data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/09ac7/09ac7f2f770c4b78bea88f6252e01e39eb172017" alt=""
Are you one of those satisfied consumers? Are you truly happy with your health insurance?
You’d think there must be an awful lot of happy Americans out there, the way Washington politicians have been spreading that phrase around, thick as manure.
I suppose there may actually be a few pleased policyholders out there. The nature of insurance, after all, is that some people need it more than others. Those who don’t submit many claims tend to be happy with their coverage. They take comfort in holding that wallet card. They feel protected.
Even if their medical safety-net is spun from pure fantasy, they feel protected. Maybe even happy.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b5dcf/b5dcf9dff688554830328e487ab707dbdfc32d01" alt=""
I’m fortunate enough to be doubly covered. The Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance I receive through the Presbyterian Church is pretty decent. The secondary Qual-Care spousal coverage we purchase at group rates through Claire’s employer, Meridian Health, is a valuable back-up. It takes a big bite out of my 20% Blue-Cross/Blue Shield co-pay – which, when it comes to things like PET scans, can add up to a pretty penny.
That unwieldy insurance bureaucracy – so complex, even the doctors’ professional claims-processors can’t make sense of it – adds as much as 30%, by some reckonings, to the cost of my medical care. Ultimately, that’s the cost of employing an army of people to push paper and tap on computer keys, not to mention squeezing quarterly dividends out of the system to keep insurance companies’ stockholders happy. It has nothing to do with the quality of my medical care.
I’m not happy with that.
Then, when I imagine the prospect of pursuing cancer testing and treatment without any medical insurance, I’m even less happy – not so much for my own sake, as for the sake of my at-risk neighbors who must do exactly that. I’m not happy being the beneficiary of a system that values stockholders more than sick people.
Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, a physician, has it right, in an August 8, 2009 blog entry on the American Cancer Society website:
“We have too many instances-and too many bankruptcies-where ‘satisfied’ people suddenly found themselves not so ‘satisfied.’ I am willing to bet that you (and me) have no idea whether or not your insurance will be a facilitator or a barrier to your care if you or someone you love becomes seriously ill with a disease like cancer. You just don’t know.
So don’t stand there and rail against your Congressman or Senator because you are ‘happy’ with your health insurance. I wonder how many of you have had a serious, prolonged illness in your family. If your experiences have been positive, terrific. But don’t discount that many others have not been so fortunate.”
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/69b11/69b11c56747e903e2f08070e8f6898ea59db9d5a" alt=""
It’s a moral issue. Never before, in human history, has care of the sick been viewed as sick people’s own problem. It’s always been a community responsibility.
Some anthropologists, I’m told, date the rise of the human race according to the first skeleton they ever dug up that had a broken bone someone else had set.
We’re all in this together. That’s where true happiness comes from.