Criticism of Marsh & McLennan's handling of health benefits for fa

[Dave Baker]

A New York Times article reports that some families of victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks are criticizing Marsh & McLennan for the way it proposes to fund its decision to provide 3 years of free health benefits for the families. Here is the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/26/nyregion/26MARS.html

The fund was set up by the company to provide relief for the victims' families, but some family members say the health benefits should be paid by the company in addition to the amounts in the relief fund.

What is your opinion? Are these individuals justified in feeling cheated? Or does the source of funding obscure the point that the employer was under no obligation to provide any health benefits for the victims' families to begin with? What do the expectations of these family members say about employee benefits in general?

[Dave Baker]

In today's issue, one surviving spouse of a Marsh & McLennan employee who was killed says she was "appalled" to read yesterday's article, and that "To vilify Marsh & McLennan for using its charity fund to pay for health insurance coverage for the victims' families seems ludicrous in light of everything that it has done for surviving spouses."

The letter is at

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/27/opinion/L27MARS.html

Another letter (same URL) does not blame Marsh & McLennan but instead says the controversy "highlights the brutal inequities in health care and insurance, and the bizarre predicaments that an employer-based insurance system creates."

[GBurns]

The NY Times article points out that:

1. The money in the Fund is not Marsh's money but was donated by staff, friends and wellwishers.

2. A survey of 10 similarly large employers determined that they were offering even better benefits but were paying for it out of their own money, even those with similar Funds.

The gesture by Marsh is therefore not one of largesse or any sort of compassion, it seems to be a cheap way of using other people's money and claiming the credit for the philanthrophy.

[KIP KRAUS]

In my opinion G what other employers are doing is irrelevant and immaterial. To expect an employer to do anything as magnanimous as what MM is doing is preposterous. No matter where the money is coming from to pay health care premiums for three years is magnanimous. Many people daily have the tragic loss of a loved one do to some sort of accidental death. The people in the Oklahoma bombing didn’t get the financial attention that the survivors of the WTC are getting. Is this that more of a tragedy, or is it because of how the tragedy occurred? Don’t get me wrong I think the outpouring of sympathy and money is great, but don’t look a gift horse in the mouth and kick it in A--. An entitlement mentality is what has gotten this country into major political and financial turmoil. You’re only entitled to what you earn or what someone out of generosity wants to give you, and when it’s given and not earned don’t complain that it’s not enough.

Dave, I couldn’t get to the letter that you referenced, but let me say this about the so-called inequities in the health care system. Employers and insurers were the organizations who developed group health care coverage, employers out of a sense of compassion for its employees and insurers to make a buck. The U.S. government started the ruination of the health care system by creating HMOs and requiring employers to implement them in the late 70s. There is no empirical data that I have ever seen that suggests HMOs have reduced the cost of health care. It only covers up the real cost.

Contrary to what the general public would be lead to believe there are no people dropping in the streets for lack of health care. Even the punks in the streets who shoot each other are getting medical care for free. There are so many federal and state funded health care programs today that if a person really cared about having coverage it’s available, but even here in New York with the Child Health Plus that’s advertised on TV and web sites many people don’t enroll their children.

Finally, the mentality that employers are responsible for your family’s health care is absurd. You are responsible for your family’s health care. The fact that employers offer health care coverage does not make it entitlement. Other than the socialistic federal program appropriately called COBRA (the fangs of which are stuck into employers long after an employee decides to quit, or gets fired) employers have no obligation to provide health care coverage to anyone.

Do we want the federal government running our health care program like they run Medicare and Medicaid that’s fraught with mismanagement and fraud? That’s what you get with entitlements.

If anyone reads this diatribe they have more time on their hands than I do.

Happy New Year.

[mroberts]

Being a former employee of MMC, I feel that the company takes care of its employees, especially when it comes to benefits. The decision to pay for medical coverage out of the Fund probably wasn't the best decision, however, why should these employees be 3 years of medical benefits free? As Kip pointed out, people die every day and their dependents don't get medical benefits for three years.

The outpouring of American generosity following the tragic attack was great. One thing that many of us may not have realized, however, was that the majority of those people who died in the tragedy hardly needed the extra money. The funds that were set up to help the families of these people are more than enough. Let's face it, most of the families involved are going to be getting hundreds of thousands of dollars one way or another. I'm not sure why the lady in the article is griping over medical benefits worth $15,000 over three years.

[Guest shafter]

The article in our local paper that made my blood boil was the sisters of an unmarried woman who believed everyone should receive the same amount from whatever funds were making payments to survivors. Now, unless they were her dependents, in my opinion, they shouldn't expect to receive anything. Hum, there's that expectation thing again.

[Guest David Thomas]

The NY Times article points out that:

1. The money in the Fund is not Marsh's money but was donated by staff, friends and wellwishers.

Actually, what the article points out is that Marsh's money which was going to the Fund will be used. Your characterization of it as a redirection of other people's donations is inaccurate.

"Some widows said they burst into tears at the news. 'People who donated didn't do it to defray this company's costs,' Mrs. Maher said. 'They did it to help families out.'

Ms. Perlmutter said that only the company's $10 million contribution would be used to pay for the health insurance, and, she added, it was possible that Marsh & McLennan would increase its contribution to the MMC Victims Relief Fund. 'We haven't made any final decisions," she said. "We're continuing to assess this and monitor this.'"

[MoJo]

You know, we've got a warped sense of charity in this country. Kip, I agree that employers don't have to offer medical coverage to their employees, but it isn't charity that they do so - its out of competitive necessity, and for staffing/HR issues (a healthy workforce is more productive, replacing workers who die as a result of inadequate healthcare is expensive). There are studies on this, go look for them.

Secondly - why is it this people seem to beleive they are entitled to a "windfall" as a result of this tragedy? Make them whole? Well, maybe, but people should plan for the unexpected. I pay life insurance premiums every month to cover my family in the event of my untimely demise (whether it from a terrorist attack or a heart attack is immaterial). We didn't take care of the Oklahoma City victims. We haven't taken care of the Birmingham Church bombing victims (of about 35 years ago - and that was terrorism too!). We're not taking care of the LTV unemployed (economic terrorism as a result of the japanese illegal dumping of cheap steel).

Lets keep in mind that half or more of the population of this country in uncovered by health insurance and (despite the fact that emergency shootings may get patched up in an emergency room, Kip), most of those uninsured are under cared for, and lead lives shortened and of less quality as a result of it.

For MMC to even offer continuation of healthcare coverage (over the COBRA period) is magnanimous. To use donated money from staff to do so may or may not be appropriate. If the fund was set up to care for the families of the victims, then using it pay for coverage, in my humble opinion, is caring for them. It'd be a better deal than individual policies.

Should we help these people out? Yep. But it should be based on need. Should we use the excess money for other charitable purposes? Yep, again. The best thing that has come out of this most tragic of situations is that the USA is not but a few hundred million acres of land between Canada and Mexico, but a group of people who are united in their hearts, and care for the others (both within, and without our borders). It is that spirit that is of the utmost importance, and the one that no terrorist act, whether from foreign influenced actors or domestic ones, that cannot be destroyed and will prove to be the "evil-doers" undoing.

[BFree]

MoJo - more than 1/2 of the people in this country are uncovered by health insurance? That, and your statement that implies that at least 1/4 of the people in this country lead lives that are short and of less quality (than what?), are less than believable.

[KIP KRAUS]

Mojo:

I’m aware of all the glittering generalities of why employers offer medical care coverage to their employees. Didn’t I say they were the ones who designed employee health care benefits in the first place? Yes they did it to be compassionate and keep their workforce healthy for productive purposes. Just because people are used to this doesn’t make it an entitlement.

I’ve also seen the studies on how expensive it is to replace dead employees, and how it is perceived that a healthy work force is more productive, common sense would tell you that, studies only give credence to the obvious.

You may want to check out your statistics on the uninsured. The last I heard less than a third of the population was uninsured and that’s only based on whom you believe, and on what day of the week you hear it. In addition, about ½ of those are uninsured by choice because they refuse to pay premiums. There are people in this country that won’t even take their children to get free immunizations. That underinsured argument for a national health and welfare program is getting to be a tired issue.

There are probably as many people in this country that are underfed and undernourished too. You don’t see Hillary Clinton trying to take over agriculture to make sure that the underfed and undernourished are taken care of do you? No, because there would be no perceived justification for it.

We can’t continue to use the standard cliches used by politicians, such as it’s for the children, unemployed and uninsured to continue to collect and spend tax dollars on programs that don’t do a damn thing but hire people to administer them. I guess you must have missed the recent article concerning the 15 consumer groups who are suing 28 pharmaceutical companies for defrauding Medicare and Medicare patients by overcharging $800 million dollars for prescription drugs in 2000? I want the same people who administer Medicare to direct my health care.

[joel]

The victims of the WTC attack should be treated as killed or wounded in action. What are the military benefits for the survivors of one killed/wounded in action?

[Guest gerry326]

Although I agree, in theory, with 99% of what everyone has been saying, I think we are all forgetting what the original question was.

MMC, no matter how they are paying for it, is being MORE than generous offering 3 years of health coverage to the victims families. Our company only offers one year of free coverage to covered dependents of employees that die. Either way, no one is under any obligation to do anything, companies do these things for many reasons - some good, some for Public and Employee Relations.

I agree that the WTC and Pentagon victims should be compensated for their losses, but they shouldn't expect a free ride forever, as heartless as that may sound. It wasn't the company's fault that there loved ones died - it was a vicious act by some depraved and fully misguided individuals who will never be brought to justice. But, what makes them any different than the person who gets hit by a drunk driver on his way to work or on a company business trip? Again, was it the company's fault that he/she was there? It's just become easy in our society to go after people with money, in this case, the companies because we can't find someone else to blame.

[joel]

The military benefit should only be a floor because the victims were in reality non-combatants and left totally defenseless.

[MoJo]

Like I said. We have a warped sense of charity in this country. It seems as though all of you are arguing that we should feed, cloth, educate, and cover those who were fortunate enough to have a WTC address, but ignore those in the hills of Appalachia....

I have checked the stats. The uncovered is in excess of 50%. Some by choice. Some because the choice is between food and insurance. Does that mean the government should step in and cover them? Reread my post - I never said that. I actually said I thought citizens of the USA were different because we cared for one another. I may have to rethink that position....

What's with bringing in Hillary here? Debate the facts, folks. Keep the personal issues with the first highly educated articulate first lady we've ever had to yourself. (By the way, I prefer a highly educated articulate first lady to one who sets the president's agenda on the basis of her astrologer's readings - just like I like all other presidential advisors - NONE OF WHOM WE VOTE FOR - to stand their ground...).

[KIP KRAUS]

God Bless Hillary. She did so much for this country, and is doing tons for New york. Being articulate gets a lot done.

Didn't mean to upset any Hillary fans. After all she is compassionate, and represents us New Yorkers.

[BFree]

http://www.census.gov/hhes/hlthins/verif.html

MoJo:

The above link is to a U.S. Census Bureau report from August 2001. It gives the number of uninsured in America as 42.6 million people. Unless the population of the U.S. is under 86 million, the 50% figure is a s-t-r-e-t-c-h.

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/pd092801c.html

If you don't trust government agencies, the above link is to the National Center of Policy Analysis. It gives the number of uninsured as 14%.

I did a *cursory* check of the stats.

[KIP KRAUS]

By the way Mojo. Just so you don’t confuse people out there the current census data from the U.S. Census Bureau at www.census.gov says the uninsured figure for 2000 was 38.7 million, or 14% of the population. By the way, the current percentage of people in the poverty level is 31.1 million, or 10.9% of the population.

Telling people that the uninsured is 50% is total misinformation. Look it up.

[MoJo]

Factor out government programs.... The number of "privately" insured is considerably less. I stand corrected, however.....

[Guest CMC9]

I think it's very generous that the company will pay the health care premiums for the 3 yrs allowed by COBRA.

Everyone else who lost a loved one tragically (on whatever day of whatever year) aren't as lucky.

My father died suddenly last year. My mother was already laid off at that point and on chemotherapy. She was under his health insurance. Of course she can be covered under his insurance for up to 3 yrs if she pays for it.

My sister and I moved back into our parents' house to help my mom offset other bills, so she can pay her $425/month health care premium (not to mention her co-pays b/c it's lousy insurance to begin with). Meanwhile, my mother will be 60 in a few months and is back to looking for a job, but no one wants to hire her without a college degree or b/c she took a few years off with Cancer.

It's tough to lose a family member so tragically, but think about the big picture......most of the children in these families will never have to pay for college tuition, not to mention thousands of dollars from the Red Cross and private donations. (that sounds mean, but these people are actually very LUCKY!)

So, why criticize Marsh and McClellan's policy, if they're going above and beyond what is required by law?