Freeloading
by digby
Dear Mr. Stossel,
I am a veteran who is rated and compensated as 100% disabled.
Do you, and Libertarians in general view me as a “freeloader;” and should I not be compensated according to your views of this situation?
Like your show, and I am truly curious. While I register as a Democrat, I’m probably a Libertarian at heart.
Regards,
Stephen Chase
I responded:
No, Stephen, if you are 100% disabled, I do not consider you a freeloader, I consider you: compensated.
Of course, the VA is another clumsy government bureaucracy, and I have little faith they make good judgments when deciding who needs help, and who freeloads. Today’s Washington Post calls the agency “obstructionist, antiquated and overwhelmed.”
Right. It’s fine to “compensate” only the people who deserve it. And the best way to determine that would be to privatize and introduce the profit motive which magically cleanses the system of corruption and creates a foolproof method of determining social value. You know, like the way the insurance industry works today:
An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.
It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.
“No one can defend, and I certainly cannot defend, the practice of canceling coverage after the fact,” said Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Tex.), a member of the committee. “There is no acceptable minimum to denying coverage after the fact.”
The executives — Richard A. Collins, chief executive of UnitedHealth’s Golden Rule Insurance Co.; Don Hamm, chief executive of Assurant Health and Brian Sassi, president of consumer business for WellPoint Inc., parent of Blue Cross of California — were courteous and matter-of-fact in their testimony.
But they would not commit to limiting rescissions to only policyholders who intentionally lie or commit fraud to obtain coverage, a refusal that met with dismay from legislators on both sides of the political aisle.
Of course, the expensive veterans who the companies find ways of not compensating would have recourse. They could always go to a competing company and ask them to review their claim and “compensate” them instead. See, no need for regulations or bureaucrats. Just good old fashioned capitalists working hard to provide a necessary service at a fair price.
.