Latest Column

So very predictable. Unions as the bad guys? Check

“Very, very occasionally a special interest will take it on the chin — as the teachers’ unions did when Bush passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which mandated a testing regimen the teachers didn’t like.”

” Another Democratic interest group, organized labor, has blocked the most logical and progressive way to fund a universal health-care system ”

“the best-constructed health-care bill, developed by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, would eliminate the health-care tax exclusion the unions want.”

Tired, and debunked, claim that “it’s those darn lawyers!”? Check

“It seems obvious that the cost of malpractice insurance cripples doctors”

When you see domestic policy through a 1980s prism you don’t bring much to the table.

One last thing is ” It was before the Democrats and Republicans transformed themselves into more strictly ideological parties.” is true then wouldn’t that mean with the majorities the Democrats have in Congress that something would be easier rather than harder to get done?
Or was that the obligatory “both sides are the same” stuff that passes for chin stroking intellectualism?

You’re right that the “special interests” are a problem, Joe.

But just as big a problem are the “especially disinterested” — your colleagues in the media.

They clearly don’t understand the problem, as most of them are fully-insured, upper-middle-class professionals with steady good paychecks, people who never have to give this a second thought.

But they clearly don’t *want* to understand it either. They let gross misrepresentations and flat-out lies about the proposals go by them without flinching in the slightest, and as soon as possible, they shift their attention to the bright shiny objects off to the side: Michael Jackson, Henry Louis Gates, etc. etc.

The special interests are clogging things up, sure. But the especially disinterested members of the media aren’t helping either.

What does that mean, Joe:
autoworkers get a package worth about $15,000 per year

What does that mean, exactly? How does that compare to your “package”? Does that mean that an auto worker’s health insurance costs the company $15,000 per year? Or does it mean that auto workers USE $15,0000 a year in health care? How does that compare to yours?

Again, I call BS. Where’s the documentation for this rather specific figure? Please point me to the reference, and I would expect it to have comparable numbers for other industries as well.

Remember: It’s No Feeding Thursday in the Swamp…

Joe: The thrust of your article seems to be that it is difficult to make an argument to fix something that doesn’t “seem” broken. Yet, people are generally willing to buy all sorts of products “just in case” something goes wrong. (Emergency power generators, home security alarms, heck, even spare tires on cars (which are standard, for goodness sakes) come to mind).

It would appear that it is about salesmanship – changing the debate on healthcare – is what really matters.

Appeals to worst case scenarios are important to this effort: “Have you ever been denied coverage?”, “Have you ever switched employers and your family doctor was now out of network?” “Have you and your kids been seeing the dentist every 6 months?”

Yes, this is selling FUD – fear, uncertainty and doubt. But, that’s what the status quo is about.

Is there any indication that the Obama and the congressional health reformers are ready to do this?

Hm. Let’s take a look at your own bloated menu of options, Joe. Talk about gold-plated! Don’t you think you writers and columnists are overpaid and driving Time Magazine to the brink of bankruptcy?

//
Time Warner: Employee Benefits
We value our employees and provide competitive medical employee benefits programs to support their well-being. Our Total Rewards program includes dental, 401(k) savings, flexible spending accounts for healthcare and dependent care, transportation re-imbursement accounts, disability management, pension (in some divisions) and life-insurance offerings. We evaluate the company’s benefits and compensation practices on an ongoing basis to make sure that we are rewarding our employees fairly for their efforts.

Health Benefits
All full-time employees select healthcare from the same menu of options and quality service is given to all employees. We also offer specialized programs to employees. For example, in 2007 we developed an initiative to assist the loved ones of Time Warner employees who pass-away while employed by the company. Loved ones are offered third-party assistance to help sort through financial and legal matters that may arise. We also introduced a healthcare service for employees and their families who are faced with a serious or chronic medical condition. With just a phone call, employees gain access to third-party medical experts that provide current, comprehensive, and objective information on over 50 different medical conditions to enable individuals to be more knowledgeable in making medical decisions.

Dependent Care – A Broader Lens
We understand that employees have a range of responsibilities outside of the workplace. Our employee assistance programs, therefore, take an inclusive approach in defining an employee’s “dependent” as someone who relies on the employee for financial or emotional well-being, even if this person is not a member of the employee’s immediate family. We provide support for employees when they need to care for any loved one. As part of this inclusive approach, we extend our core benefits offerings to domestic partners, allow employees to purchase long term care insurance for their parents through our company plan, and provide additional paid time off and a stipend of up to $5,000 to cover child adoption expenses.

Wellness Programs
Time Warner invests in services and education to keep our employees healthy. All Time Warner busi- nesses offer maternity support through access to personal obstetrics nurses (in some locations the nurse assigned to an employee may check in with the new mother at the hospital to confirm that she has the information she needs, employee assistance, and mental health programs. Additionally, some of our businesses offer cash reimbursement for wellness activities, onsite fitness centers, and onsite health services. We also provide information to our employees about health and wellness through seminars, screenings, and awareness campaigns.

Childcare Options
Some divisions of Time Warner provide onsite childcare, and a back-up care center is provided in New York City for employees’ use when their regular childcare is unavailable. In addition, all employees can participate in an assistance program that offers referral services for finding day care options and nannies. Divisions also have programs in place to support new parents. For example, AOL has a Well Baby program open to new parents that is available prior to conception through delivery. AOL also partners with Fatherhood Initiatives, a nonprofit organization that helps engage fathers in raising their children.

Flexible Work Arrangements
At some of our divisions, employees partner with their managers to develop flexible work arrangement schedules. The purpose of these schedules is to enable employees increased flexibility in how, when, and where they get their work done and to increase employee satisfaction and decrease unwanted turnover.
///

I dunno. Maybe you are just more deserving than people who build automobiles.

Time Warner Inc.’s second-quarter profit fell 34%, dragged down by the spinoff of its cable-television provider and continued advertising deterioration at its AOL and magazine businesses.
And gold-plated employee benefits, no doubt.

There are only two sorts of legislation that seem to pass these days: things that have to pass, like budgets — and cotton-candy giveaways, like tax cuts

You forgot about entirely meaningless ‘non-binding resolutions’ decreeing that everybody should feel good about x for 15 minutes…….

James–

Actually, I’ve checked this out. Time Warner employees get a package worth $11,200. This is what our insurers charge per person for comprehensive medical care including mental health, plus dental and drugs. There are co-pays for each service, which have been rising rapidly (especially for drugs–about 50% per prescription, I’ve noticed). I’m not sure what the UAW package includes, but many of the unions–especially the public employees–negotiated plans that included first dollar coverage (in other words, no co-pays). Historically, it’s been easier for unions to negotiate benefit deals than pay increases, largely because benefits are tax deductible and, in the case of public employees unions, easier to hide from the public.

Joe, thanks for responding. Please provide some kind of reference for that $15,000 figure. Do they have co-pays?

And please show me where public employees — SEIU I assume you are talking about — have plans with no co-pays. I highly doubt that.

Where do you get your $11,200 figure? I posted a description of your plan, which includes non-dependents apparently. I think your plan is worth much more than the purported auto worker’s plan. Please provide references for your figures.

Joe: Unions negotiate benefits…and companies approve these packages. Remember: there are 2 signatures on every contract.

If I agreed in 1980 to pay you $1000 plus a gold coin every week, it would have been a good deal for me when gold was at $200/oz. Now that it’s at $1000/oz, should I be able to cry foul? Or is it time for a public option to step in?

It seems obvious that the cost of malpractice insurance cripples doctors….

So why are we blaming lawyers when its the insurance premiums that are the actual cost……

In any event, the use of the phrase ‘trial lawyers’ is indeed intensly disghonest. Are the lawyers who defend doctors “trial lawyers.” Are they Democrats. What about the lawyers who go after copywrite infringers? Are they “trial lawyers”? Are They Democrats? What about the lawyers who work in collections departments. Are they “trial lawyers”? Are they Democrats?

Here’s a description of federal workers health benefit menu:Federal Employee Insurance Programs
Looks like a less attractive menu than yours, Joe. And pretty comparable to that of private industry.

State workers:
-For 2009 the average cost of an individual policy is $502.43; with the state paying an average of $447.79 (89%) and the employee is responsible for the remainder, which is an average of $56.52. (based on 48 states)
(NOTE: for the lazy, that totals up to $6029.16 per year)
-In state employee plans, 37% of workers were in HMOs, 42% in PPOs, 16% in POS plans and 5% were in conventional indemnity coverage. However, Indemnity plans enrolled a majority of retirees in the Midwest, Northeast and South. Source: State Employee Health Benefits, 2009 Edition, NCSL

Now YOU give me an example of YOUR unproven assertions, Joe. Which public employees get plans with no co-pay? Specifically? Is that a widespread benefit? For exactly which public employees?

While we’re discussing the flaws in democracy let me just note that excessive jury awards, budget defecits, golden parachutes and obscene executive compensation all have the same root cause.
Everyone everywhere like to think about benefits, ignore costs, and consider anyone not like them as ‘undeserving’.

Our current system simply institutionalizes natural human impulses.

Paul, do you have an example of “excessive jury awards” with respect to a medical malpractice suit?

@James,

No I was only speaking from my wife’s experience sitting on a jury in a vehicle accident case. It was rather clear that the plaintiff shared significant repsonsibilty for the accident and was trumping up the extent of her hardship (including blaming a subsequent miscarriage on it) but the jury members nevertheless thought that giving her a substatial fraction of the amount of the suit would constitute ‘splitting the difference’.

PD,
Understood. But Joe’s issue is medical malpractice, and I haven’t seen a case with an “excessive award” for medical malpractice. I want to hold him to his assertions, which appear to be unfounded and without evidence.

Yes, it’s all on the unions. Obstructionist Republicans and Blue Dogs funded by the health insurance industry are doing nothing to impede progress…

http://www.political-buzz.com/

And as I noted above, the actual cost of malpractice isn’t determined by the juries but by insurers who set their premiums based on the assurance that they will collect more than they pay and pocket the difference.

I’m pretty sure that malpractice is but a small part of the cost of health care, but only feel like Googling this (detailed, instructive, fascinating, but anecdotal) article on the subject. Texas has limits on malpractice awards, yet still has some of the highest-cost areas in the country, due in some measure to the ability to run a pile of tests. (Also, Paul, the VI is not a particularly representative jurisdiction, I don’t think…)

Despite the situation Gawande describes, JK writes: “It seems obvious that the cost of malpractice insurance cripples doctors.”

But hey, why bother to do any research?

Just like in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Joe, you’re desperately seeking centrism, refusing to engage with the facts. When the chips are down, you revert to Bad Old Joe Klein, safely bashing the (largely powerless) enemies who came across your screen in 1980.

I’m sorry to be so rude. I really appreciate your interactions with commenters, and your unmatched reporting and analysis on the Middle East of late. But the media’s reversion to the old “who’s up who’s down”/”a moment fraught with peril for Democrats!” script, in spite of everything we’ve endured in the past 8 years, has me despairing for America.

Remember: It’s No Feeding Thursday in the Swamp…

I love Thursdays!

And I 100% agree about the salesmanship. That’s actually similar to what I was saying on KT’s thread about HRC’s discussion of health care on MTP. I’m almost sorry she’s at State…

Why is there no mention of all the money the insurance/ pharmaceutical lobby has pumped into the debate? It’s the big ugly gorilla in the room that people in the MSM don’t like to talk about.

Why is health reform having a difficult time? Because their’s too much profit to be made by the health industry – and they don’t want to give it up.

Not exactly on topic but something that was in the story

“It was before the Democrats and Republicans transformed themselves into more strictly ideological parties.”

Do the House republicans have subcaucuses and coalitions as the dems do (e.g., blue dog, progressive, and so on)?
I can’t think of any but I’m not sure.

Paul, the VI is not a particularly representative jurisdiction, I don’t think

For the record, I lived in Illinois until 2000. Both in Chicago and Downstate. I’d like to think that I’ve dealt with a wide variety of different viewpoints……

Now THA’d be a story Progressive organizations could easy “sell” on th’ teevee:

Scene: a bunch of fat cats gathered ’round a table a’ a fancy restaurant, laughin’ smokin’ big cigars, crackin’ lobster shells, slappin’ each other on th’ back

Voiceover:

” Health Insurance Corporations are spending 1.3 MILLION dollars of YOUR premiums EVERY DAY, lobbying Congress to stop health care reform!

Is this what you pay your premiums for?

Call your representatives TODAY, and tell them STOP taking your premiums, and START passing real health care reform!”

Aye, I’d like t’ be seein’ some hard balls hit back a’ th’ cowardly teat suckers!

YARR!

Why do I no’ be havin’ paragraph breaks!!!
.
I don’t want t’ be havin’ t’ go back t’ this!
.
YARR!

The thrust of your article seems to be that it is difficult to make an argument to fix something that doesn’t “seem” broken. I think that is a critical point. It is a mistake to take polls of the great mass of Americans asking them if they are happy with their insurance, because most people have not yet tested the quality of their coverage. It is only when you have the “opportunity” to test coverage against a major need that you actually know if what you bought was sufficient. Clearly, it’s not for many many people, which accounts for the fact that more than 50% of personal bankruptcies in America (only America) are related to medical bills, and most of those people had insurance.

I am happy with my health insurance at this moment. Will I be when I actually need it? I won’t know until I do, but one hint was when my wife was pregnant and had an amniocentesis. It was pre-approved, but we had to fight with insurance for over a year to get it paid for.

@rose83: I agree that HRC’s knowledge of the subject would be a great help. Sadly, she’d be a lightning rod for criticism again. The GOP thrives on making debates personal (HillaryCare -> ObamaCare). Makes it easier to block that way.

There are the tea-baggers, Paultards, states-rightsers, bible-thumpers, wingnuts, birthers…they all think that Rushbo is a righteous dude!

Shorter, truer, (an’ aye, broken record!) version:
.
Why it’s so hard t’ pass health care legislation -
.
B’cause ev’ryone, fer reasons o’ glutt’nous porcine greed, be refusin’ t’ consider th’ ONE option tha’d actual’ work – SINGLE PAYER!
.
Simple.
.
Bu’, I don’t be expectin’ t’ see any analysis o’ THA’ problem in any o’ th’ MSM – no’ fr’m Joe, no’ on TV, an’, incident’ly no’ fr’m KT, neither!
.
Their silence be bought wi’ th’ threat o’ denyin’ “access”.
.
Blimey – we’ve got a passle o’ pimps an’ cheap whores runnin’ th’ show!
.
YARR.

I could really go for some foreign policy, right now. This domestic-only dry-spell is sapping my will to live.

This post (column) is too bloated with Beltway CW, and this commentary is too good for me to sit out the discussion…but I may have to (work work work!).

Damn…

Joe Klein:

Thanks so very much for responding to commentary; it is greatly appreciated for the clarity it provides readers (regardless of the heat it may or may not inspire in further commentary).

Please continue to engage the commentariat, because you will exponentially increase the value of this blog.

Ha-well I naturally have mixed feelings about that second group but was more curious about organized caucuses.

But thanks kbanginmotown

Oh, it’s already war. I think that’s what Obama and the Democrats are missing: there is no option of advocating health care reform and not being a lightening rod for criticism.

The trick is to accept that reality and turn the tables. I think because HRC has already been through this once she has no illusions about how nasty this will be (and already is). Unless Obama and the pro-health care reform Democrats quickly realize that they cannot win this without attacking and playing the fear card they will waste this once in a generation opportunity.

Aye, an’ domestic policy be so bloody depressin’ a’ th’ moment too – I be no’ enjoyin’ me front seat view a’ th’ fall o’ th’ American Empire. An’ just li’ Rome, we be rottin’ fr’m wi’in an’ refusin’ t’ face it.

YARR!

OT – Ahoy me hearties! I done lost me paragraph breaks! D’ any o’ ye be knowin’ wheth’r this be a Firefox problem ‘r no’? Most o’ th’ rest o’ ye seem t’ be ok, bu’ thar do seem t’ be a few big chunks like me own.

Mayday mayday mayday!

YARR! Now ‘ow’d THA’ happen?

Testin’…

Arrgh.

And guess what – the teachers were right about NCLB.

But the President is wrong when he says, “The system we have isn’t working well for too many people.”

No, this is just an objective fact. We spend more per capita, have worse outcomes, and have more uninsured than any other industrialize nation. That’s practically the definition of “not working well.”

So are you saying that the system is working well?

Of course he means that for someone who is insured by his employer, who hasn’t YET had a claim denied or had to co-pay out the wazoo, the system SEEMS to be working.

Relative to his premise that there is a constituency for the status quo, it is a valid point.

@Joe Klein: Another Democratic interest group, organized labor, has blocked the most logical and progressive way to fund a universal health-care system — eliminating the tax exclusion on health benefits and replacing it with a progressive tax credit.

Maybe because organized labor has something better in mind than finding a new source of funding for a weakly revamped health care environment.

A viable solution is being ignored for purely political and ideological reasons.

The problem is that unions have negotiated generous health packages over the years.

Takes two to tango…And yes, those promised retiree benefits are expensive, but what should be done about that, Joe?

Then again, the benefits for current Union workers aren’t like they used to be:

In 2007, the Big Three signed a breakthrough contract with the United Auto Workers (UAW) designed, once and for all, to eliminate the compensation gap between domestic and foreign automakers in the U.S.

The agreement sought to do so, first, by creating a private trust for financing future retiree benefits–effectively removing that burden from the companies’ books. The auto companies agreed to deposit start-up money in the fund; after that, however, it would be up to the unions to manage the money. And it was widely understood that, given the realities of investment returns and health care economics, over time retiree health benefits would likely become less generous.

In addition, management and labor agreed to change health benefits for all workers, active or retired, so that the coverage looked more like the policies most people have today, complete with co-payments and deductibles.

I don’t really understand why Big Media types direct so much ire towards unions. Maybe in the dim past, an airline stewardess spilled a drink in David Broder’s lap an it just snowballed from there…

Oh, and it’s somewhat suprising that you’re making little reference to the special interests that don’t traditionally back Dems, Joe…or not. We have mentions of trial lawyers, teacher’s unions, autoworkers…nothing about insurance companies, pharma…

It was before the Democrats and Republicans transformed themselves into more strictly ideological parties.

You’d think that if this was true for the Dems, they’d be having an easier time of it.

“Something called health-reform legislation will pass,”

Well, that’s reassuring. And if I have a dog named Rex, that’s something like reinstating the monarchy.

Art, Joe’s evidence for that claim is– “The vast majority — more than 80% in the latest TIME poll — are satisfied with their health care.”

Dirk’s draws the kindest conclusion one can come to but that’s not what Joe wrote.

Yes, and it’s a fair enough point that democracies tend to be reactive. Climate change is a good example — it will be too late before we do anything.

But it’s silly to say Obama is “wrong” that the current system is failing too many people. Obviously it’s failing too many people.

From the TIME poll:

[...]respondents said they believe the final health-reform legislation is likely to raise health-care costs in the long run (62%), make everything about health care more complicated (65%) and offer less freedom to choose doctors and coverage (56%).

The last two are straight from GOP talking points and demonstrably false. I worry that Obama is losing the propaganda war here.

Losin’ it?

‘E don’t even be WAGIN’ it!

YARR!

They clearly don’t understand the problem, as most of them are fully-insured, upper-middle-class professionals with steady good paychecks, people who never have to give this a second thought.

why do you think that Joe quotes from the one survey that finds that 80% of those who have to pay a miniscule percentage of their health care costs are satisfied with their coverage. Its all about his arrogance.

The worst thing is that the unions actually support single payer and strong “public option” plans, and would be willing to see benefits be taxed if it was part of an effective reform package.

But Joe advocates the parasite approved Wyden plan that does next to nothing to cut costs or expand access to health care. Unions aren’t going support taxing their benefits when the only people who make out under the Wyden plan are the insurance companies.

Joe’s complete lack of understanding of the issues results in these kind of BS “columns” — columns that (as others have noted) ignore the elephant in the room of the millions of dollars being handed out by the special interest parasites.

You know, I could be happy with any improvement at all if I had health care. As it is, I’ve got a chronic illness that will require regular doctor’s care for the rest of my life, and I was diagnosed with it while working retail at a small business that provided me with no benefits. So I’m not happy, because the “any improvement at all” you talk about will probably leave me still falling through the cracks. To hell with that. I don’t want to die when I’m 45 because I can’t afford my treatments anymore.

Yes, you do post many good foreign items. Why not combine your foreign policy with our HC fiasco and bring up how other countries have accessible HC (most public, some private?) – while we don’t, but I digress. And pirate, just as Rome poisoned itself with lead piping and cutlery, we’re literally poisoning ourselves with all those still-uncleaned Superfund sites, polluted lakes / rivers, prescription drugs flushed down potties and winding up in our water. We have enough HC problems….

From OpenSecrets.org

Health Companies and Drug Manufactures Lead the Lobbying Pack During Year’s Second Quarter
Published by Michael Beckel on July 29, 2009 2:30 PM |

Given that so much national attention is focused on health care reform, it’s perhaps not surprising that the pharmaceutical/health products industry and the broader health sector both spent the most cash on federal-level lobbying efforts in the year’s second quarter. At stake is legislation that could significantly affect these companies’ financial fortunes.

The health sector was the No. 1 overall sector, spending $133 million during the second quarter of 2009. And within the 100-plus industries that CRP tracks, the pharmaceutical/health products industry was again the top dog on K Street, spending roughly $68 million during the quarter.

Several of the businesses and organizations within the health sector fronted multi-million dollar lobbying operations. The biggest spenders in this arena are:

Organization Second Quarter, 2009
Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America $6,150,000
Pfizer Inc $5,580,000
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $5,171,929
American Hospital Assn $4,160,000
American Medical Assn $4,115,000
Eli Lilly & Co $3,590,000
Amgen Inc $3,400,000
GlaxoSmithKline $2,280,000
Sanofi-Aventis $2,213,000
Merck KGaA $2,110,000

Many of these groups and companies also significantly increased their lobbying spending in the second quarter of 2009 compared to the second quarter of 2008.Here are the top 10 organizations with the biggest increases in dollars spent on lobbying — showing six- and even seven-figure increases.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/07/health-second-quarter-draft.html

Gosh, and you’d think that this was just a simple matter of the vast majority of Americans wanting major reforms in the health care marketplace, particularly reforms that create universality and undermine the power of insurance giants to monopolize and screw with the lives of customers, and the comfortably-perched elite forces of the corporate status quo who viscerally resent lower class attempts to change the system to their benefit. Go figure.

Only in America: how many committees in Congress are dealing with health care? One can get a poll to back anything you want – don’t fall for the “we are independent” junk. One can count on Joe’s colleagues in the Beltway and around the country to reduce complex problems to simple sentences between two ads. And they will with few exceptions rely on talking points from all sides. Just send your tp e mail and it will provide a riff for the next 60 secs between Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer, On Sunday Mr Bash will play little games on the tv screen moving around diagrams. And then talk to a few people around the table, who having had a huge breakfast paid for by CNN, don’t feel very deprived just then. Meanwhile at Fox…….

And Jesus wept.

Paul,

I think you hit the nail on the head. Doctors, some who have never had even one complaint saw their malpractice premiums skyrocket in the last few years and they want to blame the “trial lawyers”.

The truth is insurance companies took a bath in the stock market these last few years, first with the dot com bust and with the later stock market crash. They lost millions and made up for it by jacking up the malpractice premiums on the doctors, but everyone is blaming the “trial lawyers”.

Years ago I saw a survey of malpractice claims, and the rate of claims today is no different than it was one century ago. But what can increase malpractice claims?

Ironically the biggest cause of malpractice claims in medical advancement. Each time there is a great medical advance, the new technique is less familiar and puts the doctor at a greater risk of making a mistake. Imagine you had a problem with a limb. In the old days, they would just hack it off and then you would have no problem. Now in an effort to save a limb, doctors are more likely to take changes and create the possibility of making a mistake.

What is interesting to note is that the places best known for “jackpot justice” are the most conservative areas in the country and usually represented by Republicans in Congress.

Amen, Rose.

Oops, Paul-NNTO! No offense intended.

I knew you wouldn’t be able substantiate your claim, Joe. You are really no better than Krauthammer and George Will when it comes to writing about issues for which you are manifestly unqualified and woefully ignorant, like health care policy.