The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    oleeb's picture

    Surprise! Surprise! Health Insurance Parasites Going for the Kill on Capitol Hill and the Democrats are Willing Victims

    I just saw this AP article on the predictable metamorphasis of the insurance industry and how they are now suddenly and miraculously making themselves into something they are not: organizations interested in providing the best health care possible to the greatest number of Americans. 

    You can read it here: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/INSURANCE_MAKEOVER?SITE=MOSTP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

    The well paid lobbyists for the predatory insurance parasites are now lubricating the gears of government (aka campaign coffers of Democrats) with the soothing syrup of the money they have extorted from the victims of their chicanery: you and me.  They are letting the lube flow so they can gorge themselves on the new subsidy scheme the President's advisers are constructing for them and on their behalf.  If successful, this scheme may or may not provide adequate coverage for some Americans who wouldn't otherwise have insurance.  It will, however, definitely allow the insurance parasites to grow even fatter and more malignant as they feed at the now enlarged trough of excessive premiums and minimal care they thrive on.

    As this process proceeds it only gets uglier.  You cannot bargain with the devil and expect a good deal.  The "compromise" that will allow any sort of a bargain to be struck, and an insurance company subsidy bill to be passed, will be achieved at the expense of the American public.  What will be compromised is the health of the nation and the idea of everyone being able to get the medical care they need.

    Any approach, other than single payer, is unrealistic, needlessly more expensive and fails to cover all our people.  That's the bottom line and we all know it.  Any other approach only perpeturates the rotten system we have in place right now. 

    Anyone navie enough to believe that the creeps who have been enriching themselves by denying health care to the people they supposedly serve are ever going to change needs to stand aside and let clearer heads prevail.  A leopard can't change it's spots and the completely parasitical health insurance industry is never going to become a benevolent, customer oriented enterprise concerned about the health of it's customers.  They are about maximizing profits for private gain: period.  They are not in the business of making sure people get the health care they need.  Unless and until we are honest about that we're fooling no one but ourselves.

    As citizens we should do all we can to stop the obscene charade that is beginning in Washington where, through a system of legalized bribery, the parasites of the health insurance industry will continue feeding off the body and blood American public.

    Comments

    I am getting very afraid that the Congress is being bought off on this issue and that whatever bill comes out of this is going to make the public worse off.

    They're going to undermine employer paid plans and essentially cave in to the Republican idea that we all must be ordered to go out and buy an insurance policy (health insurance bubble coming) that we can't afford with deductibles we can't afford and which doesn't cover our health care needs. Having affirmed that we are not entitled to health care but we are instead mandated to buy policies (which we can't afford) they will then come back and destroy Medicare having won the argument that health care is our responsibility and that we have no entitlement to receive health care at all.

    Here we go again. Health insurance bubble. Welfare in the trillions to health insurance giants. When we're all bankrupt the bubble will collapse.


    Bingo!

    They intend on relieving the financial pressure on employers (not entirely but significantly) and shifting the burden to the taxpayers and individuals. Who benefits in this scheme? Employers benefit some, but the parasites benefit most of all. And when it's all over we still have a system that is far too expensive, delivers less for more, and doesn't cover everyone.

    Single payer is the only solution to this problem.


    It doesn't suprise me at all that the insurance companies are buying congress people with money have been doing it for years. And if you look at what happened when they made it mandatory for auto insurance it really scares me.


    It's the same Republican theme:

    Any government service has to be priced out of existence or ruined in some other way, so that they can then stand up and say, "See? This should never have been a government problem in the first place."

    They aren't even trying to drown health care in the bathtub; they are trying to stab it in the back and strangle it all at the same time (Sorry, I just saw Miami CSI for the first time yesterday!)


    "...obscene charade that is beginning in Washington where, through a system of legalized bribery, the parasites of the health insurance industry will continue feeding off the body and blood American public". Perfect characterization of the little farce being conducted in Washington for the benefit of the naive and uninformed.


    The difference with auto insurance is that not everyone ends up filing a claim; we all pay in (too much - I'm guessing that's what you're talking about - premiums go up every year regardless!), but if you DO have an accident, you may recoup more than you paid in. (Watch out next year when the penalty comes, though!)

    With health care, virtually EVERYONE uses it for general care; not everyone has catastrophic illnesses, but everyone uses health care. And the "insurance companies" do everything they can to pay as little as they possibly can. Including, excluding people who have had the bad luck to be sick!

    Don't think for a minute that anyone is going to solve the problem of pre-existing conditions. It will be dressed up differently. You can't be EXCLUDED anymore, but what will your deductible be? $10,000 a year? Too bad -- they said we have to cover you and we are. Don't like the deductible? Tell it to your Senator!

    You are right. This is terrible!

    There is only one way and that is with shared risk, mandatory, universal, single-payer health care!

    lostboy, do you know one MORE reason the Congress won't vote for this? Because they have the best coverage in the US of A, and they don't want to give it up and be like everybody else!


    This is really getting to me. I just wish to see some change. But the personal stories, the heart break. Then Dr. Aaron's report. I agree with your conclusion. I just am in despair over any good outcome. But we shall see.


    Oleeb - great post! But I'm going to disagree with you (and some others around here) again. It must be the pug in me... :-P

    this bit
    "Any approach, other than single payer, is unrealistic, needlessly more expensive and fails to cover all our people."
    doesn't strike me as obvious. I've had to deal with five different health care systems in Europe over the years - two single payer and three private-insurers-but-regulated. And the latter were superior by far in my experience. That said, thanks for keeping an eye on the lobbyists trying to thwart the necessary reform!


    OB,
    Hope this doesn't sound "snitty" but I see no function for health insurance companies than one that is really parasitic. I just can't imagine any scenario that they would go along with enough regulation to make any difference.

    Just a thought.


    I think we've become painfully aware of what happens when government has no commitment to the regulating part.


    But no matter whether private or public health services you were always in a nation that provided universal health care for all it's citizens as a basic right. Undoubtedly your private, but regulated existed in tandem with a universal, free system of public healthcare. Correct? It's my understanding that every european nation has a national, single payer system and most have a private system that is in tandem or in addition to that basic system.


    Face (if I may call you that...) - it's not snitty at all. I don't have an ideological bone in this debate, nor am I well-informed in any way. It's just my experience: Denmark and UK were atrocious and France, Switzerland and Belgium were very good. My mother almost died in Denmark because of incompetent, lazy, slow doctors, and new effective treatments being denied. We transferred her to Belgium where she was taken care of -tests, treatment - on the first day. Just an unbelievable difference.

    But as for your point - "I just can't imagine any scenario that they would go along with enough regulation to make any difference" - I don't see how this is relevant. If they won't go along with regulation, they definitely won't 'go along' with single-payer.


    bb - I couldn't agree more. But if they're incompetent at regulation, I can't see how that's an argument for competence at the healthcare service itself. Like I said to Face, I don't know much, but liked Edwards' idea during the primaries, of progressive public insurer-private insurer competition...


    well - I don't know the details. But in France, Belgium and Switzerland, most everyone seemed to have private insurance, though I'll be happy to be corrected on this.

    In all three there are subsidies for the poor to get insurance, as far as I know. And never had any hassles with payment/reimbursement. Which is a big difference from the US.


    Germany, too.
    The whole health care system is a public/private mix. The insurance providers are "state regulated" but certainly not "single" payer:

    How is the healthcare system funded?

    A: Until they reach the retirement age of 65, people must, by law, pay into health insurance plans (and, since 1994, an additional long-term care plan). The health insurance plans are either state-regulated or private. After retirement, contribution payments for the state-regulated plans stop (although private patients continue payments), but coverage is continued until death.

    Only certain groups are allowed to take out private health insurance. The vast majority of people are obliged to use state-regulated plans and, depending on their individual circumstances, choose from one of about 400 options. The government regulates the fees of state-regulated plans. Although some doctors take only private patients, normally every doctor has a sign that says s/he is accredited by all insurance providers.

    There are several types of state-regulated plans. Some large companies and guilds offer their employees in-house plans. Other groups – notably people working in technical and scientific environments, employees in medium-sized and small firms, or blue-collar workers – often prefer the so-called self-governing substitute plan (Ersatzkassen). The state covers health insurance contributions for the unemployed and those with low income.

    Contributions to the state-regulated health plans (currently around 14% of the employee's gross income and shouldered equally by the employee and the employer) cover up to 68% of overall healthcare costs. Income taxes, funds derived from those with private health insurance, and out-of-pocket payments (e.g., for prescriptions where the insurance covers only 90% of the charges) attempt to cover the remainder.

    The government regulates the use of private insurance. There are three main types of people who use private insurance plans. Persons with a monthly income exceeding US$3,825 may legally opt out of state-regulated plans and switch to private insurance. The self-employed are excluded from the state-regulated plans and so must take private insurance. Public sector employees (e.g., police, teachers) are reimbursed for part of their health costs by the state but have to be privately insured to cover the rest. (The government is now trying to make it difficult to opt for private insurance because the state-regulated insurance loses the 14% contribution from these high-income earners.)...

    continued

    Their system has an excellent reputation, and high costs.

    ALL the systems worldwide are of course experiencing great stress on costs with the increasing ability of medicine to save more people and extend life further, and also predict even more cost problems with the aging of the worldwide postwar baby boom.


    Small countries that likely do a much better job of regulating insurance companies (or any corporations) than we do. I think the difference is in the regulation aspect, not the "insurance" aspect per se. In Spain, everyone gets health care automatically. On top of that people can buy insurance and go to private clinics. But the private clinics, while providing a better setting and better food, do not necessarily do a better job of diagnosing and treating. That, of course, may vary by country.


    Again it's the regulation aspect, I believe, not the "insurance" being better. In the US, I simply do NOT trust what would happen if the repubs get back in power and eviscerate regulation. That's the core of the problem, in my view - letting profits drive policy, rather than social good.


    Thera - that may be right. Amazing the insane political considerations you need to take into account when the opposition is insane....


    Thanks for that AA. Love this kind of article. (but the link doesn't work, i think...)


    It's my understanding that every european nation has a national, single payer system and most have a private system that is in tandem or in addition to that basic system

    Where did you get that idea? Have you only checked out Canada and the UK and just presumed Europe is the same? It's simply not true.

    People who feel strongly about advocating for single payer need to know that there are "enemies" out there, they are the many universal coverage systems that are not single payer that are lauded as successful and which most citizens of those countries seem to be happy with. Otherwise, you'll just be blindsided by these arguments about quite happy non-single-payer universal systems too late in the process.

    Check out Asia, too.
    Japan for example:

    ....It is compulsory to be enrolled in a Japanese insurance program if you are a resident of Japan. The two main categories of health insurance are referred to as Kenkō-Hoken 健康保険 ([social] health insurance) and Kokumin-Kenkō-Hoken 国民健康保険 (national health insurance). National health insurance is generally reserved for self-employed people and students, where as social insurance is normally for corporate employees....

    And Singapore is lauded as having excellent cost savings with mandatory co-pays and mandatory health savings accounts with the single payer covering only 80% of basic health care services but for catastrophic there is means testing. They obviously gain by having the government make preventive care easy and cheap to get and then leaving the extremes less covered. (Which means the rich get to have the expensive risky or controversial treatments for the rare disease or problem and the poor don't?)

    For the U.S. to go to single Federal payer really would be still quite a radical move in comparative terms worldwide, realize that you are asking for a radical move. Where we are really behind the eightball is that we don't have universal with full regulation and oversight and evening of playing field, not that we don't have single payer.


    It's my understanding that every european nation has a national, single payer system and most have a private system that is in tandem or in addition to that basic system

    Where did you get that idea? Have you only checked out Canada and the UK and just presumed Europe is the same? It's simply not true.

    People who feel strongly about advocating for single payer need to know that there are "enemies" out there, they are the many universal coverage systems that are not single payer that are lauded as successful and which most citizens of those countries seem to be happy with. Otherwise, you'll just be blindsided by these arguments about quite happy non-single-payer universal systems too late in the process.

    Check out Asia, too.
    Japan for example:

    ....It is compulsory to be enrolled in a Japanese insurance program if you are a resident of Japan. The two main categories of health insurance are referred to as Kenkō-Hoken 健康保険 ([social] health insurance) and Kokumin-Kenkō-Hoken 国民健康保険 (national health insurance). National health insurance is generally reserved for self-employed people and students, where as social insurance is normally for corporate employees....

    And Singapore is lauded as having excellent cost savings with mandatory co-pays and mandatory health savings accounts with the single payer covering only 80% of basic health care services but for catastrophic there is means testing. They obviously gain by having the government make preventive care easy and cheap to get and then leaving the extremes less covered. (Which means the rich get to have the expensive risky or controversial treatments for the rare disease or problem and the poor don't?)

    For the U.S. to go to single Federal payer really would be still quite a radical move in comparative terms worldwide, realize that you are asking for a radical move. Where we are really behind the eightball is that we don't have universal with full regulation and oversight and evening of playing field, not that we don't have single payer.


    The size of the countries matters, but also the political culture. AA has a good extract of an article on Germany.

    I know the Swiss system quite well. Totally private-payer, but quite well regulated. And this despite very strong Pharma lobbies. It is relatively efficient because every time premiums rise - do to some change in regulation- people scream bloody murder, as they would with tax increases. That really keeps the politicians in check (well, that and the direct democracy). I think if you get a regulatory system in place which keeps premiums down, it'll be hard for Repubs to deregulate, because it will translate immediately into very visible rises in premiums. And that will appear to people like pretty much the equivalent of a tax-increase. The 'free market is more efficient' schtick won't work. Anyway, just a thought.



    Excellent. Thanks!


    Right. They have a two tier system. The first tier that everyone has free access to is the single payer government health program. The second tier is additional private insurance. Even in combination it is still cheaper because the insurance companies are not in charge of the primary system there as they are here. If you didn't have the primary system in the countries where found good care, you would have found what we have here, but the europeans didn't allow this sort of malignant system to take root.

    Care varies no matter where you go. Could be the doctor, could be the hospital or a million other factors. Overall, however, the verdict is in and has been for a very long time: every country in europe with single payer has a better system than we do and the same goes for Canada. That's why it is obvious that only by instituting a single payer system can the US ever hope to solve the ongoing "crisis" which is caused by our rotten system and the insurance parasites who control it and feed off of it.


    Good information. Thanks!

    Of course our system has a bad reputation that's growing worst and the very highest costs. Only single payer will solve that problem.


    They have single payer in tandem with other tiers of health care delivery and cost. It is true to say they all have single payer. They don't all have the same plan. They don't all work in the same way, but their single payer plans all provide universal coverage for all their people. Any one of those types of plan is far superior to ours.


    Co-sign.


    Yes, you're right. Unless you keep your wits about you, they distract you from what are the real issues. It takes a laser intensity to see their games for what they are!


    Switzerland is a completely regulated society! They are all good soldiers there! Everybody has to fall into line - citizens and corporations - everybody!


    You can call it regulation or adminstering the sytstem honestly, fairly and with integrity. Whatever you call it, there's no question that we cannot do it properly if it involves profit because we always and without exception put profit first. In healthcare we have demonstrated quite clearly that doesn't work well for the human beings who need medical care though it does a bangup job for people who simply want to make a killing off the idea of it.


    .

    Ooooo . . .

    Radical! That get's 'em shaking in their boots. Right next to... it's SOCIALISM!

    Boo!

    ~OGD~


    .

    Yup to this . . . Oleeb

    "...the insurance industry and how they are now suddenly and miraculously making themselves into something they are not..."

    Take for example the executives from the Business Roundtable, as most here already read in my blog Have You Heard This Health Care Song & Dance Before?.

    And this is their shiny new talking points bought and brought to us by our own money.

    businessroundtable.org/sites/default/files/BRT_exec_sum.pdf

    Make sure you at least scroll through it quickly. It's the biggest song and dance routine this side of Dancing with the Stars.

    ~OGD~


    Your comments have been very helpful. But I persist in fearing that here in the US, they would deregulate eventually - or bit by bit. I'm just beyond the point where I can trust the repubs any longer. They are so in bed with the corporations. And they work together to hoodwink the populace.

    I don't doubt that other countries can successfully regulate. They can also successfully provide social services to an extent we can only dream of. I think of daycare in France, for example.

    I think most people want single payer out of too many horror stories due to insurance. Many corporations seem to have become so greedy that they finally undid the public's good will. You can see this in finance in addition to health care. They shot the golden goose that was laying eggs for them for so long by becoming too greedy, too grasping, too willing to let go of responsibility to the public - in order to put profit over providing services in an ethical manner. Now people are up in arms.

    Do you know if corporate personhood is entrenched in these other countries where they have a regulated health insurance system? Because to my mind, that is at the core of our problems with getting substantial regulation here.


    That's the free market concept. Public services are privatized then the corporate system places a price tag for the service and the public has no choice but to pay. It's a take-it-or-leave-it system without the government interfering on the public's behalf because it's a private concern now - not public.


    Let me clue you in on a little known fact about health insurance. I was paying about $300 a month for personal health insurance until I reached 50. That was when I received a new monthly premium bill for close to $900. I called the governor's office to make a complaint and was told the insurance company was within their right's to increase my premium payment. Turns out many personal medical problems begin to appear after age 50. So the insurance companies have wrangled out a deal with states to increase premium payments to cover their costs for increased services for that age group. I was told by the governors office to go find a job that included medical coverage if I didn't like the new premium payment. Problem was, I had the personal health insurance because it was better than the one offered by my employer.


    Obey, I'm in Europe atm and have a private insurer thru my employer and I find it's sux. I have to pay for all services,in euro(that's a 30% to 40% increase for services due to the dollar devaluation), submit paperwork for each action, and wait a few months for a refund that may range from 50% to 70% of the total costs paid. Also, the insurer doesn't give me a clue as to the doctors and specialist in my local area who will take patients with their insurance - I have to wing it on my own. There needs to be regulations on health insurers to make them more responsible for their members. One shouldn't have to make out-of-pocket payments if they have insurance, especially if the insurance is labeled International.


    BJ - thanks for the anecdote. Good to know.


    Between the comment I'm about to post here and the one on AIG I'm working on, I suspect I'm not going to be making myself very popular around here today anyway, so I'll just say it: take a breath, people! Take a breath and take a look at the following interesting post at 538.com on Obama's "code" by George Lakoff, author of "The Political Mind."

    I draw your attention to one quote, in particular, that I think is relevant:

    Behind the Obama Code are seven crucial intellectual moves that I believe are historically, practically, and cognitively appropriate, as well as politically astute. They are not all obvious, and jointly they may seem mysterious. That is why it is worth sorting them out one-by-one.

    1. Values Over Programs

    The first move is to distinguish programs from the value systems they represent. Every policy has a material aspect—the nuts and bolts of how it works— plus a typically implicit cognitive aspect that represents the values and ideas behind the nuts and bolts. The President knows the difference. He understands that those who see themselves as “progressive” or “conservative” all too often define those words in terms of programs rather than values. Even the programs championed by progressives may not fit what the President sees as the fundamental values of the country. He is seeking to align the programs of his administration with those values.

    The potential pushback will come not just from conservatives who do not share his values, but just as much from progressives who make the mistake of thinking that programs are values and that progressivism is defined by a list of programs. When some of those programs are cut as economically secondary or as unessential, their defenders will inevitably see this as a conservative move rather than a move within an overall moral vision they share with the President.

    This separation between values and programs lies behind the president’s pledge to cut programs that don’t serve those values and support those that do — no matter whether they are proposed by Republicans or Democrats. The President’s idealistic question is, what policies serve what values? — not what political interests?

    [Emphasis mine.]

    I've thought of this every time I see some raging comment from the single-payer absolutists.

    I want decent health coverage for everyone with premiums adjusted on the basis of means but with no adjustments on the basis of age, health or pre-existing conditions. That's the value I am for. There are other things I also want. Things like, just to name a couple, the complete computerization of medial records, comprehensive preventive care and the creation of some effective incentive mechanism(s)for making medical technologies cheaper. And my defintion of "decent" would probably take a couple of thousand words.

    That's the value I am for. Single-payer is not a value, it is a program.

    Maybe its the best way to deliver on the value. However, though I question whether it is possilbe, if, through regulation and legislation, someone can figure out how to deliver on my value while making a profit, I am not going work myself up into a frothing rage about it. Profit motive creates perverse incentives that can result in undesirable outcomes in health care. No question. But anyone who thinks the magic words "single payer" elminate perverse incentives that result in undesirable outcomes is being almost GOP-like in their resistance to empirical input.


    Valid points, particularly when viewed as part of a overall political strategy. Nonetheless, many of us who are not directly involved in the politics of writing and shepherding legislation through the legislature, consider it a duty to push for the policy that we feel best reflects our desire for solving social and economic problems as well as our values. There is 'pushback' now, because, in theory at least, these policy changes that are being set in motion, have not yet been set in stone. If not now, when? We will inevitably accept whatever policy comes out of Washington. What choice do we have? In the end we will even support a policy we don't agree with if it comes down to some change or no change. In the meantime I'll be arguing for the policy that I, (and the majority of health economists that I know - and I know a few), think best addresses the issue of out of control health care costs in the US.


    Note that the German system is still heavily tied to employment (as are others--Japan?) The self-employed have to get insurance on their own. More and more, if we have to do incremental (and like it or not, I think the reality politically is that we are going to get incremental change,) I'd like what to see delinking from employment as a priority. It's just suggested by the economic situation, a seize the day sort of thing. (And if you've followed economic news past, Germany has had problems with past high unemployment and small business complaints of too many onerous government requirements.) But there's problems with that, too, though---makes my head hurt--if you take the burden of insurance off of employers, how do you make them transfer some of the money saved to higher wages, so that the wage earners can afford whatever they are required to pay towards their own insurance, whether co-pays, deductibles or premiums? There's a whole "rob peter to pay paul" situation with all these plans that's over my brain capability....


    Thanks again. Why isn't the easy answer to your last question just 'unionization'? good easy market-mechanism...


    This was supposed to be a reply to ncsteve above.