|
by Stephen R. Jaffe As a lawyer, I am entitled to participate in the health insurance program affiliated with the State Bar of Michigan. I am a 50-something guy, never had a heart attack, diabetes or other chronic health problem. I cover my college freshman son, who is also healthy, on my insurance. The promotion of the State Bar program plainly implies that the benefits to be received and the cost of its health insurance are competitive or superior to that otherwise available on the open market. So, I was genuinely stunned when I recently opened my monthly health insurance bill. The premium has been increased by 50% to an astounding $725. Part of the increase is a 15% surcharge for lawyers subcategorized as "sole practitioners." Apparently, somewhere, somehow, someone decided sole practitioners get sick more often and are less healthy than law firm lawyers or (more likely) that we sole practitioners, as an unorganized and disperse "subcategory" with little bargaining power, should help subsidize the health care for the illnesses of our law firm brethren. The shocking bill was accompanied by a letter from the State Bar trying to explain the reason for the increase. However, the proffered explanation was a rambling collection of nonsensical doublespeak which defies comprehension by lawyers, let alone by ordinary people. What's next? Redheaded lawyers or Catholic lawyers or tall lawyers will be subcategorized and surcharged by what the accompanying letter euphemistically calls "Legal Industry experience?" The letter concludes: "[W]e will continue to work closely with our administrator to assure that these programs remain competitive in the marketplace and that the State Bar continues to provide superior insurance services to its members." I decided to test this statement. I made several calls to inquire about alternative coverage. I was not surprised to learn that for $435 a month (saving me $290 a month in premiums), I can have an individual policy for me and my son with approximately the same or superiors benefits. So much for the benefits of "group" coverage. My experience is a microscopic episode in a much larger ongoing drama. The United States is the only highly industrialized and civilized nation in the world which does not provide for the universal health care of it citizens. While the systems in Canada, England or Sweden are not perfect, their citizens are healthier than ours are. Their infant mortality is lower and their people live longer. So long as the horrifically large and profit-hungry insurance industry stands like the proverbial 3,000 pound gorilla in the corner between the providers of health care and the consumers of it we will all be its victims. I find it morally reprehensible to generate corporate profits from the illness and suffering of others. California recently carried a ballot proposal providing for "single payer" health care, which is akin to the kind of universal health care provided by most of the nations we describe as "civilized." While the California proposition did not pass, it garnered over 40% of the vote. It is time to reconsider such a plan again. |