There are a lot of folks in the conventional wisdom, establishment-oriented Democratic circles that are trying the sell the argument that reform without a public option is still big, important, transformational health care reform. I totally get why they are doing it, and even have some sympathy for what they are trying to achieve: worried that we can't get a public option bill out of the Senate, they are scrambling to make it seem like whatever passes isn't a failure or disappointment.
The latest example is Third Way's Roll Call op-ed, "Don't Pass on the 'Next New Deal'". The folks at Third Way know how to make an argument -- and what they say sounds reasonable enough -- that if we regulate insurers to stop the worst things about our current system, that will still be a big improvement in health insurance rules.
What I fear instead is another bill like Kennedy-Kassebaum which, as I have written before, was supposed to solve some of the same insurance problems like people losing their insurance when they switched jobs, or being deprived for pre-existing conditions -- all of which continues to happen.
Another bad outcome would be that we get something like the Massachusetts health plan, which passed with a lot of hype a few years ago. It's not working very well, though, as way too many people can't afford to sign up for coverage, and the costs are quickly spiraling out of control.
These two pieces of legislation are failing because of the same problem: neither one took on the power of the insurance industry. These two bills, both passed with great fanfare in the thoroughly bipartisan fashion, are not working because they provide no check on insurance industry power, no competition and no reason for insurers to control their costs -- which, by the way, is exactly why they passed so easily with such big bipartisan support.
Remember, insurance companies are granted exemption from anti-trust laws by the McCarran-Ferguson Act. A very small number of them have overwhelmingly market power in huge parts of the country. Their rates are unregulated by the federal government. And they have enormous political power to go along with their massive market power.
What my friends at Third Way don't mention is that the insurance industry has happily signed off on all the regulatory changes mentioned above, just as they supported Kennedy-Kassebaum and the Massachusetts health bill. They know that with all the market and political power they have, without anti-trust or federal rate regulation to worry about, without competition from a public option, they can raise rates as much as they want and probably write loopholes into the regulations that they agreed to so that they will be easier to slide around.
This is the simple fact that has made progressives in the House draw a line in the sand in terms of keeping a public option in the final bill: without the public option check on private insurance, there will be no check on insurance company power to set whatever rates and rules they want to, and health reform will not work. A bill with no check on insurance company power, with no competition for insurers, will drive health care prices higher and will fail to solve the real problems we have in how insurance companies treat people.
So don't give up on a health care reform bill that keeps insurance companies honest, my friends at Third Way and my other friends in the DC establishment. In spite of all the doom and gloom of the conventional wisdom spinners, we have a path to victory, as long as we don't give up and decide we don't have the courage to do what needs to be done and take on the insurance industry. If we do what the President wants, and have competition and choice so that we keep them honest, we really will have accomplished something that can be compared to Medicare and Social Security.
Taylor Marsh: Ted Kennedy's Foreign Policy Idealism
Domestic issues pervaded Teddy's mission, but also his image at home. However, he was intensely interested and engaged in world matters.
Now, if you consider that a basic health plan costs a family of four on average $12,000 year, then you'll understand why the "health" insurance companies have their knickers all in a knot. Their making fists full of money leeching off of the American public.
Americans need to see the breakdown of these numbers. Additionally, it would be cheaper for businesses other than those in the "health" insurance industry not to have to be bled dry offering their employees health insurance as a benefit.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/04/03/average-family-healthcare-premiums-jump-more-than-25-percent-since-2004.html
This is from a survey by the Kaiser foundation of employer provided health care plans. On average, plans cost $12K or so, but employees only contribute $3K. I'm not sure characterizing the full value of the plan as a cost to the family is accurate. The family only sees a little under $300 a month going out of their paycheck.
The $1.60 a day seems like a steal. However, it would be in addition to the $300 a month we are already spending. $48 (1.60*30) extra a month is a 15% increase in the average family's out of pocket health care expenses.
Actually, if you look at it on a monthly basis, $50 a month for the next 10 years sounds pretty hefty too. I guess the bottom line is, $1 trillion is a lot of money no matter how you break it down.
The operative phrase in the act "as long as states regulate"; if the federal government would develop a governing template of rules for insurance providers that eliminates the 50 individual states worth of onerous disparate mandates it would open up the U.S. to interstate commerce for healthcare providing plenty of competition, similar to what was done with interstate banking. The bigger point is that this act can be overhauled with legislative support, that's why it's a canard to hold it up as inhibiting competition.
The essence of the act states:
The McCarran-Ferguson Act does not itself regulate insurance, nor does it mandate that states regulate insurance. However, it does empower Congress to pass laws in the future that will have the effect of regulating the "business of insurance." However, federal acts that do not expressly purport to regulate the "business of insurance" will not preempt state laws or regulations that regulate the "business of insurance." The Act also provides that federal anti-trust laws will not apply to the "business of insurance" as long as the state regulates in that area.
And we mustn't be fooled by the pols who tell us "well, the insurance companies won't be able to cherry pick or deny coverage or retroactively cancel you any more, because we are going to REGULATE them."
WRONG! The PTPP lobby is already gearing up to fight even those regulations, as we see from the WellPoint (Blue Cross) letter writing campaign, in which they say: "· Increasing the premiums of those with private coverage by imposing new mandates and coverage requirements." If they aren't able to stop these regulatory changes, they will wait a year, then threaten imminent bankruptcy and tell the pols that they are "too big too fail" and either the regulations must be thrown out or huge amounts of money thrown at them.
People need to be reminded over and over again that we cannot afford the PROFIT TAKING PAPER PUSHER PROFITS (PTPPP's). We can either pay for corporate profits, fancy office buildings, multi million dollar executive salaries, advertising, private investigators to find a reason to retroactively cancel your policy when you become seriously ill and have a large claim - or we can use that money to pay doctors, nurses, physical therapists, etc.
WRONG...
What many fail to see is that government run Healthcare would be transparent and many-sided. It would HAVE to be... Viewed from every side, because you CAN'T LIE about saving a person's life. You CAN'T LIE about the best medical treatments, & you CAN'T LIE about the best way to prevent illnesses...
To say the government can't run it is wrong, un-American and seriously unpatriotic.
It's such a tired, worn down & useless argument trying to defend the private insurance companies.
They've FAILED. Over-run with greed, they've brought us and our economy to its knees. They don't deserve to remain as industry leaders.
In our present system, insurers are secretive and neurotically controlling.
It's not hard to see how the transparency of government would save our country Trillions over the long term with health care, but this is what our leaders who believe in it have failed to highlight well. It’s up to us… SO OPEN YOUR EYES! ! !
So -too bad private insurers would likely lay off some of their workforce. Not to worry... Savings for employers and average Americans would increase new and even better jobs elsewhere all over our country. Healthcare wouldn’t be a luxury anymore. It’d be a right. Like it should be.
And yeah, too bad CEO's won't be able to pay themselves 300-400 times what their average employees make. Americans could learn to live without that just fine.
,
I despise some of what the insurance companies do, in that sense we can all have agreement on, and much can be done to right wrongs. However, if you take all of just the profits of the insurance companies it amounts to a small fraction of total healthcare costs, this myopic focus drives too much of the debate pushing wrong headed solutions, aka public option.
A middle man is needed as an arbiter of costs, but the only way that costs can go down is with competition among arbiters. The important point is if there's wide and diverse competition then we have the best possible outcome with proper oversight. The government option is doomed to cost more than the "profits" of the insurance companies because of the bureaucracy, bloat, inefficiencies and ham handed effect that the government always brings to the table. The CBO has already weighed in that the costs are way underestimated, and this doesn't factor in the inevitable inefficiencies of government.
Opening up interstate commerce is the only way to go relative to the competition portion of this legislation, private enterprise has to run lean in order to remain profitable, it's even tougher to do with competition.
"Look ,most people without insurance now lost jobs due to the economy brought about by Bush waging war in one country that had nothing to do with 9/11 while claiming it did. So basically the terrorists, through Bush, managed to continue hurting our nation by running up the war debt. So giving people healthcare is really fighting terrorism at this point. If you oppose giving americans healthcare then you support the terrorists.
...You are either with us or against us."
I agree 100%
Right on, Druid.
The best congress money can buy!
Why can't we have an FHIC (Federal Health Insurance Corporation) just like we have the FDIC??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corporation
This is a tough one. When a doctor recommends a test, we feel good because we feel like the doctors are doing everything they can for us. We don't ever stop to ask if they have an ownership interest in the facility they are sending us to. Nor do we go out of our way to find out what the "average" response to our ailment is, or question the treatment recommendation. We're not doctors after all.
Interestingly, we'll even get down right pissed off if our insurance company doesn't pay for these unnecessary services, because we'll feel like they are just padding their profits at our expense.
So costs go up. And up. And up.
It's a complicated issue, but as long as there is an unchecked profit motive for doctors, eliminating insurance company (though a popular target, they are only middle men) profits, isn't going to change the trajectory of costs.
Let's sideline the discussion of public v. private. It's moot until we've addressed the cost drivers.
The mafia's income is not directly proportionate to the number of people it kills; in fact, the fewer people they need to kill, the better it is for their business.
An insurance company, now, its profits go UP the more people it kills.
Which is why insurance companies kill something like 50 people a day; the mafia, a lot fewer.
Since you've got the stats, for every person the insurance industry "kills" how many people could then receive the life saving treatments they needed because someone in the industry made a tough, end-of-life decision? There is only so much to go around after all and health care is not cheap.
Out of curiosity, what do you think the government plan would do with those same people? What if the government plan did exactly the same thing? Would you leave? Enjoy the freedom to move now; once the public plan's up and running, it will be the only plan before long. Oh, and the bonus...health care will still cost too much.
You don't have an MRI machine, and I do. You need to use it to see if your tumor is malignant. How much is a fair price for me to charge so that you can get this vital information?
You need a heart surgery, and I'm the only one in town that can do it. How much is a fair price to save your life? How about if I just bill you later?
Obviously, doctors have to be compensated, and equipment must be purchased. But until the profit motive is taken out, there will be no incentive to get people healthy and keep them that way. If it is necessary to do Health Care without making a profit it will force us to find simple, cheap remedies that work--and most of them probably wont have any of the ghastly side-effects of most pharmaceuticals.
SINGLE PAYER IS THE WAY!!!!
https://www.madashelldoctorstour.com/Mad_as_Hell_Video.html
These Oregon physicians are in the process of organizing a caravan designed to inform the public about the benefits of the single-payer option. At last count they will be stopping in approximately 23 states, on their way to demonstrate in Washington. They need volunteers and our support. Please spread the word.
And the information is coming from probably the only true friends we as patients have in America.
Thanks for the clip.
Remember - Yes We Can! - AND Yes We MUST! make REAL health care reform NOW!