Global Market Reviews

The world of politics is never supposed to make any real sense. After all, once you pit people’s cherished beliefs against each other, passions are roused and the arguments soon become bitter. It would be better if everyone was just allowed to do what they wanted. But, when it comes to organising medical care for the population, it takes a government to put the right kind of infrastructure in place. People have to be trained as care givers. This takes years and costs a small fortune. Hospitals and clinics have to be built. And then we come to all the support staff who drive the ambulances, keep the places clean and keep the accounts. Ah, yes, the money. All of this work over years has to be paid for. So the $64,000 question is who should foot the bill? It’s at this point that emotions get in the way of common sense.

Talk to one side of the argument and they will tell you people who want access to medical care should carry private insurance. Talk to the other side and they will tell you the state should pay for the service out of the tax revenue. It’s never really clear why people disagree. Only people who are in work pay tax. Only people who earn can afford to pay the premiums on insurance. It’s the same money. The only difference is the way it’s collected – one as tax and the other as premiums paid to an insurance company. But wait! There is a difference! If the state collects in the money, it can use it more efficiently because, unlike the insurance industry, it does not intend to make a profit. So the only reason to support the current system is to allow the insurance industry to continue making an ever larger profit.

As the Senate is currently set up, forty-one senators can stop any reform. That’s forty Republicans plus one other. Yet when you look at the number of people these Republican senators represent, it’s only 36% of the US population. This is somewhat unfair. The party with the majority of representatives was voted in by 64% of the population. The Democratic platform could not have been more clear. It was to be reform of healthcare provision. Yet when you look at the media, all you see reported is the opposition to reform. The “tea party” movement captures all the headlines. But in all this, there is one really big irony that gets very little coverage. Read the rest of this entry »

Watching politics is a fascinating way to pass the time. People always find new ways to repackage the same basic debates in ever different forms. The media float above the fray, supposedly with a dispassionate eye. The code of the professional journalist preserves a neutral position, identifying the key facts and giving both sides of the debate a fair hearing. Unfortunately, the arrival of Fox News and the rise of the Right Wing Jocks has produced an opinion-based approach to reporting the news. This is not simply skewing the coverage. It is actually introducing new levels of venom into the debate itself, raising the profile of news reporters and commentators as demagogues, and personalising the attacks made on government. No other issue has raised the heat of passion in the debate as the proposal to reform the provision of healthcare in the US. Many on the right of the political spectrum see these proposals as a direct attack on their individual liberties and as promoting big government. They approve the rise of activism that has seen groups around the US protesting in the Town Hall Meetings run during the summer and in the so-called Tea Party protests which focus on the rise of big government and the redistribution of wealth through alleged socialist measures.

As a momentary aside, let us make a politically incorrect observation of fact. The membership of the Republican Party is, with the exception of the tokens like Michael Steele, mainly a party of white people. Similarly, the vast majority of the protesters in the events organized in 2009 are white. It is just a coincidence that the primary focus of their anger is Barack Obama. That said, the key measure in the reform package is some change to the current system of insurance. The supporters of reform argue in favor of mandatory insurance. As it is, a significant percentage of the young and healthy do not buy insurance. This forces a sharing of the cost of healthcare among a smaller and older group of people. If all adults were required to hold a policy, it would share the cost of care out among a larger group and so reduce the premiums for everyone. But the suggestion of a mandate to buy insurance is a red flag to the Republicans. The Fund for Personal Liberty has formally promised action if such a bill is signed into law. It will claim the law is unconstitutional, breaching Article 1, Section 8. For those of you uncertain of Section 8, it lists the powers of Congress but does not include mandates to interfere with the purchasing decisions made by citizens. The Fund will argue that the list is exclusive and this use of legislation is therefore unconstitutional. Read the rest of this entry »

Anyone who follows music will know the Billboard charts show which singles and albums are selling the most. In other areas, there are ranking systems to tell you which goods or service providers perform the best. These are useful guides for both the newcomers and the experienced. They capture truth in an instant, like taking a photograph of the people who won the latest races or games. They won today, but who knows whether the same people will win tomorrow. When it comes to buying insurance, it would be useful to know which companies are ranked the best performers. In theory, they should give the best service, particularly during the claims process.

But the first problem is the power of the individual US states. There’s no federal regulation for the insurance industry. It’s the responsibility of each state to decide which companies can sell policies in their jurisdiction. That immediately rules out a national ranking system. The largest insurance companies set up subsidiaries to sell in each states. Each is run separately to conform to local regulations. So how one subsidiary performs in one state is no guide to how different subsidiaries perform in other states. Worse, you cannot get round the problem by buying a policy across state borders. Put it all together and you can only rank the performance of the companies in the state where you live.

What should you look for to rank insurance companies? The first answer is financial stability. We are in the middle of a deep recession. You do not want to pay your premiums now only to find the insurer goes into bankruptcy protection just as you have your a traffic accident. Fortunately, the credit-rating companies include all the major insurance companies in their research. You will get general information from Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch. The one company specialising in insurance is A.M. Best. It gives very detailed ratings based on all the key factors of service and financial prudence. Make sure you only deal with the insurers having the highest ratings.

Secondly, you want the companies with the fewest complaints against them. This means a virtual trip to the website of your state’s Department of Insurance. This Department is responsible for licensing the insurance companies in your state and then regulating the way they do business. All the states operate a complaints system. The best states not only investigate conscientiously, but also publish lists of the numbers of complaints upheld against each insurer. Read the rest of this entry »