I have dental insurance that I pay for through my employer. I pay more now that I’ve added my wife to my coverage. I’m looking over an ‘explanation of benefits’ papers that the insurance company sends you after your dentist sends in a bill to them.
Back in January my wife went to her dentist. Here is the list of charges:
Description: Total Charged: Not Covered:
Periodic Oral Evaluation 40.00 40.00
Bitewings – Four films 55.00 55.00
Prophylaxis – Adult 70.00 70.00
Total 165.00 165.00
So by my math the insurance payed for exactly diddly squat. WHAT THE FUCK do you pay these people for if they don’t actually cover ANYTHING you get charged for?
With the way the Supreme Court has become decidedly corporatist lately, I’m not sure which way they would vote on the legality of the health care reform insurance mandates. One the one hand, the mandates will give insurance corporations a lot of money and on the other the government is legislating giving lots of money to corporations, so I can see the SCOTUS having a real crisis of faith on this one. I predict the ‘liberal’ members of the SC to vote for the legality of the mandates, but I really have no idea which way the ‘conservative’ members will vote.
The reaction to the decision will be interesting for sure.
If they decide that the mandate is illegal then the far left will have been proven correct, that a public option is our only way to actually reform health care in this country. This middle way of ‘keeping it corporate’ will have failed. A ‘win’ for the far left but a ‘loss’ for the Democrats because their signature legislation will have failed. Without the mandate, the insurance companies will go out of business with the current plan and the plan will pretty much have to be scrapped.
If the SCOTUS decides that the mandates are legal then the Democrats get a huge ‘win’ and I’m not sure where (other than the ballot box) the Republicans can go to pillory the health care reform. This decision would be a ‘loss’ for the far left however, because the public option that they want so badly will be decades off, if it ever comes.
I found this article from The New Yorker to be a very interesting read during my lunch break. Very much worth reading and I don’t care which side of the political spectrum you come from. Do we want our health care to be primarily about “health” or about “revenue”.
Below is an advertisement from the Republican National Committee.
So wait, let me make sure I understand this position they are taking.
Government Healthcare = socialism. Socialism = bad.
Except when it’s medicare? So socialism is OK for seniors but not for everyone else. WTF republicans?
If medicare, which is government run health insurance, is so great that we need a ‘bill of senior rights’ to protect it; why is expanding it or something like it, to cover everyone in our society a socialist dystopian horror? Why is offering a public option to a 27 year old lead to ‘death panels’ and the apocalypse, while offering it to a 65 year old is peachy keen and to be protected to the last breath? Also note that none of the current batch of health care reforms being offered even go this far.
It sound to me like the Republicans like to scare people. Especially old people, who just happen to vote more than any other age demographic. And that they are doing a decent job of it too. I mean the only way they could make it more obvious would be to just come out and say “those horrible socialist democrats are going to reform healthcare and the result will kill you if you are a senior!” why you ask? “Because then your level of coverage would be the norm.” WTF? I just don’t get it. Or maybe I do, and I don’t understand why it works.