Allow me to add more insight to Dr. Jeffcoat’s July editorial, "A Double-Edged Sword: Insurance A to Z."
First, it must be recognized that the vast majority of people are economically ignorant and politically naive. This is borne out by the fact that, with dental or medical insurance, most think that they are getting "something for nothing." Few realize they aren’t or that it’s a perk in lieu of pay.
Furthermore, the health provider becomes the vulnerable pawn in this insurance game of chess because, for the doctors, the issue is an esoteric one of "looking after my patient," irrespective of whether they will be paid. Whereas, with the other two stakeholders in this equation—the employer and insurance company—the question is one of maintaining profit margins. Thus, the quandary for the profession: serve the needs of the patients without regard to finances versus the antithesis, which is to serve the needs for finances without regard for the patients!
Sadly, this whole insurance mess never should have happened. The system of having an employer own one’s dental, or even one’s medical, insurance is bad government policy, stupid economic policy and very unfortunate for the employee. There is no more reason why one’s boss should own one’s dental or medical insurance than one’s auto insurance.
In fact, "dental insurance" itself is an oxymoron. It defies the definition of insurance in that there is no catastrophic component. It is comparable to using insurance to pay monthly utility bills or for car tuneups.
And, incidentally, the reason why employer-based health insurance is so widespread is the discriminatory provision of federal tax law, which gives tax deductibility to company-owned health insurance, but denies tax deductibility to individually owned health insurance. The tax deductible feature is a powerful incentive in perpetuating a system that is basically wrong and grievously unfair!
Historically, the problem began during and shortly after World War II, when wage controls prevented employers from increasing pay to keep or attract employees. So they gave "fringe benefits." And politicians found it expedient to exempt these benefits from the heavy taxes on money income. From this has followed the grand illusion of something for nothing, which has created endless problems.
So we now have a system that can deny freedom of choice, in which there is compromised and lessened personal care, tons of fraud and where the windfalls go to the chief executive officers of the insurance companies.
And, interestingly, all those millions of dollars spent on premiums to insurers will not, in themselves, diagnose one problem, treat one patient or effect one cure. It’s a terrible waste. But then, why would anyone expect otherwise when government intrudes into the marketplace and plays economic engineer and social planner, with a documented history of utter failure?
