of providing for themselves without the intervention of their employers and government entities.

The whole "I am my brother's keeper" expression does have limitations. The real debate is on how we rate the limitations.

Posted by: Joe at July 15, 2007 3:00 PM

Amy says:
I got into Kaiser at a young age specifically so I wouldn't be in

the position of discovering I had some "condition" and having it become hard to find coverage.

It's called "personal responsibility." More people should try it.



Justin Says:
True, true, true. But this also highlights the inflexibility of the private

insurance market, too - get in early, or you can be excluded forever. Which makes it hard for

people whose employers covered this stuff for years and who now want to work for themselves

(would it have been irresponsible for them not to double up with their own coverage, too?).





Justin, I was thinking along the same lines. I was insured for years with my previous employer.

After a decade of that I was laid off, with no advance warning of any kind. Now I am uninsured.

It would have been impractical for me to have paid for private individual insurance for the last

10 years that I was already covered. This topic is really interesting to me at this time due to

my personal circumstances. I am now employed, and eligible to join the new compnay's

health plan but haven't signed up for the "deal" because it would cost me about $4,000 per

year not including copays, perscriptions, etc. That's too much, especially since I almost never

need more than my yearly exam. I am shopping but frustrated and scared of what would

happen if an emergency happened.

Posted by: jaylyn at July 15, 2007 3:52 PM

Oops. Sorry about the crzay spacing. Typed that in notepad with word wrap turned on.

Posted by: jaylen at July 15, 2007 3:57 PM

> in a such complicated
> business

Begging the question, aren'tcha? Complexity of transaction is the problem.

> do we just let the desperately
> poor die for lack of care

First of all, you're needs-clustering. (Will someone please come up with a better name for this?) If we do find a solution, that solution won't also prevent inner-city crime, clean the polluted Great Lakes or resolve the VHS/Betamax dispute as well. If we achieve responsibly-priced health care, you're still going to get into spats with your wife occasionally.

Second, to solve the problem for the desperately poor is to solve the problem of the desperately poor. That the impulse to do this a popular melody in the pews of an authoritarian liberal choir (Hi, Hillary!) doesn't mean you should trust them to do it. Don't be fooled by the somber robes. Nobody, nobody, nobody can make a world where there aren't poor people. Mother Teresa made things worse. And the last Democrat to declare a war on poverty was Johnson. Didn't work out... Made Iraq look like a stunning success.

Thirdly and most to the point, this crisis in not just happening to us because poor people are so troubled. This is a middle-class problem that trickles down hard and mean, as MC problems tend to do.

> But practically...

At this point, a powerful case could be made that a wild-west scenario in which sharing of risks was forbidden might be better than what's going on this weekend at County-USC in Los Angeles.

Posted by: Crid at July 15, 2007 4:15 PM

> I almost never need
> more than my yearly exam.

Famous last words.

> Typed that in notepad
> with word wrap

Blog software is even less convenient --muchless convenient-- than the bulletin boards I used to pick fights on twenty years ago.

Someday, some thoughtful, brilliant person will explain why websites put these slender little columns of text in the center of the screen, wasting these hundreds of thousands of pixels for which we've paid hundreds (and thousands) of dollars.

My theory: They think it looks ink-y/print-y. The whole industry is full of people who want to be taken very seriously, like, say, George Will.

Posted by: Crid at July 15, 2007 4:20 PM

At this point, a powerful case could be made that a wild-west scenario in which sharing of risks was forbidden might be better than what's going on this weekend at County-USC in Los Angeles.

Then this case needs to be made. The point that I've been trying to make (perhaps too obliquely) across all of my posts on this issue is this:

If people don't want to end up living with socialized health care in the U.S., they'd better figure out how to fix the private system (or fix the public's perception of the health care system, which for political purposes is the same thing). Which to me seems to require addressing in a practical fashion the issue raised by Crid of how to make the market competitive without being totally inhumane (this was why I brought up the impoverished). It will also help to give it a catchy name.

I am shopping but frustrated and scared of what would happen if an emergency happened.

Check out ehealthinsurance.com - they have some cheap policies through reputable network intended to accompany HSAs. They have very high deductibles (mine was $4000) but will cover 100% of expenses above that. They're a great option for healthy people who need protection against disasters.


Posted by: justin case at July 15, 2007 4:42 PM

One partial fix for the private system would be for states to allow healthy people to join catastrophic-care insurance with huge deductibles (10k-15k) and small premiums. I've been pining for a plan like that for years, but it's just not available in NJ, and I've been told by the insurance guys that it's b/c the insurance regulators do not allow it.

Posted by: kishke at July 15, 2007 5:06 PM

You know given the absolutely *stunning* job the government has done with public education, I do *not* want them making decisions about my health care. (I didn't even want them making decisions about my education. I told the state I was homeschooling all through high school and went to community college instead). This is just my libertarian streak shining through, but I just can't get how people think that socialized health care is free.

Then again a lot of them went to public schools. . . . (Tongue placed gently in cheek)

Posted by: Elle at July 15, 2007 8:08 PM

Kishke -

The HMO/PPO system was invented by the same liberal politicians who pine for a "universal" health-care system under federal control. The rules governing minimum required coverages were written by those same politicians.

It's almost too perfect - they created the system against which they now rail. One could be forgiven for believing it intentional.

That tingling you feel? That's enlightenment.

Posted by: brian at July 15, 2007 8:38 PM

What about those of us who were born with conditions? Not being able to afford health insurance is not necessarily a lack of personal responsibility. I was turned down for Kaiser when I tried for an indivdiual plan as a young adult because of this.

Posted by: Karen at July 15, 2007 8:51 PM

So long as people think that it's "free" when the government pays for it, and you can get people to vote for you by offering them free stuff, you're on a hiding to nothing. Doesn't matter whether it's health care, education, the armed forces or the water supply.

This will continue for as long as the average IQ is 100.

Posted by: Norman at July 15, 2007 11:42 PM

This will continue for as long as the average IQ is 100.

This is either the best sarcasm I've read all year, or the most unintentionally funny thing ever written.

Bravo sir!

Posted by: brian at July 16, 2007 4:46 AM

I'll take the first option. Thanks.

Posted by: Norman at July 16, 2007 5:32 AM

Well, another way to look is the costs. If care were less costly, the schemes used to pay wouldn't seem so bad, expensive and poor quality. But governmentally who's going to cut out the trial lawyers? Who's going to prod the AMA into labor innovation? Who is going to fire all the well-insured government employees that work in, work for and depend upon this present train wreck? Who is going to tell the old folks that the last 6 months of their terminal disease, the money is wasted and, by the way, could you please turn over to the state that house you put into your kids name?

I don't see the ethical, moral or economic forces to other than have this abortion continue upon its institutional momentum. If you like the cost and services of the Defense Department, and government in general, you are going to like the future, and I guarantee there will be profits for investors, and good jobs in the reforms of the reforms of the systems of the plans for reforming the system.


I suppose a candidate could propose to de-regulate the present system and we could see costs drop and innovations like in airlines and telephones, but I doubt it. It would be nice, and as in most modern countries medical costs are a major burden and industry. The nation that did find the way to reduce costs, improve services and increase innovation would have a comparative advantage. We used to do stuff like this, but that was a long time ago when half our economy wasn’t run like Amtrak, the Post Office or the Motor Vehicle Department.

The economic sins of the fathers lay upon the sons. Someone has to pay, and with government debt, the young who didn’t vote, or get jobs in these institutions get to pick up the tab. Nice. Financial pedophilia from one generation to another.

Posted by: Paul from Florida at July 16, 2007 6:55 AM

When is Tax Freedom Day in the US?

Posted by: Norman at July 16, 2007 7:25 AM

A major problem hit on above: state insurance regulators, overseen by state legislators, who get co-opted by lobbyists for various interests. For example, in my state, all health insurance MUST cover 30 days of psychiatric intervention, so the price of coverage soars. The state is also one of those that requires all policies to cover pregnancy, even for young single men. This builds in high costs even for employer provided health care, since the basic policy already includes so many high cost options.

Posted by: fiona at July 16, 2007 7:27 AM

Rona, I don't know where you live, but in NJ insurance companies are required to accept any applicant who was enrolled in any insurance plan within the last 30 days, regardless of any pre-existing condition. In other words, you can get on the cheapest plan around, and if you are suddenly diagnosed with something major, you can just switch to whichever Cadillac plan you wish, and they must take you. This of course raises the rates on all plans, so that there is nothing truly affordable.

Re. the high costs, part of the problem is that hospitals are required by government to dispense free care to anyone without insurance. Someone has to pick up the tab, and it's us, in the form of exorbitant hospital fees, and consequently exorbitant insurance premiums. What it amounts to is a hidden, governmentally-mandated tax on health consumers.

Posted by: kishke at July 16, 2007 7:36 AM

I share Karen's concern. I was born with one kidney. It wasn't discovered until I was an adult with Kaiser. I've never had a kidney problem, but now that they know I have only one, I don't see any way out of Kaiser, ever. After I left the job that provided the Kaiser, I did the Cobra for as long as I could, then the "real" rates kicked in. Nearly $400 a month just for me.

I currently live in an area where Kaiser is available, though I have to go to non-Kaiser facilities for most treatment, which Kaiser covers. Unfortunately there are a lot of areas in the country where Kaiser isn't available. Unless my husband or I get a job with health care coverage, I am limited as to where I can live.

I was lucky enough to be diagnosed while covered. People like Karen, and I'm sure many, many others don't have that option. Their choices are to remain uninsured, find a job with health insurance, or to stay poor enough to qualify for Medicaid (Medical in CA).

Until we make sure people like Karen can GET private insurance, I don't think we should outlaw employer-provided coverage.

I don't think employers should be forced to provide coverage, though. It should be a voluntary perk. I know I'd rather work for a company that offered it, which was the original point, I believe.

Posted by: Kimberly at July 16, 2007 11:17 AM

Fiona - Connecticut, right?

And as to the coverage of all the pregnancy and other things, it almost seems like a scheme to push young people into marriage for financial benefit.

Which is wholly bogus if you ask me.

Posted by: brian at July 16, 2007 11:39 AM

I was under the impression that in most places the employer paid medical insurance was a perk not a mandate. It is changing now, it looks like a badly designed bandage over a bullet wound. However there is two sides to the argument. If Amy's employee has to get private insurance as opposed to work subsidized insurance she is still taking a hit in the wallet. I'm not sure how the tax laws are set up with respect to insurance, there maybe a tax benefit if the company pays for it.

I can't see any really good solutions but I'm pretty sure legal mandates are a very bad solution. I don't think we should even consider outlawing employer based medical insurance. I can't see any benefits to doing so.

Posted by: vlad at July 16, 2007 12:49 PM

Amy herself has to get private insurance instead of "work-subsidized insurance," which is how it should be for everyone. My business costs are business costs. I pay my personal costs personally. As for "tax benefit if the company pays for it," I'm not exactly running Burlington Industries here. More like "A chick who writes a column from her house with her little dog in her lap." I can go to the grocery store and buy Haagen-Daz when the yen strikes me, but it's not like I'm going there on my private jet.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 16, 2007 1:00 PM

Vlad -

The federal tax code allows a company to provide health insurance as a deductible expense to employees when it is offered as a benefit. It also allows for an employee's contribution to any health insurance to be taken from their paycheck before taxes are calculated.

Take that tax break away, and employer-provided insurance will disappear.

Posted by: brian at July 16, 2007 5:17 PM

TO: Amy Alkon, et al.
RE: The High Cost of 'Living'

"Why can't everybody do as I do, get their own health insurance and pay for it themselves?" -- Amy Alkon

It certain is a mess. And there's plenty of blame to go around for EVERYONE and EVERY ORGANIZATION. The problems, as I've seen and experienced them, are throughout the entire system; from the politicians through the insurance companies and medical industry [Note: YES it's an 'industry', now.] down to the individuals.

The one thing I've noticed is that no one seems to criticize the (1) medical industry. Everyone seems to be pointing at (1) insurance companies, (2) businesses and/or (3) individuals. And the politicians are playing divide-and-conquer amongst those three.

Here's an example. I had a procedure done to correct a discovered timing problem with the way the ticker works. It was misfiring on occasion. A one-hour procedure under local anesthetic. I was carrying on a glib conversation with the attending physicians during it all. $6000 for a computer the size of a pocket-watch. $1200 for the doctors bill. The remainder of the $50K was for all the little crap the hospital wanted; the floor space for the procedure and an overnight room with all the regular 'trimmings', i.e., their 'room service' waking me up ever 2 hours to take BP and temp.

Looking over the 'butchers bill' a month later, I was impressed with how much they wanted for their 'bottled water', with a pinch of 'salt', i.e., physiological saline solution. Several hundred dollars, folks. That's just ONE example.

Remember the 80s? Remember how the Air Force got 'hammered' for a $600 hammer?

Heck. At least the Air Force got to use the hammer more than once!

There's something rotten in the medical industry. And anyone who's had such an experience has a pretty good idea where the problem is.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[If laughter is the best medicine, shouldn't we be regulating it?]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 17, 2007 3:53 AM

Leave a comment