In the game of chess the most abundant, least powerful, most easily sacrificed and least valuable piece is the pawn.
Unlike the King (who’s protection is the key to the game) the pawn is not a piece you really worry too much about losing. In fact, the pawn’s real value comes from the fact that it can be strategically sacrificed in such a way as to allow you the ability to trap and manipulate your opponents larger, more powerful pieces and thus, control the game.
For a number of insurance companies our children have become their pawns.
Why say something so mean?
"They're doing WHAT?"
Well, because a number of insurance companies are deciding that children are simply too expensive to insure … so they’re not going to cover them any longer.
Based, in part, on the increased costs they think the upcoming health care reform will bring them they’ve decided to stop offering individual policies to children altogether.
What does this mean?
The major types of coverage for children — employer plans and government programs — are not (to) be affected by the disruption. But a subset of policies — those that cover children as individuals — may run into problems. Even so, insurers are not canceling children’s coverage already issued, but refusing to write new policies.
“The disruption” … I like that.
Rather than saying “let the sick kids and their parents fend for themselves” make it sound like a bad iPhone antennae issue a ….. “disruption”.
How big of a “disruption” would this be in Florida were Blue Cross Blue Shield is initiating this “disruption”?
Industry officials estimate that children’s policies account for 8 percent of single coverage plans sold directly to consumers.
and it goes on to say:
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida issues about 9,000 to 10,000 new policies a year that only cover children. Vice president Randy Kammer said the company’s experts calculated that guaranteeing coverage for children could raise premiums for other individual policy holders by as much as 20 percent.
So, this new policy could lead to as many as 10,000 NEW CHILDREN PER YEAR (wanna bet BCBS is estimating low on this one) not having health insurance. That’s 10,000 babies, toddlers and older kids without insurance.
Let ‘em go without.
Let ‘em suffer.
Let ‘em die.
It’s not their kids so it’s not their problem. Right?
But wait. Let’s not be mean.
We don’t want to make the mistake of thinking this is a cold hearted thing. Oh no, you see BCBS and their brethern have to do it to help the rest of us. Why without their gallant efforts we’d all have to pay premiums of 20% more (wanna bet this estimate is high?).
Ah yes, it’s the “skyrocketing premiums” argument that we hear from the insurance companies all of the time (see Autism Insurance coverage).
“If we covered (those kids / that condition) we’d go broke or have to raise your premiums by (fill in big scary increase)!”
Of course, their multi-billion dollar reserves might hurt this argument a bit. As could the fact that they’re covering children now and not on the verge of insolvency.
Look, I don’t like a lot of the elements of the new Health Reform either. I’d agree that it will put burdens on the system including these health insurance companies. The problem is that decisions like not covering children doesn’t help the cause for changing bad reforms, it reinforces the argument for stricter reforms.
Don’t forget that without without the boost from the idiotic insurance companies unnecessarily jacking rates up late last and early this year the reform these insurances companies are currently fighting wouldn’t have survived in the first place.
So, while insurance companies are fighting to change how much of their money they REALLY have to spend on you (a.k.a. their customers) they decide now would be a good time to start dropping coverage for children.
On the surface it’s easy to argue “hey, it’s just politics”.
But it’s not “just politics”.
When large “nonprofits” (we’re gonna use that phrase REALLY loosely here) who enjoy many special interest protections start throwing children out so they can make a statement and a buck (or a couple of billion bucks) it’s not politics …. it’s criminal.
I mean come on … even Scrooge changed his ways when he realized he was hurting sick little Tiny Tim. Is it really possible that the insurance companies are even more heartless than Scrooge?
