RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Evil Insurance Company or Evil Health-Care System?

by LaVonne Neff 10-19-2009

A friend sent me a link to a Washington Times article, “Insurer ends health program rather than pay out big.” The subject line of my friend’s e-mail was “Evil insurance company.” I disagree.

It’s a sad story. Ian Pearl, 37-year-old brother of novelist Matthew Pearl, “has Type II spinal muscular atrophy — which often kills victims in infancy. He grew to adulthood only to suffer respiratory arrest at 19. He has required a tracheal tube ever since.” His insurance company, Guardian Life, is “legally barred from discriminating against individuals who submit large claims.” So “the New York-based insurer simply canceled lines of coverage altogether in entire states to avoid paying high-cost claims like Mr. Pearl’s.”

Mr. Pearl’s care costs $1 million a year. Without it, he will probably die.

Why don’t I think the insurance company is evil? Because a for-profit company has to watch its bottom line. It is responsible to its shareholders. It exists in order to make money. If it doesn’t, it will fail; and if it fails, even more people will be uninsured.

What is evil is this: that we Americans allow our health-care system to be financed by industries that exist to make a profit. No other rich capitalist nation does this.

Many developed nations finance their health-care systems through private insurance companies. The difference is this: everywhere else, basic health insurance is required by law to be not-for-profit.

Our legislators are trying to reform health care without reforming the evil that is at the heart of our system. Until the profit motive is removed from basic health-care insurance, we will continue to read stories like Mr. Pearl’s.

portrait-lavonne-neffLaVonne Neff is an amateur theologian and cook; lover of language and travel; wife, mother, grandmother, godmother, dogmother; perpetual student, constant reader, and Christian contrarian. She blogs at Lively Dust.

Categories: Economics, Health
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • That's not the right question to be asking. Government provisions benefit somebody, but at what expense, and is it the best use of that money. That's where the argument lies, not whether or not there is "value" in whatever service government provides.

    Also keep in mind that government inherently does not produce or make anything, but only takes from those who have already done so. The merits of this can be debated, of course, but there is no creation of wealth from the government; at best, it can preserve it, but even that is unrealistic and not historically true.
  • govtisnottheproblem
    In Australian, firefighting is provided by the State Governments. But let's pick any Govt run activity and apply the analogy. Has Government never provided anything of value?
  • I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, here. Fire fighting generally is a local community effort, not a federal or centralized government sort of effort.
  • People's health is not sold on any open (or closed) market. Not in the form of insurance, nor in the form of health services. I disagree with Gekko with you, but capitalism is not based on greed, contrary to popular opinion. And as for "people's health" being sold on a market, that's not the case whatsoever. Unhealthiness is a part of life. Thankfully, through entrepreneurship and hard work and ingenuity, some people have found solutions to dealing with such unhealthy hardships. Those persons deserve to be compensated for the services they have provided to society. Their solutions and means of mitigating pain and suffering are what is being sold, if anything at all.

    As for the WHO ranking the US #37 in health care system, I"ll say this: everything fails irrelevant tests.

    Try this link on greed and capitalism, written by a Christian.
  • Not to offend here, but are you kidding? Competition ALWAYS decreases prices for the consumer/buyer. Even Obama has stated this goal, yet the government's role in the industry would be not a competitor but its own monopoly.

    There are roughly 1600 insurance companies in the United States, yet in my state of PA, there are only two... TWO choices for those without insurance provided by their employer...

    "Do nothing" is a completely absurd conclusion to reach concerning adding competition in the insurance industry.
  • kansasmennonite
    buying insurance across state lines will do nothing. Some will pay less and some will pay more (unless everyone buys the cheaper insurance and it becomes a monopoly:).

    Insurance companies aren't going to fix the problem! Good grief!
  • WaveTossed
    "government has protected Big Health and Big Pharma in such a way as to make them immune from laws that would otherwise permit competition naturally."

    Exactly. We seem to be stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea -- with the government cartels protecting both the health insurance monopoly cartel and the pharmacy cartels.

    This isn't the free market. This is a sort of socialism. Both Repub "conservatives" and Dem "progressives" have built these cartels.
  • csack
    i don't think that analogy makes any sense. it would only be comparable if you said, "child....not evil. putting a child in a sandbox with another child...evil!"

    i'm merely looking at the logic here. to me, it looks like a fallacy of composition. i think there are better ways to argue non-profit status, but this is utterly unconvincing.
  • dlowen
    "The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed -- you mark my words -- will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much." - Gordon Gekko

    God's economic system doesn't work like capitalism, and in fact this kind of capitalism doesn't work like capitalism. I don't believe that people's health should be bought and sold on the open market any more than their bodies or their souls. Even if you believe it's appropriate, you cannot argue the fact that the US pays more for health care than any other nation and has a WHO #37 ranking to show for it. We can't just tweak the current healthcare system. It isn't about health; it doesn't care; and it isn't a system. We have a disease state management industry, and it needs a complete overhaul. Thank you very much.
  • govtisnottheproblem
    And I will keep posting my analogy...

    Why not turn firefighting into a for-profit activity? If you couldn't afford to pay, then sorry but your place burns. Take out insurance, prepare your property, but don't expect others to put our your fireys for free. And once the profit motive comes along, then companies will have a real incentive to invest in new and better firefighting technologies as well as make returns for their shareholders. We could cut out all of the political and bureaucratic crap by going private. And a bit of competition adds even more incentive to do better, so we could deregulate the market to allow several competing brigades to show up.

    This would be great. I'm volunteer firefighter and this could be a nice source of extra cash instead of doing it all for free (in Australia, nearly every rural firefighter is a volunteer).

    Who will join me in this great reform?
  • WaveTossed
    "Maybe we should have the government guarantee everything. If I want food, I can have whatever "food care" I want without cost to me."

    Just because health care and access to food are basic rights to life: this doesn't necessarily mean that having government directly provide these needs for life is the most efficient way to provide for these rights to life.

    I don't know if you've ever had to apply for food stamps. I wouldn't wish this process on my worst enemies. Take it from me, it's a horrible process. I would much rather have private agencies receive 100% tax breaks and deductions to provide these services.

    For that matter, applying for Medicaid is just as awful as applying for food stamps. The problem is that the health insurance monopoly cartel isn't any better. I believe that the answers lie in breaking up the health insurance monopoly cartel to gain a true free market rather than putting in a government health insurance monopoly cartel to join with the rest of the health insurance monopoly cartel.
  • You're so right about this. As much as some health insurers may not like current reform proposals, they love their own paradigm: insurance-provided health care system.

    Maybe we should have the government guarantee everything. If I want food, I can have whatever "food care" I want without cost to me. Isn't food a basic human right? If I want bottled water, I can have as many as I need. Isn't clean water a basic human right? If I want transportation, I should be allowed on any public or private automobile, and the government should be there to defend my "right" to transportation.

    The trouble is, our costs are higher and access is more difficult because of government's involvement. More government doesn't fix the problem.
  • So why don't good progressive Christians with an entrepreneurial spirit and compassion for those without health care begin their own health insurance company or co-operative, and become the alternative to the so-called evil insurance system that operates so unjustly? Why not beat them at their game: charge less, cover everyone, and eliminate waste?

    Guess what? You can't, because government has protected Big Health and Big Pharma in such a way as to make them immune from laws that would otherwise permit competition naturally. It also doesn't heed the Constitution's clause that should make interstate commerce occur, when most insurance companies are unable to compete across state lines. That law alone would cost zero to implement, and create competition with zero government involvement. ZERO.

    And we want government to fix the problem!? Good grief!
  • WaveTossed
    I don't think that the profit motive is, in itself, evil as far as health insurance goes. What is wrong is that the health insurance companies have been made exempt from anti-trust laws. So they have organized into a health care monopoly cartel and can fix prices as desired without any competition. This is not the free market, it's not capitalism.

    The health insurance cartel needs to be broken up so that health insurance companies can engage in normal free market competition. Needless to say, most insurance companies would rather remain in a monopoly cartel than practice in a true free market.
  • prk
    "Until the profit motive is removed from basic health-care insurance, we will continue to read stories like Mr. Pearl’s"

    LaVonne how many people have been saved by the profit motive. Greedy is good and has lead us here to a quality of life that is unmatched in history.
  • prk
    I linked to the article and went to the company site. On their site they sell life insurance and long term care insurance. They have nothing on their site about health insurance.

    So are you now advocating the government take over life insurance too?
  • Ngchen
    The problem is not with the profit motive per se. Otherwise we would be having huge problems with ALL forms of insurance, including house, car, life, etc. The problem is with unsustainable overall costs. No amount of insurance reform can "work," unless the overall costs are reduced. It's OK for a very small number of people to cost a fortune; however, if everyone started to cost a fortune, then the system is bound to collaspe unless we all had a fortune to spend! (Never forget that insurance only spreads the pain, rather than reducing the overall level of pain.)

    BTW, I'm absolutely convinced that there are ways to practice medicine that would cost much less than what is currently being done, since we see it in much of the rest of the industrialized world. And they have results every bit as good as we do.
  • schroeder37
    lets just ignore what, the make money side of it, has created in theis country. a not for profit health care industry will kill insentive to create many things that save and help lives. And there has been proposed many ideas that will make this profit idea work much better and to the benefit of the people. Its just that is not what this admionistration wants. even though that is exactly what obama said he wanted during his campaign. the congress health plan is what he said we should have YET what he is giving us is nothing close to it. please explain this if you dare wish to actually want the whole truth of the matter your pushing.
  • TCburgh
    That's right. Company... not evil. System... evil. Companies are only doing what companies do. It's like putting a child in with a pit bull. You can't blame the pit bull for doing what they do. You blame the system that insists that the child gets put in with the pit bull.
  • letjusticerolldown
    In Minnesota health insurers are by law, non-profit entities. And they deliver care with less overhead.

    However, if BlueCrossBlueShield of Minnesota does not have the money to pay a claim. The claim will not be paid. Non-profit entities are not immune from having to manage their corporations efficiently. Non-profit entities are not immune from paying CEO's large salaries. Of the ten largest non-profit entities in MN, how many do you expect are health providers or insurers?

    Ten.

    Even the government must take in more revenue than it pays out; or print money. There is an argument to be made that the further the system is removed from the "bottom line" the greater the possibility we design an unsustainable system that will collapse.

    i.e. I don't think it works to argue there is an inherent good or evil in the selection of form for the health system. It ought function justly to produce just, good, and healthful outcomes.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008