Monday, March 26, 2012


Insurance should be non-profit. That's my two cents. It's the only way that the clients needs will be served. I admire the Taiwan system.

Updated response: I guess I don't know much about non-profits, then. If I say I want medical care put under a governmental system, I'm sure I'd be asking to be fried. Is there truly no fix for this dilemma?


Mama Jama said...

I like the Taiwan system too. But, non-profit doesn't mean broke. The funds in need to equal the funds out. As parents of sn kiddos, I think it's fair to say that someone else is subsidizing the care of our kids. I'm thankful for that.


Karen said...

Non-profit sometimes is worse than for profit. With non-profit, the CEO or president of the insurance company can earn over a million dollars a year or more, and the vice president can earn almost as much, and the shareholders can earn their profits....benefits can be paid in full to all of them, and because these are considered perks and salaries, the books can balance out to zero, and still be considered 'non-profit".
Unfortunately, because there's no cap on salaries or paid travel expenses, or benefits being paid for or other paid for expenses, companies can simply adjust their books at the end of the year to balance out to zero and stay in non-profit (untaxed) status.

I don't know anything about the Taiwan system, but there has to be a reason you can adopt SN children from Taiwan. Also, the US might have issues, but I do know that there are strong reasons Id rather live in the US than Taiwan, as Im sure many others do to. Hence there are still people willing to and wanting to immigrate to the US from all other countries, including Taiwan.

Karen said...

I think the Canadian example is a good one too..although, again, only from what I know, and it's not a lot. I do know that they have a great maternity leave in Canada. A blogging friend (I think) had 6 months off work for her adoption. That is SWEET!

I think the reason people are afraid of socialized medicine is because then the type of equipment and care might decrease.
But I know insurance companies can save a boatload of money if they would put caps on medications! All they have to do is follow Mexico's and Canada's examples for the same drugs at about 1/4 the price. But then, perhaps the insurance companies get kick backs for allowing such high rates..who knows? I wish there was an answer too. The very rich and the very poor get virtually free health care, and the middle guys pay for everyone. Isn't that the way it always goes? Sad.