I think if TriMet wants to fix the healthcare problem, all they need to do is pass the $$ for health care to the union & tell the union that they're in charge of providing health care coverage in whatever way they see fit.
At that point the union/employees are directly in charge of what their plan looks like, how much they do/don't pay, retiree benefits, etc. When the plan costs goes up, then the union has to deal with collecting more money from the employees, reducing benefits, finding cost savings, explaining the cost rise to the employees, etc.
Seems like everybody wins.
7 comments:
You mean turning over dollars to the union?
I'd rather they just turn over the $$$ to the employee and let us handle it ourselves!
Either is a good option.
I was just down in Salem for a funeral and had stopped for lunch in South Salem across from the Teamster's clinic. That's right - they run their own clinic.
That is the basis of Kaiser Permanente - a self-contained medical facility for employees of the Kaiser shipyards. Many railroads operated their own hospitals.
Giving the money to the union and have the union set up its own facility (it'll probably have to contract with a hospital, though) might not be a bad idea - after all you have a fixed number of patients (TriMet's employees and covered dependents and retirees). TriMet would simply agree to pay X number of dollars per employee.
Heck, it doesn't even have to be run by the union - TriMet and the union could pick a third party.
Reality is more complicated. If you had the cash to buy your own health insurance, you'd be unlikely to find an affordable (or even available) individual policy.
Health care costs, as out of sight as they are, are limited when employers subscribe in bulk.
I think the idea of letting the union do the shopping is a valid one, and if health insurers could work across state lines (one valid point the Repukelicans have), then all Locals could band together to negotiate better rates with health insurance carriers.
-jw
I have considered this as a backup option (my first is a universal plan where every citizen is given an account to buy their own care--who says insurance is the right method?).
In addition, city council Steve Novick has also proposed at least something like this. He wants to do what the casinos in Atlantic City do and address the 20% (I think) of people that it's been said consume like 80% of the costs by encouraging them to do things to prevent the need for costlier care.
TriMet would simply agree to pay X number of dollars per employee.
That can be a disincentive to provide care and was the basis of a 1996 ballot measure.
(one valid point the Repukelicans have)
They could be wanting to do that so that insurers' growth isn't limited by state lines and can swallow up others.
I am a teamsters member and have been to teamsters dental and I still had to have my insurance card for my family. The highest problem is when you have insurance they bill the insurance company a high price . But when you don't have insurance they charge you less. I has my teeth cleaned and xray they charged my insurance 488.90 . I ask them if my daughter who was older who was off my insurance whst would it cost me out of pocket to do the same thing they said 150.00 dollars. Again who's screwing who
Yet another example of why giving the money directly to the consumers (patients) instead of insurance could be a lot better.
Insurance company like blue cross and medicare have been double billing us for year and caught and put on the consumer for year that the 99% should frie them all and give them a price war.thia would make them reliize that we are the consumer and they would want are bussiness
Post a Comment