Who's Funding Health Care Opposition?

More than 70 percent of the American public agrees that a public option for health care is a good idea. That fact is terrifying to insurance companies that have hustled billions of dollars out of a dysfunctional health care system for decades. The insurance industry is so worried that they now have phonied up protest groups showing up at town hall meetings to disguise the fact that 70 percent of Americans want a choice between private insurance and a government run plan.

One of the phony consumer groups that has created chaos at town hall meetings is a group called Conservatives for Patients Rights (CPR). The founder of CPR, Rick Scott, was CEO of Columbia HCA during a time when Columbia was punished with a 1.7 billion dollar U.S. Government penalty for fraud. The caliber of fraud that Mr. Scott allowed to occur at his company not only included ripping off patients, doctors, and the government, it also included kickbacks to health care providers.

Today, Mr. Scott is back with his fraud games by trying to convince the brain dead media that the loonies showing up to shout and scream at town hall meetings represent America's majority. Media has become incapable of asking basic questions like: Who's money is paying for these protesters for hire?

Here is what Mr. Scott's "protesters" probably don't know: In the last 10 years, the health care insurance industry has increased their profits by 450 percent. In fact, if Rick Scott's plan succeeds in ending reform, profits will get even bigger for the cash fat insurance industry.

Projections show that by 2016, premiums for employer health care plans will increase by 85 percent. The net effect of that is that employers will simply drop employee health care plans. If employers do maintain their plans, employees with histories of physical illness will be the first to lose their jobs because their bad health will increase premium costs for their employer. Employers in a veiled kind of way will be asking new questions when they interview job applicants. The new questions will center around past health problems, smoking history, weight management history, and even family health history. The new criteria for hiring will not only be skill and qualifications. The health history of employees and their family will be equally as important. If Rick Scott's hired protesters really want something to shout about, they should be screaming at the top of their voice that America's insurance companies should not have a special exemption that excludes that industry from anti-trust laws. It is the only industry besides professional baseball that has a special exemption excluding them from price fixing oversight by government. With that special exemption, they use their billions in profits to pay fraudulent activists groups to create the illusion that the opinion of 70 percent of Americans is not really relevant.

Rick Scott and his pals are scared. They can visualize what a government run public option might do to them. Their ability to refuse coverage for preexisting illness would be jeopardized. Their routine of denying treatment without explanation would become more difficult. Their surly attitude about premium increases would be tamed, and companies like Scott's Columbia HCA would have a more difficult time pulling off 1.7 billion dollar health care frauds.

Follow Mike Papantonio on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RingofFireRadio

Comments

[Mike Kilpatrick]

It's not just individuals it's business too. Would you locate a business in The U.S. if you knew you'd have to deal with scary health care costs? NO! Don't you think maybe this is a big part of why jobs in this country are heading overseas? When $2000.00 of the cost of every car GM made went for employee health care, don't you think it also played at least a part in GM's bankruptcy?

[Bowlingkev]

Mike asks the question - Has the media become incapable of asking basic questions like: Who's money is paying for these health care reform protesters for hire? The answer, of course, is no one. The problem with asking that question is then the media would have to ask - Who's money is paying for all those spiffy signs that support health reform, where did those buses full of SEIU people come from and who's paying for THAT? There's an old saying that goes "Don't ask the question if you don't want to hear the answer"

[rightrevreg]

Of course labor unions are spending money in this debate. Yes buses of poor folks were trucked in. But if you are implying that Rick Scott et. al don't have a pony in this race and aren't spending millions of money lobbying and advertising against changing the status quo. There are 4 lobbyists from the health care sector for every lawmaker on the hill. Conservatives for Patients rights has spent millions on TV ads. I don't know of any entity including SEIU that could compete with the kind of dollars Big Health care/pharm has to throw around.

[Bowlingkev]

Somthing tells me its just more than labor unions and how do you know the folks on the busses are poor??? And speaking of TV ads, seems like NBC and ABC will not air ads against health care reform. I can, however, buy a real neat Obama action figure on NBC.com. Look, I'm all for reform. My 27 year old son has Crohn's Disease, no insurance and has a pre-existing condition. What I object to is Obama trying to cram a health bill down my throat that has nothing to do with "reform" but rather 1100 pages of pork that NO ONE READ. Do you really want the government to have unfettered access to your medical and financial records? Let's talk REFORM and not nationalization of our health care.

[jazzman]

Forgetting FOX, which is an outright right wing propaganda channel that pays hardly any attention to the truth at all, the media, especially CNN, does zilch research these days. All they have are 'he said/she said' type debates in which the moderator, usually a prettily made up bimbo, moderates between spinmeisters from the opposite side of the isse by saying, "and Mr. (name here please) how do you respond to that" or adds the infamous and vacuous, "some people are saying" line.

Journalists in our MSM have become worthless. The only bright spots are Rachel Maddow and John Stewart who both show up with facts, statistics, and actually having read relevant material to the issue at hand. In other words, they act like real journalists.

[Bowlingkev]

Jon Stewart may act like a real journalist, but the sad truth is Jon is nothing more than a comedian....if that's where you get your news information I guess that would explain alot....

[northstar11]

lots of small fries here today trying to make some back to school cash.

[Marlyn]

"Media has become incapable of asking basic questions like: Who's money is paying for these protesters for hire?"

I saw a report about Rick Scott on MSNBC on Rachel Maddow, so some of the Media are doing their job.

But if you expect FOX, CNN or ABC to do real reporting ...

[den1953]

Insurance is just another Republican windfall like banking and the stock market no regulations or anyone to oversee greed or corruption and to reward the GOP for there loyalty they boost there election coffers & not to mention perks!

[overd0g1]

And the government isn't greedy and corrupt? LOL.

[jerabaub]

agree with jansky's 08:34 posting. most americans favor the choice of having a public option to compete with private insurance. in fact, about 40% of americans currently enjoy a public option, be it thru medicare, veterans health, etc.

[overd0g1]

That's nice. A private business competing with a public institution funded by money extracted by force (taxes). That sounds fair.

[mtnyogini]

Yes poor poor insurance companies being picked on. Maybe the CEOs of the insurance companies won't be making obscene amounts of money for letting poeple die. Poor them.

[northstar11]

grasshopper has much learning to do.

[Teritt]

So go ahead and explain how UPS & Fedex can compete. My guess is that they strive to offer something better than the post office for a price. And if there were a public option, maybe the insurance companies could stop wasting millions a day on lying commercials and strive to provide life saving care to their customers instead of loads of red tape and denying claims while giving their CEOs millions each year in bonuses.

[Oldsop]

There are so many errors in this story it is difficult to know where to begin.
Let’s try the 70%.
The question asked in this poll allows those answering to think they can keep their own insurance for themselves; the public option would be for other people. This is a pitiful statistic. It is more condemning that 70% thought they could keep their own insurance that means that only 30% want government insurance!
The 450% is just plain bogus. Profits in the health care industry went up just over 7% in a recent 5 years.
Next we have “projections show” and increase of “85%” in healthcare premiums. May I use the same experts to predict the stock market?? I think not. So why would I believe the 85 number? Pfft.
That means the evil “loonies showing up at town meetings” are probably just normal people inflated like the 450% number.
You decide.

[Marlyn]

"The question asked in this poll allows those answering to think they can keep their own insurance for themselves; the public option would be for other people." ???

What poll? The post says 70% think a PUBLIC OPTION is a good idea.

[rightrevreg]

A SurveyUSA poll released 08/20/09 shows that 77% of Americans agree that a public option is important with only 22% responding that it is not important.

A new poll published by AARP shows 79% in favor of a public plan with only 18% opposing.

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll from June (the last time it asked about a public option) shows 76% of Americans support a public plan.

Family premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance increased 119 percent between 1999 and 2008, and could increase another 94 percent to an average $23,842 per family by 2020, according to a Commonwealth Fund report.

Health care costs are also going to outpace GDP growth over the same period according to CBO.
Anyway you want to slice the numbers Oldsop, the current system is broken for everyone except industry and big Pharm. Why Americans will continue to support the top .001% of our population and their grab for as much $ as they can is beyond me. People like Rick Scott and Stephen Hemsley are not good ole hard working Americans living the American dream. Brilliant? Sure. Hard working? No doubt. But they are making more money than they could burn on the backs of the poorest and those with the least resources. I don't understand how these hucksters convince average Americans to identify with them. This is not capitalism, its corporatocracy.

[Oldsop]

You can pick any numbers you like if you find the right poll.
My numbers for health profit are not a poll.

[Indiana Dave]

Why shouldn't people in the insurance industry be opposed to the government putting them out of business? I am pleased with my insurer, and if you hate insurance companies then dump your coverage and go it alone. The government will be a harsh rationer once it, inevitably, is the single payer. And then you and I will have lost the chance to choose another option.

[Marlyn]

PUBLIC OPTION or BUST.

The poor little insurance industry is BANKRUPTING America.

[CompashCat]

You listen to and believe the lies. Do the research on countries that have national health care and see what their citizens think. Sure, Fox News found a few that weren't happy with their systems, but the overwhelming majority are happy that they don't have to struggle with a dysfunctional health care system such as the one in the U.S.

[overd0g1]

Yeah, plus when they're really sick, they can just come here and get the best.

[rightrevreg]

I'm glad you are happy with your insurer. You can keep it. I would like a public option out there to compete with your incredible insurer. If it's so good, then your plan will still be very popular. My family has already been a victim of rationing and denied care based on pre-existing conditions that weren't even symptomatic for 7 years. The idea that there isn't already severe rationing is a joke. There are private insurers in UK and Canada. The idea that in the most pro-Wall Street/big business nation in the world, with 4 health industry lobbyists for every lawmaker on the hill will suddenly decimate private insurance is kookoo. By the way, the problem isn't that most people want to "dump [their] coverage and go it alone", it's the fact that it's completely inaccessible to people like me and my wife. Many people are happy with their private insurance until they have to use it, navigate the system (gotta push papers to up that 20%+ admin cost), and plead on the phone with an unfeeling rep who's already denied 7 people coverage (gotta get that promotion somehow) since his morning coffee.

[overd0g1]

Probably the same people that were paying the Iraq war protesters.

[dwmulenex]

it's really easy and already often said-- let's pay for healthy outcomes--­succcess-- and not procedures and tests only some of which advance health. But imagine what it would take for a sickness company- our current health insurers--to become wellness companies. They would have to insist that policyholders have checkups, watch their weight, improve their nutrition, drop bad habits like drugs and drinking, and act responsibly toward themselves. This would require frequent intrusions and interventions into the lives of individuals and families. Most of us don't want Cigna or Aetna to be our overseers. So we pay more for health care, which allows us to act ifreely if irresponsibly because we pay our way. That's free choice, but I don't see how that choice can be extended to medicaid recipients, or those 40 million plus uninsured who the federal government would subsidize. It's too expensive to pay the risk premium for so many people to act freely without regard to their health. So the choice becomes keeping the status quo, which is based on wealthier equals healthier, with the poorest and the healthiest dropped out, or a more prevention focused system that looks at healthy habits and regular checkups as government mandated requirements of a public or private option. Health care can only be a right if it comes with clear obligations for the individuals who claim the right,and if we have laws and regulations which both guarantee the right and enforce the obligation.

[rsaillant1]

There will come a time when the press will review their performance,
their lack of investigation and attention to the health care issue. The problem
with their reflection will, of course, be because it will come as an after-thought.

They need to do it now.

One of the first, and simplest things, they might do is to point out to the
uninformed and the ill-informed that the HealthCare providers do not
provide health care....they are insurers only. Only the doctors, nurses,
medical specialists, and hospital staff, provide health care.

The insurers have an inflated picture of themselves and of that which
they do, because it is connected with our health care system, In reality,
they are no different then those who we seek to insurer our vehicles,
our boats and our homes. But this connection to us where our health and
lives are concerned lets us and them think they are more than they
really are.

If the companies who insure our vehicles had this same attitude towards
us we'd be storming their offices while the press villified them in the news.

[Jprog]

"Projections show that by 2016, premiums for employer health care plans will increase by 85 percent. The net effect of that is that employers will simply drop employee health care plans."

First, when have there ever been so many 'town hall' constituent meetings? The Congress is so far in the pocket of the profit making industries in this issue, they want to crazies to come out to these fake meetings and make the noise to give them cover so they don't have to pass legislation that will hurt their benefactors. They seem to me to be working in a coordinated manner with people like Mr. Scott to convince people that the majority of Americans don't want a 'public option' or single payer.

Second, the above comment starting with 'projections' sounds a lot like 'plans' to me. The plan seems to be to jack up employer based premiums in order to force employers to drop the benefits and to corral people into the really profitable high-deductible, low-benefits, 'consumer-driven' insurance plans.

[jerzyboy]

Nobody has posted a comment about this fellow, Scott. It's about Obama care or it is about preserving the system that we have. Look at the billions that this man and his corporations have made from fraud, kickbacks, and ripping off the sick. How about insurance companies kicking a person out of the plan for some silly reason or refusing to pay for treatments? This is far worst than gunning a person down in cold blood for profit! How can this system be defended?

Every job decision I made was based one keeping employer based health care. I had cancer in my late twenties and feared at what might happen if I did not have some kind of insurance. At the time I was diagnosed, I was working full time and going to graduate school and did have health insurance provided by a large carrier. After being treated, the remaining bills amounted to over half a years salary, one year of full time grad school tuition. The only way I could of continue my education was with the help of a government program that gave me financial assistance with these remaining medical expenses. That program ended when Reagan took office. I worked hard, but I did not get where I am today without the help of big bad government.

How much is our current system costing the U.S. in jobs. individual advancement, personal debt. and medical cost from not having regular check ups? This whole debate is crazy.

[scottowego]

Agreed.

[Oldsop]

If you went to grad school then you should know that making a decision based on a sample size of just one (yourself) is not a very good idea.

[jerzyboy]

I'm the only one with personal experiences that think the current system needs to be fixed? The article above states about 70% feel a public option is needed. How about Rick Scott? What he did was just fine with you. You must love the 19th century.

Here is another one. I had a close friend who had cancer, his insurance company refusing at first to give care, being forced to by the courts and then bankrupting the parents with deductibles. All the feet dragging did not help his chances. He died at the ripe old age of 22. The father later lost his business, committed suicide and the mother had a nervous breakdown.

Old Ronnie Reagan loved telling stories too.

[nia122]

There is no question that MSM is not asking the right questions. They appear to be more interested in ratings and hyperbole than in the truth. There are a few, however, such as Rachel Maddow who go after the trth and report it to the public.

On the other hand, it appears that the author engages in hyperbole as well when he says:

""Employers in a veiled kind of way will be asking new questions when they interview job applicants. The new questions will center around past health problems, smoking history, weight management history, and even family health history. The new criteria for hiring will not only be skill and qualifications."

As far as I know, it is illegal for potential employers to ask personal questions such as these. This is pure conjecture on his part and it undermines the validity of his arguement.

[Aaror]

It is illegal for an employer to refuse to hire a black or hispanic employee, or refuse to hire a married woman for fear that she will get pregnant. Does that mean it doesn't happen???

[FoonTheElder]

It is also illegal to discriminate in employment against those people over 40, but it happens constantly. That is why when you get laid off and you are over 50, chances are that it will take you a long time to find another job and it is likely to be at a significant pay cut.

One of the reasons is that employers don't want to pay the higher cost of health care for people in their 50s. Many times they are rejected instantly based on the dates in their resume.

[Spud777]

The "media" is controlled by big money. Except for MSNBC, they generally tow the republican talking points and never point out hypocrisy about who is funding these creeps. Most are like Faux Noise, unfair and unbalanced.

[RS]

"The "media" is controlled by big money. Except for MSNBC, they generally tow the republican talking points and never point out hypocrisy about who is funding these creeps. "

Pardon me, Spud777--NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC are all owned by GENERAL ELECTRIC, a perennial war profiteer and a charter member of the military indutrial complex, which naturally means that they too also tow the republican talking points and never point out hypocrisy about who is funding these creeps. Don't get swayed so easily about what the GE-owned media outlets are saying, because GE recently won a HUGE Iraq rebuilding contract.