Libre Debate Blog

As 2009 turns into 2010, the winter ice and snow has been particularly hard this year. It even snowed in Florida which shows how climate change is starting to affect local weather patterns. Needless to say, the number of traffic accidents has been at an all-time high. No-one is ever ready for ice on the roads. Yet, all round the country, ice is coming through the mail boxes. The insurance companies are sending out notices chilling our desire to drive – premium rates are being hiked (again). And this time, it’s not just a few percent. In most states, it’s averaging at around 10%. So we are not talking peanuts. This is serious money while the US is in recession and millions of people are out of work. What’s the result likely to be? If it comes down to a choice between food on the table and an insurance policy, food wins every time. Everyone has to eat and everyone needs a vehicle – even in the bigger cities, public transport is a joke. So, when push comes to shove, more people will drive uninsured. That’s bad news for the rest of us. Our premiums will rise with fewer policy holders sharing the rising costs of claims. If only the insurers would hold the premiums steady, more people could pay, and rates would stay lower for longer. If only. . .

So why are insurance companies hiking the rates? There are two common problems. The first is the broken healthcare service. Whenever there’s a more serious traffic accident, most people go to hospital. The obvious injuries are treated. Bodies are examined to ensure there are no other injuries. Except, the moment anyone steps through the door of a hospital or clinic, the medical expenses meter starts to run. Despite the recession, the drugs industry and healthcare service suppliers have been increasing their prices. There have been some high-profile disputes between insurers and hospital groups in California and Connecticut. The current fight is between the Continuum Health Partners of New York and United Healthcare. The hospitals have agreed pay increases with the labor unions, new technology is expensive to instal and operate. They want more money. The insurer is looking for a reduction in charges of between 7 and 10%. It’s painful to admit but, in this fight, the insurers are actually protecting us policy holders.

The second problem is equally easy to explain. When we claim, the insurer should have the money to pay. This money comes from cash reserves and all the different state Insurance Departments monitor the amounts held to ensure there’s always sufficient set aside. It’s standard for insurers to hold this money on investment so, when the recession came, they were slow to move out of stocks and bonds, and all the larger insurers lost a slice of their capital. Commissioners are offering their local insurers a choice. Either reduce the number of people holding policies or add more to your cash reserves. This forces companies to raise premiums and so, sadly, it’s getting more difficult to find affordable auto insurance. Even with the use of this site’s excellent search engine, it’s hard to find policies with lower rates. When you get the multiple auto insurance quotes, check through to find those with lower premiums. For good terms, look at the discounts available from these companies. Think about accepting a higher deductible. Using the auto insurance quotes as a starting point, negotiate directly with the insurers. Affordable policies are out there. You just have to work harder to find them.

No Comments yet »

The world of politics is never supposed to make any real sense. After all, once you pit people’s cherished beliefs against each other, passions are roused and the arguments soon become bitter. It would be better if everyone was just allowed to do what they wanted. But, when it comes to organising medical care for the population, it takes a government to put the right kind of infrastructure in place. People have to be trained as care givers. This takes years and costs a small fortune. Hospitals and clinics have to be built. And then we come to all the support staff who drive the ambulances, keep the places clean and keep the accounts. Ah, yes, the money. All of this work over years has to be paid for. So the $64,000 question is who should foot the bill? It’s at this point that emotions get in the way of common sense.

Talk to one side of the argument and they will tell you people who want access to medical care should carry private insurance. Talk to the other side and they will tell you the state should pay for the service out of the tax revenue. It’s never really clear why people disagree. Only people who are in work pay tax. Only people who earn can afford to pay the premiums on insurance. It’s the same money. The only difference is the way it’s collected – one as tax and the other as premiums paid to an insurance company. But wait! There is a difference! If the state collects in the money, it can use it more efficiently because, unlike the insurance industry, it does not intend to make a profit. So the only reason to support the current system is to allow the insurance industry to continue making an ever larger profit.

As the Senate is currently set up, forty-one senators can stop any reform. That’s forty Republicans plus one other. Yet when you look at the number of people these Republican senators represent, it’s only 36% of the US population. This is somewhat unfair. The party with the majority of representatives was voted in by 64% of the population. The Democratic platform could not have been more clear. It was to be reform of healthcare provision. Yet when you look at the media (which is controlled by big business), all you see reported is the opposition to reform. The “tea party” movement captures all the headlines. But in all this, there is one really big irony that gets very little coverage.

The Republican senators may only represent 36% of the population, but they represent nearly 50% of the children without any health insurance and 42% of the adult population with no insurance. Despite the fact that half the uninsured children in the US are represented by the Republicans, their opposition to any reform that would give the children coverage could not be more aggressive. If we assume the outcome of the reform would be cheap health insurance for almost all US citizens, the Republicans are against it. Their policy is to keep the profits rolling in for the health insurance industry and, if the majority of the people who live in their states have no insurance, that’s just their bad luck. The US is genuinely a strange place. Despite the recession, it’s one of the richest countries in the world yet it has a political party determined to prevent its citizens from enjoying cheap health insurance. Sadly this party with the minority of votes in the Senate could get their way.

No Comments yet »