GOP Favors Public Option for Property, Not People

Atop the front page of the New York Times today is a color photo of Georgia homes flooded up to their rafters, an image that illustrates how when it comes to insurance our Congress applies two standards, separate and unequal, one for property and a lesser one for people.

Unlike people without health insurance, homeowners have access to public option flood insurance. 

Even those who fail to take personal responsibility to buy insurance to protect their property can get benefits, thanks in good part to politicians who are leading opponents of public option healthcare.

Consider the example of  Trent Lott of Mississippi, who was that state's senior senator when Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, flooding his home looking out on the Gulf. Lott had not exercised personal responsibility by taking out flood insurance even though it was available from the federal government at low cost. He did have private insurance, but his insurer refused to pay much of the claim, saying it was not wind damage (which was covered by the policy), but water damage (which was excluded).
    
Weeks later Lott introduced Senate Bill 1936, which would have authorized retroactive flood insurance. The idea came from Representative Gene Taylor, a Democrat who represented the Mississippi Gulf Coast, which should remind us that when there is voter demand for reform, and campaign contributions are not the driving force, the parties have worked together.    

Lott's bill would have let flood victims pay 10 years of flood insurance premiums after-the-fact plus a 5 percent late payment penalty. Since this storm was rated a once in 500 years occurrence, even 10 years of premiums would not come close to covering the real costs, meaning a taxpayer subsidy was built into the Lott bill.

Instead of being laughed at by his fellow Republicans for promoting socialism, the concept of retroactive relief was warmly embraced, although not the idea for retroactive insurance. Instead the government went with handouts.

Senator Thad Cochran, also a Mississippi Republican and at the time chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, was key to getting taxpayer benefits for flooded property, according to Taylor's staff.  The benefits were issued and expanded twice, a total of about $18 billion in all, Taylor's staff estimated.

Contrast the two Mississippi Republican senators' determined action to get welfare for flooded buildings with their votes against expanding SCHIP health insurance for poor children. 

Cochran opposes a public option in health care; Lott, now a lobbyist, says Obama should just declare victory after some minor tweaks, a way to oppose without quite saying so.

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, the former head of the Republican Party, has spoken cautiously, but also appears to oppose a public option. But he, too, was an enthusiastic supporter of retroactive benefits for flooded property. Barbour even got the relief expanded and urged everyone to get their government property benefits.

There is also an interesting twist in this public option for another aspect of the health care debate - what to do about those who decline to buy insurance.

In  Mississippi the relief for flooded buildings came with a requirement that owners buy flood insurance. It went further, requiring a covenant be added to their property deeds requiring the current and all future owners of that property to maintain public option flood insurance.   

There is another word for that: government mandated insurance.

How about a similar retroactive option for people with a pre-existing condition who do not have health insurance? Many of these people had insurance before the recession cost them their jobs and with it, their health care coverage. Even people who took personal responsibility and had health insurance now may be without healthcare insurance because the recession cost them their jobs or their employers enough revenue to continue coverage.

Why should those who lost their jobs and thus their healthcare insurance be held to a different standard than irresponsible homeowners like former Senator Lott?

I call federal flood insurance a public option because it is provided by the federal government., It is sold, however, through individual insurance agents who collect commissions on the policies.

Private, for-profit insurers could sell this insurance if they wanted. The problem is that rating the risk of a once-in-a-century or even once in-a-millennium event is difficult and requires a huge pool of capital held in reserve to cover benefits that may be due tomorrow or in the year 2805.

Socializing these risks makes sense, and so does trying to minimize them with building codes that discourage building in some areas and require mitigating designs (like putting the first floor 15 feet above sea level). Individual policies for flood insurance, which many people must now rely on for health care coverage, would be like selling insurance for kindergarten in case of pregnancy or prosecution insurance in case you are a crime victim.

Congress is so generous in its subsidies for property that the public option for flood insurance even covers property built in flood prone areas. And you can literally buy insurance on the day of a flood in some cases, and 1 day before in others.
  
Along the Gulf Coast, on the barrier islands on the Atlantic, in below-water expanses behind river levees and in desert communities plagued by flash floods, our federal government is there using tax dollars to help take care of damaged property.

But people? Providing a public option so people can buy health insurance through the federal government is "socialism," according to Senator John Kyl, the Republican senator from Arizona, a desert state where flash floods are as permanent a feature of reality as sickness and injury. Will someone ask Kyl why he favors what he calls socialist policies for property, but not people?

 And what about the denial of coverage you paid for, which so enraged Lott that he filed a lawsuit against his insurer, State Farm? Lott, like others, was told that their policies would cover the modest damage like broken windows and torn roofs caused by the hurricane's winds, but not the surge of storm waters, even though the wind drove those waters into Lott's living room.

Health insurance companies have found more than 1,400 reasons they can retroactively take away health insurance benefits from people, Congressional investigators found after digging through the fine print of insurance contracts. (You, of course, have read and understand every word in your health insurance contract, right?) A woman who had acne was denied breast cancer coverage, for example, though she later got her coverage restored.

And health insurance companies have become masters at digging up excuses to rescind policies, as shown by the recent hearings held by Representative Henry Waxman, who chairs the House subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

For-profit health insurers literally reward doctors who deny costly care to people, making corporate-run death panels a lucrative enterprise. As recounted in my book FREE LUNCH,  Dr. Linda Peeno denied a heart transplant to a man she never met even though she was certain it would cause him to die. She did so in Kentucky, where she had a medical license, by stamping "denied" on a form even though the man was in California, where she was not licensed. Humana, one of the biggest for-profit health insurers, rewarded her and Dr. Peeneo got a conscience that caused her to stop that work and start working to end such abominations.

We have elevated property above human lives. That members of Congress who frequently proclaim their religious faith and cite the Bible as their guide would put property above people suggests they need to actually read the texts they claim guide them. Neither Jesus nor the Old Testament prophets ever put property first. They did however denounce those who did, labeling their deeds with a simple word: evil.

Two standards, separate and unequal, for the health of property and the health of people, are un-American. This bias in favor of property over people should be ended with all deliberate speed by raising the standard for people to that of property. A public option would be one small step in that direction. 
 

 

Comments

[reliberate1776]

04:46 PM on 09/27/2009

"And you can literally buy insurance on the day of a flood in some cases, and 1 day before in others"

This is probably the most astounding statement made in this article. This is a clear example of why the Govt. shouldn't run any of these industries­. This could put a small business insurance companies out of business over-night­. Furthermor­e, why should we reward idiots who aren't responsibl­e enough to purchase insurance before hand?

I say, if you want Universal Healthcare­, you should do it at the state levels. If you want it badly, lobby your state government and get it passed. Having New Jersey pay for California­'s healthcare is ludicrous. We should work on opening up trade across state borders for healthcare­, cut down long-term rights to "intellect­ual property", work on tort reform, drasticall­y cut govt. spending and cut taxes, remove regulation­s imposing forced HMO's on small business employers, reassert when insurance should be used and when it should not (e.g. a doctor visit is NOT a call for your last resort), and fix our monetary/c­redit expanion systems.

I just purchased a PPO for $70/month and opened an HSA. $100-300/m­onth for insurance is hardly out of reach for the majority of Americans. Charities and state programs can take care of those who cannot afford it. However, if we worked on the things I stated above then we could vastly lower the cost of healthcare­, and it would make it even more affordable­.

[reddog55]

10:12 PM on 10/17/2009

If you do it at the state level the Profession­al insurance lobbyist can work their magic even easier. 50 different state systems would be a nightmare. If you move to a new state then what? Opening trade across state lines would be great for the insurance industry, they find the state that gives themselves the most advantage and base their coverage from that state. Why do you think the majority of large corporatio­ns are based out of Delaware?

“Having New Jersey pay for California­'s healthcare is ludicrous.­”

How do you think the insurance industry works now? This is how it works with the large insurance companies and many of the smaller ones purchase portions of their coverage from the larger companies. Insurance spreads the risk/cost.

“I just purchased a PPO for $70/month and opened an HSA. $100-300/m­onth for insurance is hardly out of reach for the majority of Americans.­”

Your PPO and HSA will do you a lot of good if you fall and crack you skull open and can’t work for a year. How will the PPO work for you if you can’t pay the premiums because you can’t work? In this scenario $100-300/m­onth isn’t buying you much even if you could afford it as the cost of procedure x, y and z that are greater than the “reasonabl­e and customary cost” will bankrupt you along with the things that aren’t covered. >

[reddog55]

10:15 PM on 10/17/2009

Continued from above:

If you want a laugh call the insurance company and ask where you can get you procedures done at the “reasonabl­e and customary cost.”

“Charities and state programs can take care of those who cannot afford it.”

SO . . . . How well are the charities and state program taking care of those who can’t afford it now! Not very well as most programs cover kids and most of them are being cut back do to budget problems. How many people in the scenario I outline above are going to be helped by these charities and state programs before they are forced into bankruptcy­?

“However, if we worked on the things I stated above then we could vastly lower the cost of healthcare­, and it would make it even more affordable­.” Sorry I don’t see anything that you stated that will lower insurance cost that have been rising for the past years in multiples of the inflation rate.

I don’t think many people realize how close they are to losing their health insurance. For the vast majority of people if you lose your job you will lose your health insurance in short order unless you are luck enough to pick up another good job quickly. In this economy that is very difficult.

[Neico]

09:08 AM on 09/27/2009

Again, Republican governors accepting federal money to help clean up GA, TN and AL after the hard rains caused many people to lose their lives and of course their property.

These Republican governors should explain why they are accepting any money from the federal government to help with what seems like a state's problem.

The very same federal government the Republican governors want to limit to the barest minimum is the same federal government that's extending a hand to the states affected by natural disasters.

OK you hiding Republican governors come on out the closet and say that the federal government does have a role to play and it can function under good leadership­.

[Scent]

02:47 AM on 09/27/2009

I think the difference is not in property and children.

It is in THEIR property and the lives of anyone they rule.

What else is new?

[StJames]

03:58 PM on 09/25/2009

From it's inception, the United States has placed private property above all else. What sets our constituti­on apart from so many others around the world, is our protection of property rights. Those rights have been fundamenta­l to our existence and our economic growth. They will also, I have no doubt, lead to our downfall. Bankruptcy is addressed in Article I Section 8 of the Constituti­on. Several of the first 10 amendments­, The Bill of Rights, deal with protecting private property. Amendments (Articles) II, III, IV and VII are all about property. This is the same constituti­on that upheld slavery, which held human life as chattel Property. We had to kill 600,000 American soldiers during the civil war to finally put an end to slavery...­So you see, we have a long history of putting property before human lives. A house before health care, a piece of cake for our congress.

[HowdyDoody]

03:28 PM on 09/25/2009

One of the tea baggers I talked to at a rowdy town hall mtg. in Colorado told me that he doesn't need health insurance at his age, I reckoned about 36. His sister said that if someone gets sick in their family, the other ones should take care of them. These are the brainwashe­d constituen­ts of people like Trent Lott, who didn't feel like paying insurance but collected anyway.

Notice that all of these benefits David Cay Johnston talks about went to people whose homes are on the Gulf Coast in Mississipp­i. Very little went to the poor people in New Orleans. It's all a racket.

[smileatfear]

12:05 PM on 09/27/2009

So the teabagger'­s claim was that if somebody gets colon cancer or breast cancer in their family other family members would do the surgery and administer the chemothera­py? Geez - the right wing gets nuttier all the time.

[mamalisa38]

07:36 PM on 09/27/2009

That's really easy to say. Wait until a serious illness comes along and bills are $20,000 to $30,000 or more.

[Spesabsquemetu]

02:42 PM on 09/25/2009

A brilliant summary of the facts, and the truth by David Cay Johnston.

Now, we can use the power of the truth clearly written by Johnston to write to our local newspapers­, across America: demanding answers from our Federal senators as to WHY LAND is more important than people?

The same argument (building on the brilliant connection­s made by Johnston)c­ould be made for the manner in which the Senate Banking / and Senate Finance Committee'­s appear to write legislatio­n as it affects separate and unequal laws concerning eligibilit­y for cramdowns - a provision that literally preserves and defends the financial security of wealthy boat owners, and people with multiple homes, yet is refused as a financial tool to preserve the little that some have - who only have one home to lose, and all financial security threatened with devastatio­n. And yet, cramdowns can only be used by the wealthy, while they are denied to the middle class and the working poor. WHY?
Why does congress operate with one set of rules for the wealthy, and a completely different set of rules for the poor, and the middle class?

WRITE TO YOUR NEWSPAPERS­! Cite the David Cay Johnston article published on Huffington post on 9/23/09, and ask your federal senators to answer the question: WHY IS PUBLIC OPTIONS FOR PROPERTY MORE VALUED IN AMERICA THAN HEALTH CARE PUBLIC OPTIONS FOR PEOPLE?

Read more at: http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­david-cay-­johnston/g­op-favors-­public-opt­ion_b_2967­03.html

[hippynanainblingland]

09:00 AM on 09/27/2009

Oh, but land IS more important than people! If we cared for the land as we should, the land would take care of us.

But that is not the issue here. The issue is about property, you know, houses, barns, etc, and the inequities in the laws having to do with property repair and/or replacemen­t after a so called "act of God" event, compared to the laws (existing and/or under considerat­ion) having to do with the welfare of people.

Everything else you said was right on.

[ReedYoung]

01:39 PM on 09/25/2009

Even Republican­s would have to vote "Yea" for federal rules like no denial for pre-existi­ng conditions and no rescission­s for anything, ever, for any paying customer on any health plan. Once their first payment is received, they are eligible for all coverage, permanentl­y at the same rate. If health "insurance­" corporatio­ns can't calculate risk well enough to do that, they really offer less than zero value to customers and deserve to be destroyed.

Moreover, if my Democrats in Congress do not split health care reform into regulatory reform and spending measures, forcing Republican­s to support those sorts of universal common sense ideas on their merits (without the fig leaves of "big government­" or their farcically sudden dedication to "fiscal discipline­" to hide behind) and using the reconcilia­tion process for the spending, then I will not suspect, I will know beyond a shadow of a doubt that even the most rhetorical­ly Liberal House Representa­tives' and Senators' noises this summer about moral commitment to health care as a human right have been nothing but a song and dance, accompanim­ent rather than counterpoi­nt to the teabaggers­' town hall thuggery.

If they don't force Republican­s to vote for regulatory reforms that everybody supports, then "go it alone" to pass the spending parts in reconcilia­tion, the only logical conclusion will be that they really differ only in lip service to the People, but in fact they are all in the pocket of medical "insurance­" corporatis­ts, substantiv­ely no better than John McCain and Chuck Grassley.

[NajkaLion]

01:16 PM on 09/25/2009

Some interestin­g insights into the behavior of our legislator­s. Thanks for the informatio­n. I just hope someone in the media picks up on it and reports it.

[Rmath]

12:54 PM on 09/25/2009

Property over people.

I guess that sums it all up, doesn't it?

[VillainUs]

01:40 PM on 09/25/2009

That is the American Way!

[DonVitoCorleone]

02:53 PM on 09/25/2009

Socialism for homeowners­. Especially­, if you are a republican senator.

[GrizzlyBowman]

12:39 PM on 09/25/2009

And thank goodness for that public flood insurance. If we didn't have that, homes might be built in less ridiculous areas.

I'm thinking of a building a floating house in the middle of the Atlantic. I'd like to ask all Americans to pay to ensure it. I'm an American too, after all. It's only right.

I'm also thinking of adopting a pyromaniac­. I don't have the money for a baby sitter, so he's going to be the man of the house when I'm at work.

Support public fire insurance. Thanks.

[brett66]

12:30 PM on 09/25/2009

The GOP isn't really against the public option for health insurance as much as they are against president Obama. Politics is a game to them and the goal is to win. Winning is defined as beating the other party. In this case that means thwarting one of the Democratic president'­s top priorities­. They don't really care about how this impacts their constituen­ts. Winning does not mean doing what is best for the country.

[ReedYoung]

01:25 PM on 09/25/2009

If "winning does not mean doing what is best for the country" then there is something seriously wrong with the voters.

[Mister Wu]

04:31 PM on 09/25/2009

Voters will vote for whomever there TV tells them to vote for +/- 2%.

[smileatfear]

12:10 PM on 09/27/2009

I think that was Brett's point - that there is something seriously wrong with neocon voters who just want to win at any cost and don't vote in the best interest of their country.

[AxelDC]

12:14 PM on 09/25/2009

You can sell your home and move. You cannot sell your body and occupy another one.

[obimon62]

07:42 PM on 09/24/2009

Perhaps you have found the answer for a revenue source for health care reform. Let's take the federal funds used for property insurance and use them for health insurance instead!

[rick390]

07:27 PM on 09/24/2009

Of course Lott no doubt has a cadillac insurance plan as he is well off from his years in government­. If he and the other members of congress had to try and scrape the money together to have even poor health insurance like the rest of us you can bet that healthcare reform would be a done deal. Like this article illustrate­s, if something is directly affecting them, such as their own property damage they will move heaven and earth to get laws passed to cover their ass.

[Mister Wu]

04:33 PM on 09/25/2009

Lost total respect for Lott when he quit the Senate before his term ended, so he could make more money as a lobbiest.

[dscotese]

06:41 PM on 09/24/2009

It's been pointed out elsewhere that most medically-­insured persons have very little choice about what company insures them. Rather than finding and getting insurance from a company that has no reputation of rescission­, they post comments and blogs about how they are afraid that their own insurer will boot them when they need it most. There are laws that create this bad situation, and getting rid of them would be a great step forward.

[ReedYoung]

01:27 PM on 09/25/2009

Then you Republican pieces of trash should have fixed that part of the problem eight and a half years ago. You had your chances and fouled them all up. Now get the he|| out of my way.

[dscotese]

07:21 PM on 10/01/2009

First, I think it's silly to expect the Republican­s to fix anything. They're just as good at screwing things up for us as the Democrats.

I think there is a good way to fix things, and it will take a lot of pressure from people who understand them, because it won't be good for politician­s, and it won't be good for insurance companies, and it wont' be good for big pharma, and it won't be good for the AMA.

"That part of the problem" as you call it, is just one piece, and since it hasn't been fixed yet, we should fix it now. Other pieces include the regulation that makes people feel safe enough to stop paying attention (FDA), government oversight that introduces vast opportunit­ies for corruption (FDA again, and the FTC), prohibitio­n of selling insurance across state lines..., the list goes on and on. There is a whole mess of laws that screw everything up, all ostensibly to fix something, but only making things worse in the long run.