Last week I saw a story I wanted to investigate, but other concerns distracted me. Nonetheless, the story remains current and controversial. What is the issue? The Washington Times begins the story this way.
Ian Pearl has fought for his life every day of his 37 years. Confined to a wheelchair and hooked to a breathing tube, the muscular dystrophy victim refuses to give up.
But his insurance company already has.
Legally barred from discriminating against individuals who submit large claims, the New York-based insurer simply canceled lines of coverage altogether in entire states to avoid paying high-cost claims like Mr. Pearl’s.
In an e-mail, one Guardian Life Insurance Co. executive called high-cost patients such as Mr. Pearl “dogs” that the company could “get rid of.”
A federal court quickly ruled that the company’s actions were legal, so on Dec. 1, barring an order by the federal Department of Health and Human Services, Mr. Pearl will lose his benefits.
His medical treatment costs $1 million a year. (continued here)
Of course, even a relatively Conservative paper like the Washington Times cannot resist painting a picture that makes a villain out of an insurance company and helps us to sympathize with Ian Pearl. Nevertheless, there remains the simple fact that Pearls medical treatment costs $1 million a year. How many patients could receive life saving treatment for a million dollars a year?
At any particular time, we have only so many resources available to us. Some how, some way we must unavoidably assign priorities and divvy up our resources until we have nothing left. In the past, we have allowed the private economy to decide medical priorities. As individuals and families, we decided whose medical treatments we would pay for and how much we would spend. Increasingly, however, we have turned the matter over to government, and the result of doing that does not look good. Medicare and Medicaid are running out of money. Sooner or later, these programs must cut costs. Can you guess how leaders will do that?
What is insurance? To pool our risks with others, we pay a big company. If nothing happens, the company keeps our money. If something does happen, the company pays our bills, and the government referees.
In the case of Ian Pearl, is the government serving a fair referee? As the story unfolds and gains more publicity time will tell. Most likely, under the media glare, judges will use every device possible to favor Pearl. In addition, the insurance company must consider the fact that no one wants to do business with an insurance company that refuses to pay.
Yet consider the direction we are headed. In the private market, we can shop around and get the best deal. If government takes over, will we be able to shop? Will there be any judicial review? Will our government have to worry that we can shop and buy our insurance from someone else? Will our leaders just ration our care? Will they leave us standing in line until we die?
Some problems offer no easy solution. Politicians can promise anything they want, particularly when their promises do not come due until after the next election. Politicians can create rules and fill agencies with faceless bureaucrats. Politician can spend money we do not have. Yet unless politicians can do something we cannot do for ourselves, perhaps it is better that they do nothing except referee.
Other Views
No local blogs have picked up on this story, but it has garnered national attention. When the insurance company referred to Pearl as a dog, it definitely made a mistake.
Think Progress picked up on the dog aspect of story, Insurance company executive refers to high-cost patients as ‘dogs.’
Ian Pearl also wrote his own reply, I Am Not a Dog. This is posted on The Huffington Post and Live Journal (here), for example.
Rick Ungar uses this case to argue for public health care, Health insurer cancels entire program to avoid paying muscular dystrophy patient. His most absurd statement is this one.
A public insurance option could not do to Mr. Pearl what Guardian has done.
Ungar may wish to look in his history books. In comparison with insurance companies, even what is perhaps a greedy one, governments have been known to be very efficient killing machines. When government is given too much power, it does not wait for people to die. Government just carts peoples off to concentration camps and methodically exterminates them.
I had written about this very subject. The purpose is to use Ian Pearl’s case as a notch in favor of single payer or at the very least a “public option.” The problem is that Pearl’s family is trying to prevent Ian from being put on Medicaid, which they regard as a death sentence. Some “option.”
lil mike — You provide a very good observation.