Insurance Transparency Project

November 3, 2006 8:03 AM

1. Everyone thinks insurance is impenetrable and boring.
2. Everyone is wrong.

The Insurance Transparency Project blog is written by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Dean Starkman, who is currently a Katrina Media Fellow sponsored by the Open Society Institute, funded and chaired by George Soros.
posted by ba (14 comments total)

Pork Auto insurance - The other white meat tax.

Not that this has much to do with that particular type of insurance.
posted by IronLizard at 8:08 AM on November 3, 2006

I very much like the way he addresses his audience as "InsHeads" and "InsFans". I shall take to calling my colleagues LawHeads from now on. What say you, MeFans?
posted by patricio at 8:36 AM on November 3, 2006

I think that you mean "Billionaire-liberal-elitist George Soros"
posted by Dr. Twist at 8:58 AM on November 3, 2006

Yes, I'm convinced. Insurance "matters." But mattering and being interesting are still two different things. I'm glad somebody's into it, however.
posted by Faze at 9:29 AM on November 3, 2006

Oh Oy this is fantastic, thank you!
posted by Skorgu at 9:48 AM on November 3, 2006

Woah, that's some spastic writing. Are they trying to appeal to "the common man"? or something?

It's intresting but sifting through the guy's wordplay (or I might say textual masturbation) gets old.
posted by delmoi at 10:42 AM on November 3, 2006

"Medicare, which is a universal health insurance program for older Americans, spends less than 2 cents of every dollar on administrative costs, leaving 98 cents to pay for medical care. By contrast, private insurance companies spend only around 80 cents of each dollar in premiums on medical care; much of the remaining 20 cents is spent denying insurance to those who need it."

Because Medicare, being run by a coercive monopoly (government), has every incentive to control administrative costs; while private insurance companies, which (theoretically) must compete with one another, do not.

I call bullshit. If these numbers have the remotest connection to reality, then there's something clearly not right about how costs were collected.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 11:17 AM on November 3, 2006

Article is condescendingly "hip."

Seriously, what's to understand?

Legally sanctioned (and in many cases, required) bookies, betting you won't get sick/crash/die before they can profit from your payments. Actuaries spend oodles of time working out the odds, payments are adjusted based on those odds, and high-stakes gamblers aren't allowed to play.

You can slap lipstick on that pig all day, still won't make any difference.
posted by FormlessOne at 11:19 AM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

Seriously, what's to understand?

From the about page:

Specifically, as things stand now, insurance buyers can’t see two important things: price and performance. It is difficult to know and compare the price of insurance — whether for a policy for homeowners or medical malpractice coverage. More importantly, it’s impossible to know which insurance company is more likely to pay a claim. It’s also hard to know which insurance company is more likely to terminate a disability policyholder’s claim, drop a health insured, deny a homeowners’ claim, be sued by its customers, or pay less on a claim than its policyholders have demanded.

It’s as if you had to buy a mutual fund (not optional; you have to buy it) but couldn’t see the past performance. I know past performance is no guarantee of future results, but, crimminey, it’s not nothing.
posted by ba at 11:43 AM on November 3, 2006

The US government already pays 41 cents of every health care dollar, but in an uneven and unfair manner. There are obvious reasons why the industry doesn't want it to reach 50% across the board, where they will be issued price controls. However, the moral argument has superseded the individual and the profiting from disease. It is now a question of saving the economy itself. We can't compete with nations who smartly host their corporations by offering healthcare (and higher education). Many CEO's like Bill Ford have said the same thing. The irony is that non-profit healthcare is rated the best in America.
posted by Brian B. at 12:16 PM on November 3, 2006

Many CEO's like Bill Ford have said the same thing. The irony is that non-profit healthcare is rated the best in America.

The automakers, especially, are being screwed by the high costs of healthcare.
posted by delmoi at 2:26 PM on November 3, 2006

I always thought that health and life insurance should be offered by the same company, so that they have an incentive to keep you healthy rather than an incentive to see you die.
posted by BrotherCaine at 12:02 AM on November 4, 2006

I always thought that health and life insurance should be offered by the same company, so that they have an incentive to keep you healthy rather than an incentive to see you die.

...except when the cost of keeping you healthy exceeds the cost of paying out your life insurance? That seems like kind of a bad idea to me, at first glance.
posted by joshuaconner at 3:09 AM on November 4, 2006

When the cost of keeping you healthy exceeds your life insurance, there's not much likelihood that you'll live anyway.
posted by BrotherCaine at 11:22 PM on November 6, 2006