"N.D. scandal raises concerns about health cooperative route; Senate bill could set up similar plans" by Karl Vick, Washington Post | October 11, 2009
BISMARCK, N.D. - For North Dakota insurance sales representatives, March may have been the ideal time to enjoy the swim-up bar at a resort on Grand Cayman Island. But back on the frigid northern Plains, policyholders at Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota were less delighted when they learned about the trip for 66 staff members and guests.
Word of the $238,000 Caribbean retreat broke last winter, compounded by news of other perks: $15 million in executive bonuses over five years, $400,000 for charter flights, and $35,000 for a vice president’s retirement party.
Yeah, that is a GREAT USE of MONEY for HEALTHCARE!!!
Yeah, FORGET NATIONAL HEALTH CARE!!!
See: No Choice But Single Payer
PICK a COUNTRY and PICK a PLAN!!!!!
Either GIVE US SINGLE-PAYER or NOTHING!
And when the ensuing uproar cost Michael Unhjem his job as chief executive, his landing was softened by a $2.5 million severance payment. The golden parachute had been added to his contract after his 2006 drunken driving arrest, a state audit pointed out.
UN-FRIKKIN'-REAL!!!!!!!!!
In an era in which stories of corporate excess have become common, the drama of North Dakota’s dominant insurer resonated deeply here, largely because the state’s nonprofit Blue Cross Blue Shield is essentially a cooperative, owned by policyholders.
Translation: THEY STOLE YOUR MONEY, folks!!!
It is an arrangement close to the model promoted by powerful lawmakers as an alternative to the “public option’’ that would put the federal government in the insurance business. The legislation that the Senate Finance Committee will probably approve Tuesday calls for the creation of health insurance cooperatives in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
A liberal group here argues that the North Dakota scandal illustrates the danger of assuming that the cooperative model would assure virtuous behavior, especially in an industry awash in money. “Call it cooperative, call it mutual, call it private insurance,’’ said Don Morrison, executive director of NDpeople.org. “If what we want is to have quality health care at a price people can afford, it’s not coming from the culture of private insurance. If this is a model, let’s get real.’’
As an existing company, the Blues would not be allowed into the ranks of new co-ops envisioned by Senator Kent Conrad, the North Dakota Democrat who is also the Finance Committee’s most zealous promoter of the model. Conrad, who grew up in Bismarck, declined to comment on the controversy surrounding the Blues. But he cites the success of the electrical, farm, and even commercial cooperatives that rose out of the same tradition of prairie populism that produced the original Blue Cross seven decades ago.
Related: Lying Looters Large and Small: Countrywide Corruption
And I used to respect him.
“The co-op plan aims to achieve the same benefits for consumers as a public option without government control of health insurance,’’ Conrad said in a statement this month. “It does so by creating private, consumer-driven, nonprofit health plans. Because these plans will be owned by their members, they will focus on getting the best value for consumers, rather than maximizing revenues or profits.’’
You have BEEN IN WASHINGTON TOO LONG, senator, because that is nothing but FART MIST coming out you hole.
Not much is known about health care cooperatives on a large scale because there are only a few in the country. Timothy Jost, who studies health care policy at Washington and Lee University, said they tend to provide good service to members but have not made “any tremendous difference in terms of cost or price.’’
Well, WE CAN SEE WHY!
In North Dakota, which has a $1 billion state budget surplus, residents wear their parsimony proudly.
WOW!!!! How did they DO THAT, Massachushitts government?
And all of the spending excesses, said state Insurance Commissioner Adam Hamm, came roughly at the time the company was seeking premium increases of 15 to 20 percent.
Yeah, because YOU are supposed to SUBSIDIZE THEIR PARTYING, policy holder!!
Why do you think you are paying premiums?
“They’re owned by the policyholders,’’ said Hamm, whose powers would have been curtailed under legislation the company was pushing when the scandal erupted. “Every dime they’re spending is the policyholders’ dime.’’
Paul von Ebers, who took over as the Blues’ chief executive in the scandal’s aftermath, said the current scrutiny is both inevitable and frustrating, given the company’s overall record. It spends just 7 percent of premiums on overhead. Last year, only eight official complaints were filed against the company, up from six the year before.
“Nationwide, the attacks on insurance companies are a concerted attempt to distract discussion from the real issues of what’s going on in health care,’’ von Ebers said.
Related: National Health Care: Who Will Pay the Bill?
That's DemocraPs for you - DISTRACTING YOU!
--more--"
Also see:
- National Health Care: City Slicker vs. Country Bum...
- National Health Care: Governors' Gripes
- Hawaiian Healthcare
- National Health Care: The Island By the Bay
- The Massachusetts Model: Working Or Not?
- The Massachusetts Model: Comes At a Premium
- The Massachusetts Model: Screwing Small Business
- The Massachusetts Model: Going Out of Business
- The Massachusetts Model: Crazy Coverage
- The Massachusetts Model: Immigrant Insult
- The Massachusetts Model: Profit and the Paycheck
- The Massachusetts Model: Doctors' Diet
- The Massachusetts Model: By the Numbers
- The Massachusetts Model: Treasurer's Assessment
- The Massachusetts Model: Care-Keeping Costs
- The Massachusetts Model: Mass. Hospitality
- The Massachusetts Model: Lessons Learned
- The Massachusetts Model: Non-Compliant Complacency
- The Massachusetts Model: Office Visit
