As many of you know, I work at a vitamin supply company as a wholesale account rep. Occasionally, I take overflow calls from the retail side of the company. Generally speaking, the people I deal with are well-educated business owners that are easy to understand, and professional in their dealings.
This customer, though, was a wildly different story. The phone call went something like this.
Customer- Did you get my return package?
(Because I can always tell exactly who the customer is by the sound of their sweet, melodious voice over the IP phone...)
Me- Well, let me pull up your account first, and then I will be more than happy to tell you.
Customer- See, I got this letter here from a woman named Shannon, and she said that she isn't really sure what to do with the package, and I realized I sent the wrong one. So, I sent another one, the right one, to you, so you can get it back.
Me- Ok, do you have your customer ID number?
Customer- Says here it is xxxx-xxxx.
(I pull up his account and check his notes. Shannon said that he shipped back an 8 volt battery and a charger, from two different companies)
Me- Ok... so... it looks like you sent back a battery and a charger, am I correct?
Customer- Yes, I would like a refund for my weed whacker, it doesn't work at all.
(stunned silence, muffled laughter... it's not going to work very well when you don't have a battery and the charger, of course, but no company would give you a refund for a whole product when you only ship back 10% of it)
Me- I show here that the only product you have purchased from us is our Awesome Product #1. We are a vitamin supply company, we have nothing to do whatsoever with electronics...
Customer- But the box said it was your address to send things back to. I want my refund.
Me- Which box was that?
Customer- The box that came in the mail.
Me- Are you sure you picked the right box for the product you sent to us?
Customer- Yes, I am quite sure. I would like my refund now.
(After about 5 minutes, he realizes that we are not, in fact, an electronics company)
We eventually made a deal with him to send back the packages to him at his expense, once we received the next package. But it sure was awesome to open up a box marked "Return" and see a battery, a charger, and various other items having nothing to do with our company!
Friday, June 25, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Health Care
In light of many a recent discussion that I have had with various friends and family members, I have decided to put down my thoughts on this blog in order to point people to here should they want to see what I think (which I admit isn't all that likely), and to organize my thoughts on the subject (which I need to do very badly).
First off, I realize that this is a contentious issue, and that people need to be taken care of. I am not advocating for people being left to die outside of the hospital because they can't afford the expensive procedure that they might need. But I also do not think that a single payer system is the ideal approach either.
First off, "insurance reform," as incurred in the bill that was just passed, is not insurance "reform" so much as it is insurance "takeover." I know there are Democrats, Obama included, that will fight me tooth and nail on that issue, but I think the bill speaks for itself-now, the Federal Government will be able to decide who should be covered (which, in this case, is everyone), and what they can and cannot charge (meaning, the government will have s say in price increases for premiums). That amounts to a takeover, and it fundamentally changes the way that the industry is run.
Now, I think there is a common misconception among some people about what insurance is, and how it works. I admit that I myself am no expert, but I do know at least the general principle at work. Insurance is about mitigating risk by first monetizing that risk through actuarial tables and statistical information, and then spreading that risk among a sufficiently large pool in order to provide everyone with security against something catastrophic happening. I assume most everyone reading this know that as well. But for me, growing up on my father's awesome insurance plan, insurance came to mean "some company that pays for all the things I want to do at the doctor." That's essentially what a lot of us, and the United States, are conditioned into thinking when it comes to insurance-we have become so far removed from the actual paying of our hospital bills, that we have an expectation that someone else should pay for all of them, or at least the vast majority of them. While that isn't in and of itself a bad thing, it does tend to make people over-use the medical care system, which drives up costs and premiums as well. I don't remember my mother or me ever asking a doctor in advance what they would charge for a given procedure, let alone shopping around for the best doctor at the best price. We do this routinely for a refrigerator or a car, and some of those items can be far less expensive than an in-patient surgery and hospital stay. Why should that be any different?
The new health care bill has a guaranteed issue clause, which means that anyone, regardless of existing conditions or other things that would exclude them from receiving insurance coverage, will now be able to sign up for coverage. While this sounds like a good idea on the surface, it essentially makes the idea behind insurance meaningless. I know, there are tragic stories where some deserving people have an insurance lapse for a month between jobs and develop cancer or get pregnant, but there are also people that smoke for 30 years, eat terribly, and then end up wanting for the insurance company to sign them up so the company can pay for all the expensive medical care that they will need for the next 20 years. While I admit that the insurance companies did not always have their customer's best interest in mind (the comical boss from The Incredible comes to mind as the perfect caricature), they also wouldn't stay in business long if they started making exceptions for some even deserving people, as those that had abused themselves and the system would point to the exceptions to get themselves covered as well. Insurance companies are not made of money-they use the premiums paid by healthy people, who pay into the system more than they currently take out, to pay for those who are a drain on the system. The more people you add that will take more money out of the system, the more people you have to add who will not, otherwise the company will have to close its doors, and no one will be insured. It's not them being heartless, per se-it's the company trying to maintain its business.
The guaranteed issue clause will make for a powerful disincentive to just stay out of the system until you need it. I know, this was to be coupled with the "individual mandate," wherein the federal government forces everyone to by insurance. Again, while this sounds like a good idea (insurance is a "good" thing, and the government wants us to have good things, right?), in my opinion it is not. First of all, the fact that the government can force us to buy anything makes a mockery of everything that this country was founded on. I know that the Commerce Clause in the Constitution just might be stretched to give the government the authority to enforce the individual mandate, but that doesn't mean that I agree with it, or that I think it's "constitutional" in the strictest sense of the word. If the government can force us to buy insurance, why not other "good" things, like a gym membership, or new orthopedic shoes? Both of those can be proven to improve a person's life (assuming they would use them, of course). You can even say you are using market forces and "stimulating" the economy at the same time. But why do we need this nanny-state mentality? Who in the world should decide what is or is not good for me? In my opinion, not the feds, not the state government, not even my religion. I decide what is and is not "good" for me and my family. As a matter of course, I have decided that the LDS Church is good for us, and I try to follow what it says as best as I am able. But that is an important distinction-I am the one who chooses to follow it. I don't see the prophet sending out scripture-reading-enforcement-crews. But Obama will in fact enforce this with penalties and ultimately jail time should the person decide that they don't want to participate. It's completely ludicrous.
Now, as I mentioned before, the insurance industry really is no longer an insurance industry in the classical sense. It's now a forced charity organization. I am all for charity, especially when provided locally by non-profit religious organizations. They know the people and their needs better than a bureaucrat in Washington. I have no qualms sending money to my church or local charity, because I know they will be efficient with the money I send them, and it will be free of fraud. Such cannot be said for the US government.
Secondly, the health insurance market as we knew it, prior to the new bill, was by no means a true "free-market" system. As the insurance policies were only allowed to be sold in a given state, and each state had a different set of things that each policy had to cover (generally from different special interest group's lobbying). This made some states have wildly expensive premiums, with only a few major companies being able to operate. This lead to monopolistic-type markets, where companies competed with themselves and a few other companies to get business, and the consumer was ignored, because they didn't have really anywhere else to go. Compare this with the truly national auto-insurance companies. Threatening to leave is a real concern for them, and the premiums are quite low. If this were allowed to happen on a national scale, insurance companies could expand their base, lower their premiums, and force hospitals to better regulate their businesses and costs. But instead, we get a convoluted and stupid system, with so many regulations as to make the average person completely lost in the shuffle.
So, what do we do? I think, as much as I would like it to happen, that repealing this law just won't happen. Amending and changing it, though, might. Removing the restriction on sales across state lines, reigning in tort lawsuits, and creating a truly free insurance market will drive premiums down low enough for a lot of the people without insurance now to be able to get it. Also, getting away from the employer-based system as well will make people more aware of their health care costs, and also help to lower premiums as people make more informed choices about what they do and do not need. And finally, less government meddling in the market, with the possible exception of a small grace-period for people with certain conditions to be able to sign up for non-employer backed tax-credited insurance, will enable everyone who wants to have insurance to afford it. If they don't, then no one will force them, but they also won't let them try to sign on as soon as it's needed. Please keep comments informed and polite, but otherwise feel free to tell me how I am wrong lol. And if you did in fact read all of this, I congratulate you!
First off, I realize that this is a contentious issue, and that people need to be taken care of. I am not advocating for people being left to die outside of the hospital because they can't afford the expensive procedure that they might need. But I also do not think that a single payer system is the ideal approach either.
First off, "insurance reform," as incurred in the bill that was just passed, is not insurance "reform" so much as it is insurance "takeover." I know there are Democrats, Obama included, that will fight me tooth and nail on that issue, but I think the bill speaks for itself-now, the Federal Government will be able to decide who should be covered (which, in this case, is everyone), and what they can and cannot charge (meaning, the government will have s say in price increases for premiums). That amounts to a takeover, and it fundamentally changes the way that the industry is run.
Now, I think there is a common misconception among some people about what insurance is, and how it works. I admit that I myself am no expert, but I do know at least the general principle at work. Insurance is about mitigating risk by first monetizing that risk through actuarial tables and statistical information, and then spreading that risk among a sufficiently large pool in order to provide everyone with security against something catastrophic happening. I assume most everyone reading this know that as well. But for me, growing up on my father's awesome insurance plan, insurance came to mean "some company that pays for all the things I want to do at the doctor." That's essentially what a lot of us, and the United States, are conditioned into thinking when it comes to insurance-we have become so far removed from the actual paying of our hospital bills, that we have an expectation that someone else should pay for all of them, or at least the vast majority of them. While that isn't in and of itself a bad thing, it does tend to make people over-use the medical care system, which drives up costs and premiums as well. I don't remember my mother or me ever asking a doctor in advance what they would charge for a given procedure, let alone shopping around for the best doctor at the best price. We do this routinely for a refrigerator or a car, and some of those items can be far less expensive than an in-patient surgery and hospital stay. Why should that be any different?
The new health care bill has a guaranteed issue clause, which means that anyone, regardless of existing conditions or other things that would exclude them from receiving insurance coverage, will now be able to sign up for coverage. While this sounds like a good idea on the surface, it essentially makes the idea behind insurance meaningless. I know, there are tragic stories where some deserving people have an insurance lapse for a month between jobs and develop cancer or get pregnant, but there are also people that smoke for 30 years, eat terribly, and then end up wanting for the insurance company to sign them up so the company can pay for all the expensive medical care that they will need for the next 20 years. While I admit that the insurance companies did not always have their customer's best interest in mind (the comical boss from The Incredible comes to mind as the perfect caricature), they also wouldn't stay in business long if they started making exceptions for some even deserving people, as those that had abused themselves and the system would point to the exceptions to get themselves covered as well. Insurance companies are not made of money-they use the premiums paid by healthy people, who pay into the system more than they currently take out, to pay for those who are a drain on the system. The more people you add that will take more money out of the system, the more people you have to add who will not, otherwise the company will have to close its doors, and no one will be insured. It's not them being heartless, per se-it's the company trying to maintain its business.
The guaranteed issue clause will make for a powerful disincentive to just stay out of the system until you need it. I know, this was to be coupled with the "individual mandate," wherein the federal government forces everyone to by insurance. Again, while this sounds like a good idea (insurance is a "good" thing, and the government wants us to have good things, right?), in my opinion it is not. First of all, the fact that the government can force us to buy anything makes a mockery of everything that this country was founded on. I know that the Commerce Clause in the Constitution just might be stretched to give the government the authority to enforce the individual mandate, but that doesn't mean that I agree with it, or that I think it's "constitutional" in the strictest sense of the word. If the government can force us to buy insurance, why not other "good" things, like a gym membership, or new orthopedic shoes? Both of those can be proven to improve a person's life (assuming they would use them, of course). You can even say you are using market forces and "stimulating" the economy at the same time. But why do we need this nanny-state mentality? Who in the world should decide what is or is not good for me? In my opinion, not the feds, not the state government, not even my religion. I decide what is and is not "good" for me and my family. As a matter of course, I have decided that the LDS Church is good for us, and I try to follow what it says as best as I am able. But that is an important distinction-I am the one who chooses to follow it. I don't see the prophet sending out scripture-reading-enforcement-crews. But Obama will in fact enforce this with penalties and ultimately jail time should the person decide that they don't want to participate. It's completely ludicrous.
Now, as I mentioned before, the insurance industry really is no longer an insurance industry in the classical sense. It's now a forced charity organization. I am all for charity, especially when provided locally by non-profit religious organizations. They know the people and their needs better than a bureaucrat in Washington. I have no qualms sending money to my church or local charity, because I know they will be efficient with the money I send them, and it will be free of fraud. Such cannot be said for the US government.
Secondly, the health insurance market as we knew it, prior to the new bill, was by no means a true "free-market" system. As the insurance policies were only allowed to be sold in a given state, and each state had a different set of things that each policy had to cover (generally from different special interest group's lobbying). This made some states have wildly expensive premiums, with only a few major companies being able to operate. This lead to monopolistic-type markets, where companies competed with themselves and a few other companies to get business, and the consumer was ignored, because they didn't have really anywhere else to go. Compare this with the truly national auto-insurance companies. Threatening to leave is a real concern for them, and the premiums are quite low. If this were allowed to happen on a national scale, insurance companies could expand their base, lower their premiums, and force hospitals to better regulate their businesses and costs. But instead, we get a convoluted and stupid system, with so many regulations as to make the average person completely lost in the shuffle.
So, what do we do? I think, as much as I would like it to happen, that repealing this law just won't happen. Amending and changing it, though, might. Removing the restriction on sales across state lines, reigning in tort lawsuits, and creating a truly free insurance market will drive premiums down low enough for a lot of the people without insurance now to be able to get it. Also, getting away from the employer-based system as well will make people more aware of their health care costs, and also help to lower premiums as people make more informed choices about what they do and do not need. And finally, less government meddling in the market, with the possible exception of a small grace-period for people with certain conditions to be able to sign up for non-employer backed tax-credited insurance, will enable everyone who wants to have insurance to afford it. If they don't, then no one will force them, but they also won't let them try to sign on as soon as it's needed. Please keep comments informed and polite, but otherwise feel free to tell me how I am wrong lol. And if you did in fact read all of this, I congratulate you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)