Health care politics
You can tell an election is near by the number of political candidates – incumbents and challengers alike – who have suddenly found solutions for our troubled health care system.
Whether its pharmaceutical coverage for elders, or surpluses for insurers, the messages coming from the political camps are simplistic and aimed at winning your vote, no matter whether their proposals are substantive enough to actually bring about change.
Beyond Cash Donations: How New Forms of Giving Are Transforming Not-for-Profit Accounting
Evolving Funding Landscape for Not-for-Profits Not-for-profit organizations are being asked to do more with less,…
Learn More
Not one proposal goes directly to the root of the matter, but instead skirts the edges, promises no cost, low cost or rebates.
When President Bill Clinton was a candidate he too promised us health care reform and his failure to bring that about is among his administration’s chief failures. It may not be so much a failure of his administration, but more an admission of how vexing a problem this really is.
It is tempting to any political candidate to suggest that insurance company surpluses – no matter that this follows a series of deficits – should be turned back to the subscriber or used to lower rates. Divided among the subscribers the actual benefit of such a rebate would be minimal. But it plays well on the political trail.
Kate Coyne-McCoy, a candidate for Congress, is proposing a division of the Blue Cross surplus.
This is an aging state, with a history of troubled insurers — Tufts and Harvard Health among them. Rumors abound that other insurers are thinking of leaving the state, and programs that offer health insurance for seniors are at best considered fragile.
For Blue Cross, we expect, surpluses may be best used to grow reserves to guard against failures as our population continues to age and our state becomes less attractive for other insurers.
A strong Blue Cross – strong insurers in general – are a far better prescription than a division of a surplus among thousands of subscribers that amount to only a few real dollars in savings now, but a potential catastrophe later.
An eye on T.F. Green
There may be no better example of a successful economic development project in Rhode Island than the expansion and renovation of T.F. Green Airport. Airlines and passengers are utilizing the airport in record numbers – and by doing so are boosting Rhode Island’s economy.
It seems that each week, we hear of business people who have all but abandoned Logan Airport in Boston to enjoy the convenience – and often savings – of flying into or out of T.F. Green.
But such success does not come without a price. A growing airport is inevitably going to experience growing pains. We see evidence of such pains in what appears to be at least a small controversy regarding taxi service at the airport.
Airport Taxi – the company under contract to provide such service at T.F. Green – reports that instances of people waiting more than a few minutes for a cab are rare, if occurring at all. Airport officials back up that claim. Some independent cabbies suggest that taxi service at T.F. Green is falling below par and argue that they should be allowed access to the airport when business is so brisk that Airport Taxi can’t keep up with the demand, or when suddenly canceled flights in Boston require that taxis make a bee-line to the Hub.
The controversy may in fact be much ado about nothing – or it may have some merit. Nonetheless, the controversy itself is not good for the airport’s now sparkling reputation. We hope it comes to a rapid conclusion.
