Health Care: Follow the Money?

The WaPo linky is broken.

That article is written by Viveka Novak. She is well known as a Republican operative. When Mathew Cooper, then working at Time, was going to disclose what Karl Rove had told him about Valerie Plame’s identity, Cooper co-worker Novak called up Rove’s lawyer, Don “gold bars” Luskin and advised him as to what Cooper’s testimony was going to be.
Rove then went and changed his testimony (attributing the change to “faulty memory”) as to avoid a perjury charge. You should be skeptical of anything written by Novak.

Karen, why isn’t single payer even on the radar in the Senate? Its because of the millions and millions of dollars in campaign contributions that Dodd, Kennedy, Brown, etc. have pocketed.

The OBJECTIVE fact is that single payer is the most effective and rational means of achieving true health care reform — yet its never even been on the table because of the vast sums spent by health care parasites to keep it off the table. As a result, instead of a strong public option that is the “compromise” between advocates of the single payer solution and “conservative” democrats, we’re likely to get the worst of all possible worlds — welfare for the parasites that does nothing to contain health care costs and stymies efforts for real reform.

Oh, and don’t forget — Ted Kennedy co-authored “No Child Left Behind.” He sold out our kids eight years ago, and he’s selling out everyone now….

I’m not sure that even the FactCheck story is that straight. They use lifetime dollars to make their point.

If you follow the link they provide to opensecrets you can sort by election cycle which is a more accurate look I think.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=H&recipdetail=M&sortorder=U&cycle=2008

I posted this the other day on another thread. I think it has an impressive group of charts demonstrating the ties.

http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/projects/2009/healthcare_lobbyist_complex/

I wonder what kind of guarantee Reid got for folding, yet again, to the Right? Does he have a written agreement, or did someone just grab his private parts, wink at him, and guarantee him more than 1 Republican vote, in the fall?

Derek you beat me to it. Harry Reid, giving us more of the kind of leadership we have come to expect from him.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32104253/ns/politics-capitol_hill

This is a pretty weak fact-check. It admits that the targeted senators took massive donations from the healthcare industry. Then it points out that people who support a public plan also took money from the industry.

Well duh, the industry (which opposed a public plan) gives donations in exchange for access and consideration. The 7 senators targeted in the ad gave in. Ted Kennedy, who also took money from the industry, didn’t.

That means that the people who Kennedy represents can say “wow, Ted wants the same public plan I want despite all the money the insurance companies gave him,” while those presented by Baucus can say, “Wow, that Baucus guy cares more about the money the health insurance companies gave him than about what I want.”

The MSM has really sunk it’s teeth into the Gates issue. That seems to be a topic they get, more than the confusing health issue, an issue Obama may understand, but cannot articulate in terms a simpleton can grasp.

KT:

The timing of contributions is relevant. And you’re right that not all dollars necessarily buy votes, but I think it’s fair to take the contributions into consideration when “our” elected representatives hold forth on what is and isn’t good for the country.

In any event, thanks for the info. Now to encourage the superficialists in the Village to dig into this when interviewing the recipients of recent bags o’ bucks.

Ivy_B, I had heard about those Sunlight foundation relationship charts, but hadn’t viewed them until now.

Wow.

Thanks for putting up that linky.

There’s another issue here too. Pols see a business that can be hurt and seek protection money. That side needs to be addressed too. Remember Al Gore’s donation demand after an air crash?

Thanks for link, Ivy (link ran over “reply” thingy). Former staffers become lobbyists, yay. KT likely has a full plate but if only more reporters can get in the faces of those staffer/lobbyists and ask the “money questions”, literally. Cell phone cameras / youtube clips would be nice too.

I imagine the public option will be the price the Bushdogs demand for their vote, if it actually happens in the fall?

So, if I understand this, because some Senators didn’t sell out the public (who demand a public option by large majorities) even though they received campaign contributions from “health care interests”, we shouldn’t guess that those who are selling out the public might be doing it because of campaign contributions from the insurance lobby. Have I got that “fact check” right?

I said I’d take back everything I’d said about Reid if he actually grew a pair and pushed through an effective bill. Looks like I needn’t have worried – that spine transplant didn’t take.

Karen, OT but could you pass along kudos to Amy for her recent articles (pregnant teens in foster care and abortion wars twist) and ask her to toss us some “red meat” (no pun) from those here? I’ll promise to be nice and behave myself (might be the only one but will keep word). Thanks.

Pretty much, Shep. Even with a supermajority it takes only a few sellouts – and they all know it, so most of the Democrats can appear to “stand on principle” while most of them take the money and run.

Some excerpts from an article in the latest CJR:

http://www.cjr.org/feature/groundhog_day_1.php?page=all

“With few exceptions, like the fine series last summer by NPR that explained how a number of other countries handle health care, the press has done little to challenge this reality or help to broaden the health-care debate. Rather, it has mostly passed along the pronouncements of politicians and the major stakeholders who have the most to lose from wholesale reform. By not challenging the status quo, the press has so far foreclosed a vibrant discussion of the full range of options, and also has not dug deeply into the few that are being discussed, thereby leaving citizens largely uninformed about an issue that will affect us all.

Exactly why the press is reprising its docile approach to this debate is a complicated issue that necessarily involves the long-standing question of how journalists define their role in society—whether they are leaders of the national conversation or mere amplifiers of it. In 1993, Holly Taylor, a health reporter at The Berkshire Eagle, in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, stood up at the annual meeting of Investigative Reporters and Editors and asked why the national media were reporting that managed competition was the only solution to the health-care crisis. Taylor told me at the time: “What I found frustrating was that everyone was writing about managed competition as if it were a fait accompli.” This year, it’s the same story. At the annual meeting of the Association of Health Care Journalists, Duane Schrag, a reporter at the Salina Journal in Salina, Kansas, echoed Taylor’s frustration after listening to a talk about health-care reform by Oregon Senator Ron Wyden. “I was just struck by how accepting the audience was of a solution that represents an encapsulation of the status quo with the same players and the same current costs,”

One thing that is different this time is the Obama administration’s strategy. Instead of delivering a specific plan, the president outlined eight lofty principles—including the goal of universal coverage and making coverage affordable—and is leaving it to Congress to fill in the blanks. (By mid-June, there were signs that Obama had decided to assume more of a leadership role in the debate.) The press has reported this strategy as Obama learning from the Clintons’ mistakes. But this frame misses a larger point: the lack of concrete legislation to be picked over and explained—coupled with an accelerated timetable for action set by congressional leaders and the president and the dominance of rhetoric about how the “stars are aligned” for reform—have so far precluded a thorough debate.

Neither Obama nor the press have built a consensus for reform. It’s hard to assemble one when the public doesn’t know what reform actually means. An engineering doctoral student from the University of California at Berkeley and a Manhattan hairdresser recently asked me the same question: What is single-payer? And last spring, my journalism students at CUNY asked people on the streets of New York what they knew about the differences between a public-plan option and private insurance. “I didn’t know there is a difference,” one said. Another added: “Public, everybody knows about it; private, nobody does.”

Yeah see, if I bribe you to do something and you take the cash but ignore my requests you’re just as bribed as the guy who takes my money and does exactly what I say. It’s a fact!

What a relief to know that the guy who stole my wallet after all those other people decided not to, may not have done it for the money.

Guys, the Gates thing is a big deal. Without knowing the facts, Obama pilloried the white cop, made the issue a racial one and said nothing about the propriety of Gates’ conduct (whether he had the right to do it or not). That looks like he’s not even-handed on race. And that’s a problem, particularly for a guy who thought himself the right guy to lecture America on race.
.
Moreover, and I know I sound like a broken record on this, this is not an isolated incident (so it’s analogous to Trent Lott–his Strom Thurmond comment, while repellent, was unforgivable when viewed in light of Trent’s other issues). Justin Barker, the white victim in the Jena Six case, was viciously assaulted by 6 black teens. They jumped him, knocked him unconscious and continued to beat him while he was prostrate and only stopped when forced to stop. Barack Obama characterized this as “a schoolyard fight”. What was Obama doing euphemizing the actions of the black assailants?
.
These two comments show Obama not to be even-handed when it comes to race. And coverage of the Gates comment should include Obama’s Jena comments.
.
Now I am sure I will be pilloried as a racist troll for saying this, but honest libs will know I make a valid point.

In keeping with the theme, if not the content (such as it is), of this post, I guess we shouldn’t assume that you’re a racist just because you keep making racist remarks. Anyway, incredibly self-absorbed and self-important (and a little bit dumb) does it for me:

1) Racism isn’t “even-handed”; that’s the whole f*cking point.

2) Sgt. James Crowley is a public official with the state-given power to detain and arrest people who are a threat to themselves or others, while the “Jena Six” are a bunch of street thugs.

3) Your sense of personal grievance and injustice over perceived racism against white people seems quite misplaced and pathetic to most other white people.

The fact check piece is very flawed. The medical industrial complex is giiving cash to people who support the so-called “public option” in order to keep single payer off the table.

As others have pointed out – we have models of different health care delivery systems from around the world – including our own failed system – which gives us a very clear picture of what works and doesn’t work. Strangely enough, the single-payer system, arguably the most cost effective and efficient of all sytems is off the table.

A lot of politicians like to say that we we have a “uniquely American system” that we have to preserve. Let’s be honest: The uniquely American System is a for-profit system.

sw, wow, you really know how to miss the point. The issue is not Crowley’s authority, but Obama’s lack of evenhandedness here. Gates clearly was antagonistic and wrong, even if he should not have been arrested (I don;t think he should have been.) Obama said not a word about that, and, with an admitted lack of knowledged, basically branded the cop as a racist. So you have Obama piling on the white cop and saying nothing about the transgressions of Gates. Calling a cop who was rightfully investigating a report all sorts of names in the book is a crappy thing to do. Yet, Obama said nothing about that (probably because it got in the way of the narrative).
.
And, as Obama;s Jena comments demonstrate, it’s not the first time.
.
and sw, you can ad hominem all you like, but the point I raise is very difficult to deal with.

“The fact check piece is very flawed.”

The dumbest leap of logic I’ve heard recently and I listen to Sean Hannity!

The fact that single-payer is off the table puts the lie to the idea, promoted by both sides, that they are searching for cost savings. They have taken the cheapest option off the table, before they start looking for the cheapest option.

“Gates clearly was antagonistic and wrong…”

You don’t know that.

”Obama said not a word about that…”

Obama didn’t know what was said either so he had no ability/reason to comment about what was said.

” Calling a cop who was rightfully investigating a report all sorts of names in the book is a crappy thing to do.”

Obama didn’t call anyone any names. He said the police on a call about a possible break-in acted stupidly for arresting a man in his own home after he produced proof that it was his own home. Nothing “difficult” about that for rational people who don’t have a ridiculous personal axe to grind. Your assumptions and distortions about this event completely expose your motives and they are pretty strange and disgusting.

Agreed. It’s about maintaining the status quo which serves our elites and now, apparently, giving cover to politicians who have (through pure-as-driven-snow motives unrelated to the $millions in campaign cash they recieve) decided to deny the public the health care policies they prefer and instead write into law the health care policies preferred by the insurance industry that helps them keep their jobs.

The problem I see here is that the article assumes that more money= less support. While one would expect that to be generally true, it ignores the other reasons-attempts to sway, an effort to get certain clauses added or killed, even just an attempt to buy a seat at the table-that insurances companies might have to donate large sums of cash to a politician. While this article does kill the idea that more money always means less support, it doesn’t give enough counter-examples-I only counted 3-to invalidate that as a general rule of thumb.

KT, you know what bugs me about this is factcheck.org’s smug use of the term “fact” here. I think the discussion among the commenters is pretty much proof that all factcheck has done here is express an opinion. The ad wasn’t misleading, even by ommission.

Now even public plan does not look good. Clyburn was asked by Ed Schultz why Obama was not talking about a public plan last night and today. Clyburn said public plan was still wanted by a lot of the house, and then said some were talking about a trigger..

The people at the town hall today did not seem happy about insurance companies.

Good call.

The ‘FactCheck’ article refers to Bachus receiving $3,973,485 and then states: ‘…we found that Kennedy has been the recipient of $2,286,347 from the health care sector since 1989‘. The article suggests that the contributions to both men are similar despite Kennedy’s support for a public plan. This is extremely deceiving.

Looking at only the 2008 contributions listed on OpenSecrets we find:

$1,173,275 for Baucus
$84,940 for Kennedy

The contributions, during a period where real health care legislation is likely to be passed, are not so similar after all.

Conspiracy!!!!!1111!

As pafro said, the byline on this piece immediately calls into question both the accuracy and the agenda behind the piece. Using contributions made over the last 20 years is specious, and knowing whom the author is, intentional. As others point out, single payer has been kept of the table, and that is a significant victory for the industry. What I want to see is how much money those who vote for a public option get in the future.

Well put.

It’s a small point, but I find this part of the so-called ‘FactCheck’ article kind of ironic:

Now, to be perfectly frank, we don’t know how much influence the industry’s contributions have had on the views of any senator compared with other factors. That would require a scenario something like the one conjured in “Being John Malkovich,” and we’re pretty sure we don’t want to go climbing around inside the minds of our elected officials. (In fact, the more we think about it, the creepier it seems.)
But we’re confident that the groups airing the ads haven’t done that, either.

Viveca Novak is confident. How? Maybe she was climbing around inside the minds of the people who wrote the ads.

This link has some good reasons for bluedogs to vote for passing health insurance. Nate has something similar.

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2009/07/politicval_calculations_for_de.php

So, the insurance industry hands out wads of money expecting nothing in return, simply because they are in a generous mood. (How do their shareholders feel about that?)

Then, by complete coincidence, the legislative process is totally compromised in favor of the insurance industry.

It’s sort of the political equivalent of quantum entanglement.

Konnichi wa KT!? What ever happened with the page #s? Can you use your enormous influence with the Sheriffs, High?

To get to pg. 3 in Joe’s last post, one has to scroll through two pgs. in their entirety first. What’s that about? So, pg. #s pretty please, preferably at the top of the thread.

President Obama knows too much about health care. That’s our media folks.

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg
*** A snoozer conference: Last night’s primetime news conference, President Obama’s fourth since taking office, was as much a dry health-care symposium as it was a give-and-take with reporters.

Honest question: Is there a point when the president knows too much about an issue? He got into the weeds a number of times on a number of different aspects of health care, which is what his diehard supporters love, but might not grab the attention of the average viewer.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/

I wouldn’t say that campaign money explains it all.

The D.C. Village establishment lives on K-Street funding, access, and above all, making the tycoon class that owns our mainstream media ever richer.

That’s why dirty hippies who believe in single-payer don’t get invited to Katherine Weymouth’s cocktail parties.

And Senators and House Reps know there’s far more to the story than just the money they receive directly.

Dennis Kucinich gets treated like a clown by our corporate press corps.

An energy industry puppet-clown like James Inhofe gets treated like a Senator.

There is a lot more to manufacturing consent than campaign donations.
~

It is tiresome watching them always project their pathological shallowness on everyone else.

Versailles on the Potomac, it’s lovely in Spring and Fall.

Alas, single-payer will remain too far from the center to get passed…(thank goodness)

Alas, single-payer will remain too far from the center to get passed…(thank goodness)

Could you supply an explanation for this opinion?

I mean the “thank goodness” part.
~

It’s interesting that those who are most obsessively opposed to single-payer, hold themselves out as fiscal conservatives. I would have thought a fiscal conservative is someone who seeks the lowest cost alternative, that satisfies all the requirements. Surely, a fiscal conservative doesn’t first rule out the most efficient alternatives, before they start considering their options. That’s the behavior of an idiot, not a fiscally shrewd operator.

“Rafshoon mentioned some particular item in the speech and said, ‘Mr. President, the press is gonna kill you for this.’

“Carter nodded thoughtfully a few times. Then he said, in that soft Georgia voice, with a kindly smile: ‘F— the press.’

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2009/07/malaise-footnote-carter-cusses.html#entry-more

As much as NPR often annoys me, they are doing some good work on the money spent on lobbying. The other day they discussed how much various congress people receive. Yesterday they focused on the big pharma report of expenditures. For example, in April, May, and June, “PhRMA and its member companies spent $40 million lobbying Congress. That’s more than $3 million each week.” Bought and paid for indeed.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106899074

I don’t really understand why everyone is so adamant for a public plan. There is plenty of evidence out there that government-run health care leads to high taxes and rationing of services.

Instead of introducing a new large, inefficient player into health care, why not just regulate? Allow insurance companies two options: provide a mandated, bare-bones plan to anyone who wants to buy, or create your own plans to sell in any way you see fit (so long as they include, at a minimum, the bare-bones stuff). Those who choose the minimal, universal mandate would operate at non-profit levels to lower prices and make their money by getting X% on top, paid for by the gov’t. Those who choose to offer plans with all the bells and whistles would operate much as they do now. Companies would have to be forced to sell their contracts to separate entities (wholly owned by themselves or otherwise) to choose the regulated option.

I believe this is a viable method to lower insurance costs. Those like myself that believe health insurance should be invoked sparingly (real emergencies) can buy into an affordable plan that provides just that and those that like the bells and whistles can have that as well. The main benefit of this option is that the bells and whistles don’t raise the cost for people who don’t utilize them. And it keeps the government from making yet another department that runs inefficiently (Anyone been to the DMV lately? Now imagine that your appendix is bursting while you’re there).

First, why do you assume that the a government health plan would be inefficient. The two most efficient health care plans are Tricare and VA, both run by the government.

Second, its not the health insurance companies plans that are the problem, it is the fact that they drop people who get too sick or have a preexisting condition.

Karen is now on Radio Times, WHYY Philadelphia. 10:00 to 11:00 EDT discussing the health care plans. Will be on the web later at http://www.whyy.org/radiotimes

I don’t really understand why everyone is so adamant for a public plan…why not just regulate?

Yes, because government regulation of industries never fails, is ignored, never changes with the political winds, and is always enforced.

There is plenty of evidence out there that government-run health care leads to high taxes and rationing of services.

Yes, health care – regardless of who ‘runs’ it – costs money, whether it’s in taxes or insurance premiums. The key is controlling/regulating cost, which means that someone will have to accept a lower amount for their products and services.

Instead of introducing a new large, inefficient player into health care…

Your ‘new large, inefficient player’ is already in health care, not that I agree with that characterization.

Those like myself that believe health insurance should be invoked sparingly..

Talk about inefficient. The empahsis should be on ongoing, preventative care. Easier and cheaper to deal with health issues in the early stages than wait until they become a ‘real emergency’.

Now imagine that your appendix is bursting while you’re there.

Now, imagine that you have you have to give up your home and retirement savings in order to even get in the door. That’s the reality for millions of Americans right now.

“First, why do you assume that the a government health plan would be inefficient.”

Being universal, the scale of a government option would most likely make it inefficient. Take a look at other services the government offers to all of its people.

“Second, its not the health insurance companies plans that are the problem, it is the fact that they drop people who get too sick or have a preexisting condition.”

As I understand it, problems with health insurance include flighty coverage, as you have mentioned, and costs. Under my suggestion, companies that are under the regulated option would be mandated to provide coverage to any interested buyer, regardless of current health with few exceptions. The “get too sick” portion of your rebuttal occurs when customers request payment for services that “technically” fall outside of their plan. The implementation of a simple, minimal plan by the regulated companies would hopefully reduce this problem.

Additionally, as a healthy individual, you would most likely pay more for your coverage under both the current proposals in the House and my suggestion because of risk pooling (you’d have to pay for yourself and for those older and sicker than yourself). But because the government would not cover all of the costs under my proposal, just a flat rate on top of all the costs, costs to individuals to support the rest of society (taxes) would be lower than the government option. A universal government option would almost certainly create high taxes in some form.

@ grape_crush

I find it kind of interesting that after the out-cry against deregulation of the financial market and its subsequent collapse, people would argue so strongly against the regulation of the health insurance industry.

By “large and inefficient” I meant what would likely happen if the government were to enter health insurance as a universal provider. I did not mean to say they are not all ready involved.

And how is using insurance sparingly inefficient? High costs are in part due to Americans spending money that isn’t theirs — people are always less careful with other people’s money. If people choose to prioritize their income to provide for routine health costs and rely less on insurance, we would almost certainly see health costs decline via supply and demand.

“Now, imagine that you have you have to give up your home and retirement savings in order to even get in the door. That’s the reality for millions of Americans right now.”

I’d like to see a testimony of someone who sold their home to have health insurance.

Does an organisation automatically get credibility by calling itself factcheck.org? I see some very selective “fact checking” at work here; and the money Kennedy received over two decades is set off again st Baucus’ trawl over what time period? Anyway, the Novak woman did not do too well in the Valerie Plame affair. Wasn’t she at TIME eons ago?

Anyone see posts by sgw, bitter and sz lately?

Take a look at other services the government offers to all of its people.

VA Hospital system? Medicare? Social Security?

I mean, there will always be stories of people having bad experiences, but – when properly funded – most people I talk to are satisfied.

Now, I will admit that the legislative sausage-making going on in Congress is hugely inefficient, but that’s a different animal.

A universal government option would almost certainly create high taxes in some form.

Higher taxes vs. high (and rising) insurance premiums…either way, we’re paying.

Question is: Are we getting our money’s worth?

sevenoaks – I have had my doubts about factcheck for quite a while. They put out some things during the primaries that I thought were highly doubtful. I posted a link on first page to a better source. (It ran over the red on the right, but still works.)

sgw got tired of highjacked threads and is now mostly twittering. sz has been busy with personal happy things, a few twitters, but I think he also got tired of threads that were full of off topic rants. I told sgw things were better, but immediately after that several threads were hijacked again.

I don’t know anything about the VA Hospital system, but Medicare and Social Security are poor examples of government efficiency. They both need fixing.

I think the point I have failed to get across is that if the government regulates businesses that provide the mandated plan, their business model changes to benefit the consumer. The status quo is that companies deny coverage as much as they can to make money — less coverage and higher premiums equals higher revenue. Under a regulated structure, companies would have incentive to provide more coverage, not less. Since the gov’t would pay a percentage based off of these companies’ coverage expenditures, they would seek to cover as much as possible. Since they are mandated to provide only basic coverage, costs stay under control. And being non-profit, base costs would adjust less due to risk and expenditure.

A problem I have emphasized before is that many people are getting MORE than their money’s worth. I will not argue that denial of coverage is a huge problem, especially for those with pre-existing conditions. But when people run to insurance to cover every medical expense, they consume more than they truly need and raise costs via supply and demand. Paying more out-of-pocket would reduce costs.

I apologize if I am one of those thread “hijackers.” Since I’m still talking about health care, I think its still relatively on-topic.

Thank you Ivy_B. Appreciate you reply.

So does this one.

It seems that the Blue Dogs are betraying their number one campaign donor (unions) in favor of their number two campaign donor (health insurance companies), and number one is getting pissed off about it.

Hi: sevenoaks. I am following Swampland from my cottage here in France. But I am not “allowed” to spend too much time on the net: a deal with the fam. Lots of walking, some good food and wine!!! Back home next week.

kjata30 – Not directed at you.

Bonjour bitter!!

@kjata30: I find it kind of interesting that after the out-cry against deregulation of the financial market and its subsequent collapse, people would argue so strongly against the regulation of the health insurance industry.

Yes, me too. But since the regulation we’re discussing could affect profitability – in Big Finance, Big Insurance, and Big Healthcare – there’s plenty of impetus to repeat past mistakes.

If people choose to prioritize their income to provide for routine health costs and rely less on insurance..

Not everyone has the income that they can prioritize getting regular checkups or preventative care.

…we would almost certainly see health costs decline via supply and demand.

Part of the problem with finding a solution to this issue is that we’re treating health care as a commodity to derive as much profit as you can from instead of something you have to have in order to live. At the least, health care should be considered as a utiliy, like your water department or electricity provider.

This is why the whole argument of requiring everyone to buy health insurance is flawed…unlike a car, I can’t stop driving my body if I get into an accident.

And how is using insurance sparingly inefficient?

Waiting to go see a doctor until that lump in your breast has metastasized creates a harder hit – economically, at the very least – than going in for regular breast examinations, detecting it early, and removing the single tumor.

That’s just one example.

I’d like to see a testimony of someone who sold their home to have health insurance.

Not health insurance. Health care. Plenty of stories out there about people losing their homes, retirement savings, declaring bankruptcy due to a catastrophic health crisis. Try Google.

I’m glad we agree about some things.

True, not everyone has the income to prioritize health care. Those individuals should be supported. Its those that choose not to have health insurance that should not be complaining about it. My aunt and uncle are a perfect example. New hybrid, addition to the house, but no health insurance — because its too expensive. Its not: they choose to spend their incomes on other things. Health insurance is not a priority to them.

I don’t know if you’re seeing the point of my argument. Regulating health insurance providers would make the industry much like a utility. Additionally, no one would be FORCED to get insurance. The regulated option is just AVAILABLE to everyone.

I’m not arguing that preventive care is less effective than reactive care. I completely agree with you. I am just arguing about the extent to which insurance provides coverage. I personally do not think using insurance for basic medical expenditures helps our situation.

“Not health insurance. Health care. ”

Sorry, I misinterpreted your comment. This is true, and due to the large problem of denial of coverage.

@kjata30: We’re having a good discussion! So nice after some of the trolling we’ve had to suffer through. Thanks.

Under a regulated structure, companies would have incentive to provide more coverage, not less. Since the gov’t would pay a percentage based off of these companies’ coverage expenditures, they would seek to cover as much as possible. Since they are mandated to provide only basic coverage, costs stay under control. And being non-profit, base costs would adjust less due to risk and expenditure.

I’m unclear; you’re suggesting that insurance companies:
- be regulated like utilities
- are subsidized by the government by paying a percentage of the cost of the care
- are only required to provide ‘basic coverage’ – however that is determined
- would all be non-profits

Is that correct? if so, then I’m left wondering what the purpose of having a health insurance industry would be under your plan.

*side note: Your ideas about the direction of health care reform notwithstanding, I still don’t know what value an insurance company adds to the health care system. Single-payer just seems more efficient.

“We are worried about ‘the cow’ – when it is all about the ‘Ice Cream’.

The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year.

The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest.
I decided we would have an election for a class president.

We would choose our nominees.
They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.

To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members.

We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have.

We got many nominations and from those -
Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.

The class had done a great job in their selections.
Both candidates were good kids.

I thought Jamie might have an advantage, because he got lots of parental support.
I had never seen Olivia’s mother.

The day arrived when they were to make their speeches.
Jamie went first.

He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place.
He ended by promising to do his very best.
Everyone applauded and he sat down.

Now is was Olivia’s turn to speak.
Her speech was concise.
She said, “If you will vote for me – I will give you ice cream.”

She sat down.
The class went wild. “Yes! Yes! We want ice cream.”

She surely would say more – she did not have to.

A discussion followed – how did she plan to pay for the ice cream?

She wasn’t sure.

Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it?

She didn’t know.

The class really didn’t care.

All they were thinking about was ice cream.
Jamie was forgotten – Olivia won by a landslide.

Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth … he offered ice cream
and 52 percent of the people reacted like nine year olds.

They wanted ice cream!

The other 48 percent know that they’re going to have to feed the cow…
and clean up the mess.

Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone …
that they have not first taken away from someone else.

The health insurance companies under this proposal would take the burden of providing coverage off of the government. These companies are all ready in place, and could (arguably) provide it quicker and more effectively than the government. This would avoid the up-front costs of creating the government program, and cost far less publicly than a single-payer option. The gov’t would only pay a percentage on top, rather than the whole deal.

Further, companies that opt to provide “premium” coverage would be separated from the “basic-coverage” companies. Only “basic-coverage” companies would be regulated and non-profit (defining “basic-coverage” is beyond the scope of my argument; this is just high-level conceptualizing). This would increase efficiency (as one company would not have to deal with two business models) and reduce costs to customers in both pools (a healthy person with a bare-bones package would not have to support a baby-boomer with all of the bells and whistles of the premium package, for example).

The problem with single payer is that pooling everyone together pools risk. Healthy individuals support the sick. Additionally, its likely that any gov’t plan produced would come with a significant level of coverage. Not only would healthy individuals support the sick with serious operations, but also with every other expense they charge to insurance (think prescription drugs, physical therapy, etc.) This is all well-and-good from an ethical standpoint, but costs will be enormous, and disproportionately so for those who aren’t even utilizing the plan.

The issue as to the format of medical coverage will be resolved when the majority of Republican voters realize that they are being screwed by the medical/pharmaceutical/insurance companies who are the major donors to their Republican elected “leadership.”

Of course, most Republican voters still believe the lie about Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction. And of course, they are some of the same ones wondering about why we are fighting in Afghanistan ignoring the threat funded by billions of dollars of heroin revenue.

Those who don’t trust President Obama should look at the track record of his critics and be ashamed.

By calling out “the majority of Republican voters” as being the partisan problem behind health care, you are furthering the problem.

The problem behind health care is general ignorance on the part of Americans, red and blue. Do something useful: propose viable solutions or at the very least, spout accurate facts. Flaming does no one any good.

The health insurance companies under this proposal would take the burden of providing coverage off of the government.

For a fee that currently is more than what it takes the government to do the same type of administration.

These companies are all ready in place, and could (arguably) provide it quicker and more effectively than the government.

Arguably.

The problem with single payer is that pooling everyone together pools risk. Healthy individuals support the sick.

And that is different from what insurance companies do now in what way?

..a healthy person with a bare-bones package would not have to support a baby-boomer…

Which, in turn, gives you a smaller pool of people to spread the risk of loss across.

Anyway, the sad, discompassionate idea that “I don’t want to pay for someone else’s medical bills” works up until the point you can’t pay for your own.

..its likely that any gov’t plan produced would come with a significant level of coverage.

I hope so.

…costs will be enormous…

Yes, health care will cost money. That’s why it’s important to control costs.

…disproportionately so for those who aren’t even utilizing the plan.

And that is different from what occurs now exactly how? What happens when someone who isn’t ‘utilizing the plan’ suddenly needs to?

“For a fee that currently is more than what it takes the government to do the same type of administration.”

Pay for every health expense for everyone on the plan, or pay 5% of that (number for argument’s sake). How is 5% more expensive?

“The problem with single payer is that pooling everyone together pools risk. Healthy individuals support the sick.

And that is different from what insurance companies do now in what way?”

Individuals currently (more or less) pay for their own risk. Premiums for the sick and elderly are far higher than the young and healthy. Pooling risk means lowering the costs for sick and elderly, but raising costs for healthy. It is effectively a tax on your good health.

“..its likely that any gov’t plan produced would come with a significant level of coverage.

I hope so.”

The part people seem to miss is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Everyone having a large level of coverage would mean everyone paying for that large level of coverage. You would most likely not have a choice in the matter. Additionally, those that are healthy and not utilizing the finer points of the plan would still pay for it, along with supporting the millions of others that do.

“Yes, health care will cost money. That’s why it’s important to control costs.”

How does single-payer propose to control costs? I feel that cost controls are very clear in my proposal.

“…disproportionately so for those who aren’t even utilizing the plan.

And that is different from what occurs now exactly how? What happens when someone who isn’t ‘utilizing the plan’ suddenly needs to?”

Not really sure what you’re talking about. It is likely, under a single-payer plan, that everyone will be forced into the same coverage. The way things are now (not that I support the status quo), you pay for what you use. There’s nothing but cost to stop you from shopping around for the insurance that suits you. Creating a single plan for everyone ensures that some (many) people will have options they are not utilizing, but still forces them to pay for it (as well as support others who do use it).

Just One State
This is only one State……………If this doesn’t open your eyes nothing will ! ?

cid:A385C81B-199B-4D4C-8234-F03E911A30FDFrom the L. A. Times

1. 40% of all workers in L. A. County ( L. A. County has 10.2 million people)are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.

2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens..
4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal , whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages..
7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.

8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

9. 21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.

10. In L. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish.
(There are 10.2 million people in L. A. County )

(All 10 of the above are from the Los Angeles Times)

Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare. Over 70% of the United States ‘ annual population growth (and over 90% of California , Florida , and New York ) results from immigration. 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

We are a bunch of fools for letting this continue

“We are worried about ‘the cow’ – when it is all about the ‘Ice Cream’.

The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year.

The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest.
I decided we would have an election for a class president.

We would choose our nominees.
They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.

To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members.

We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have.

We got many nominations and from those -
Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.

The class had done a great job in their selections.
Both candidates were good kids.

I thought Jamie might have an advantage, because he got lots of parental support.
I had never seen Olivia’s mother.

The day arrived when they were to make their speeches.
Jamie went first.

He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place.
He ended by promising to do his very best.
Everyone applauded and he sat down.

Now is was Olivia’s turn to speak.
Her speech was concise.
She said, “If you will vote for me – I will give you ice cream.”

She sat down.
The class went wild. “Yes! Yes! We want ice cream.”

She surely would say more – she did not have to.

A discussion followed – how did she plan to pay for the ice cream?

She wasn’t sure.

Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it?

She didn’t know.

The class really didn’t care.

All they were thinking about was ice cream.
Jamie was forgotten – Olivia won by a landslide.

Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth … he offered ice cream
and 52 percent of the people reacted like nine year olds.

They wanted ice cream!

The other 48 percent know that they’re going to have to feed the cow…
and clean up the mess.

Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone …
that they have not first taken away from someone else.

Victoria Jackson?

“The problem with single payer is that pooling everyone together pools risk. Healthy individuals support the sick.”

Fist off, there is no “single-payer” proposal, that was decided to be a non-starter by our corporate overloards. Second, the public option – basically a policy that is available to everyone, regardless of whether a private insurer will cover them – has to compete with private plans so, in the worst case, only those who can’t get private insurance would go there. Though I doubt that the insurance giants would be pulling out all the stops to kill it if that were likely.

Third, pooling risk and cost is a benefit in any system, that’s how you bring down the average cost of coverage per person. Right now that cost is paid through higher insurance premiums and higher medical costs because the cost of treating those without insurance (or a trust fund) is spread throughout the system one way or another.

I understand that single-payer is not on the table. I was just arguing its merits and drawbacks. I also understand the public option, but I feel that it is not the right way to go about it.

As for pooling risk, it is not generally beneficial as you claim. Pooling risk benefits those with higher risk and punishes those with lower risk. Those with low risk currently pay low premiums, and high risk customers pay higher premiums. Pooling will lower costs for high risk (beneficial) and raise costs for low risk (not beneficial).

What I have proposed is limited pooling. Costs are controlled by limiting what can be covered to those in the pool. This has the benefit of the public option, where anyone can opt in, and the benefit of greater price adjustment for high risk and less price adjustment for low risk (since profit does not have to be made from premiums). This also avoids putting insurance in the hands of the government, which historically has not shown great efficiency in large public services.

“…the cost of treating those without insurance (or a trust fund) is spread throughout the system one way or another.”

No solution I have seen eliminates this cost. In the public option, this is integrated into the cost we would pay in taxes. If it is a goal of our society to support those who literally cannot afford insurance (and not those who simply choose not to partake in it), this cost will arise in one form or another.

So your proposal is to segregate high-risk (sick people) and low-risk and “limiting what can be covered” to control cost. Well, as long as you’re well, that does seem like a plausible way for you to avoid paying for people who are much sicker than you – which seems to be your major concern. Good luck with that.

You completely misinterpreted my post.

People are currently “segregated” by risk. Scroll up to read my proposal please.

kjata30 –

Be ye honest’ tryin’ t’ say tha’ ye be no’understandin’ tha’ th’ whole POINT o’ PRIVATE INSURANCE, ‘deed, insurance o’ ANY sort, BE t’ be poolin risk?

An’ those who no’ be sick already BE payin’ fer those who be lucky ‘nough t’ not’ve been dropped (yet) fr’m their private insurance when they be gettin’ sick?

An’ tha’ we ALL be already payin’ NOW fer those who be sick wi’ no insurance?

An’ tha’ in addition, those who no be sick be th’ ones payin’ th’ profits t’ th’ investors in these companies, ’cause th’ poor an’ th’ sick can’t be payin ‘em?

Ye really be no’ understandin’ tha’???

An’ ye really be tryin’ t’ claim tha’ govt. run insurance be goin’ t’ be so much more expensive, despite th’ fact tha’ every other country tha’ be havin’ it be spendin less money on better health care outcomes?

Why be we so diff’rent an’ s’posedly incapable o’ doin’ th’ same?

I’ve me a hard time b’lievin’ ye…ye be soundin’ ri’ trollish, d’spite yer protestin’ (too much), in yer twistin’ an’ obfuscatin’ an’ out an’ out lyin under th’ guise o’ “discussion.”!

Yer warts be showin’!

YARR!