Two blog entries in less than 12 hours. I had a lot of pent-up writing in me I guess.
You know though, I like being on the "cutting edge" as it were. This is what I wrote on April 14:
"Boy, were (the unions) ecstatic about sticking it to a successful business. Wonder how they'll feel when GM says, 'Boys, we're going to have to stop paying for all your health care because otherwise we're going out of business. You need to tell your DNC brethren in the environmental area to quit bitching about ANWR drilling, because without any new oil, we're not selling any Tahoes or Hummers. And you know as much as we do that those big SUV's are the most profitable things we have going...and they ain't going to fly out of showrooms with $3 a gallon gas. Sure, Saturns and Cobalts are nice, but we don't make a whole lot on them...not enough to pay for every doctor visit for every hangnail you have or month's supply of Viagra you want.' "
Now, George Will in the New York Post on May 1st:
"In 2003, GM's pension fund needed an infusion from the largest corporate debt offering in history. And the cost of providing health coverage for 1.1 million GM workers, retirees and dependents is estimated to be $5.6 billion this year. Their coverage is enviable — at most, small co-payments for visits to doctors and for pharmaceuticals, but no deductibles or monthly premiums.
GM says health expenditures — $1,525 per car produced; there is more health care than steel in a GM vehicle's price tag — are one of the main reasons it lost $1.1 billion in the first quarter of 2005. Ford's profits fell 38 percent, and although Ford had forecast 2005 profits of $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion, it now probably will have a year's loss of $100 million to $200 million."
Reading further:
"GM says its health-care burdens, negotiated with the United Auto Workers, put it at a $5 billion disadvantage against Toyota in the United States because Japan's government, not Japanese employers, provides almost all health care in Japan. This reasoning could produce a push by much of corporate America for the federal government to assume more health-care costs. This would be done in the name of 'leveling the playing field' to produce competitive 'fairness.' "
And there's more:
"Health care for retirees and their families — there are 2.6 of them for every active worker — is 69 percent of GM's health costs. GM says it has $19.8 billion in cash and normal mortality rates will reduce the ratio of retirees to active workers."
So basically what we have is the first American welfare state going down, all due to the cost of cradle to grave health care, paid for by the company. Now, I pay a portion of my health care costs along with the costs of my ex-spouse for another few months. At that point, I'll likely become a net gain to CareFirst or at least a break-even, depending on what the prescriptions I take cost them. With my ex on their tab, they're losing money on me (one reason why she's an ex!)
But long gone are the days when the doctor or hospital sent you a bill and health insurance was only for those crisis times like a car wreck or heart attack, to be reimbursed once you sent in claim forms. And, to be honest, I like the tradeoff of paying a little more for my health insurance because I know that I'll get generally good care from my CRNP and my prescriptions are generally readily available and they do wonders for my asthma. I rarely notice I have it, and at those times I just take a puff or two on my rescue inhaler and I'm good to go in a couple minutes once I catch my breath. Happens maybe once a month.
I see the GM woes as the federal government in 20-30 years (if that long). Now I'm probably your "average" health care consumer. I generally try to take care of myself if I have a cold but on the other hand I see a chiropractor every 2 weeks. But I've not graced the ER of the local hospital (knocking on wood) and I go to the doctor every 6 months, which is probably appropriate given my age and condition. I'm well overweight but my BP and pulse are normal, probably because I work out 3x a week along with walking a treadmill and riding a stationary bike 2x additionally. If they could bring back Redux I'd be a happy guy.
We need to remember that "health care is not a right"; well, make that government-paid health care. If they could find private insurers to take over the Medicare and Medicaid programs and sunset the government out of the health care market, I'm willing to bet that costs would drop and innovation would rise. As I get older, I really don't want socialized medicine like Canada and Great Britain have, where you wait for weeks to get vital testing. And someone needs to tell Telemundo that we as a country (and Californians as a state I'm sure) are not interested in paying for an ambulance to pick up some illegal with the flu because they won't have to pay, the government does. I heard this and that spiked my blood pressure for a few moments. Bet if it were a private insurer, that practice would be cracked down upon. (Of course, being illegals, they would avoid payment anyway...how about instead of the ambulance they send a cop car and take them to the bus station to get a one-way ticket back to Mexico! Give them a surgical mask while they're at it.)
But I love being ahead of the curve, that's gotta be why I'm so confident I'm right about things. Like I said before, to me it's black or white, only gray I have is in my goatee. And I'm not going to run to the government to have them pay for my Rogaine should I get vain enough to want it.
