An Insurance System That Places Profits Over People Isn't The Best In The World

I was asked if I could be tough, because I was going to be telling doctors that they couldn't do things and that I would be expected to keep a 10% denial rate. ...we were told that the medical reviewer that had the highest denial rate was going to receive a bonus at Christmas ~ physician Linda Peeno, in a 6/21/2007 interview with Democracy Now's Amy Goodman, recounting her experienes working as a medical reviewer for Humana in the 1990s.

An email I received yesterday from the astroturf Teabagger billionaire-funded FreedomWorks says, "This is our moment. The House of Representatives will be voting next week on a FULL REPEAL of the 2,000 page, job-killing ObamaCare law. Send your letter to Congress to show your support! This is a huge chance for the Tea Party movement to start reversing the Democrats' big government agenda which threatens to bankrupt America". According to FreedomWorks the House will debate and vote on the bill on Wednesday January 12th.

I clicked the link and was shown a sample letter which FreedomWorks wanted me to sign my name to and forward to my members of Congress. The sample letter, which FreedomWorks said I could make edits to, read as follows...

FreedomWorks Sample Letter: As a constituent, I urge you to vote Yes on H.R. 2, the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law" Act. Voters spoke loud and clear on Nov. 2nd: No government takeover of health care. This is an unparalleled opportunity to show Americans that this Congress means business and will stick to the promises made on the campaign trail, however difficult they may be.

We need to fully repeal ObamaCare because it will kill jobs, bankrupt the government, drive up everyone's health insurance costs, put bureaucrats in charge of our health care, and ruin the world's best health care system. Our government can't afford the $2.6 trillion price tag - and our families can't afford the taxes and sky-high insurance premiums that come with this massive bill.

Congress needs to focus sensible reforms like tax credit vouchers for the uninsured, and reforms to the individual market. These are reforms that are affordable, and don't grow the size of government. With 60% of Americans in opposition to ObamaCare, the time to repeal is now. Please vote Yes on H.R. 2.

Edited letter I forwarded to my Congresspersons: As a constituent, I urge you to vote NO on H.R. 2, the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law" Act. This bill is a complete joke, and put forward for political reasons only - which is made clear by the name of the act. The health care legislation passed in the last session will not kill jobs, is not a "government takeover" of the health care industry, and will save money (according to the nonpartisan CBO). The majority of Americans either are in favor of this bill or think it didn't go far (wasn't progressive) enough. A single-payer system would qualify as a "government takeover", but that option was never on the table, even though it would have been the most cost effective.

In the last election people identifying with the Tea Party turned out and voted. Many Obama voters, disgusted by Republican obstructionism in the last session of Congress, stayed home. Republicans are gravely mistake if they believe, and conduct themselves as if, they were given a mandate. A vote to repeal the health care legislation will be a vote against the wishes of the majority of Americans. As a constituent, I urge you to take a stand against obstructionism and work with your fellow congresspersons and the White House to get our economy back on track and not waste time voting on ridiculous legislation that has no chance of becoming law.

Finally, if you are truly interested in lowering the cost of health care please support legislation that opens up Medicare to any member of the public (regardless of age) that wishes to buy into it. The Democratic health care legislation does not need to be repealed to further bring down costs.

Sign the Petition: If you wish to sign the FreedomWorks petition click here. Fee free to use my letter in any way you see fit (by attaching your name to it or by modifying it).

Further Reading
• Repeal health law? Poll shows many think it should do more by Jennifer Agiesta and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, The New Republic. 12/7/2010.
• America's Pay-or-Die Health Care System by Ralph Nader, Counterpunch. 5/6/2008.

SWTD #59

Live or Die, The Free Market Will Decide

Freedom of enterprise was from the beginning not altogether a blessing. As the liberty to work or to starve, it spelled toil, insecurity, and fear for the vast majority of the population. If the individual were no longer compelled to prove himself on the market, as a free economic subject, the disappearance of this freedom would be one of the greatest achievements of civilization ~ Herbert Marcuse, a German-Jewish philosopher, political theorist and sociologist. Celebrated as the "Father of the New Left".

Instead of creating yet another monstrous government bureaucracy, what about mandating that health insurance be provided by nonprofits? I mentioned the idea at the end of my 10/19/2009 post. Oddly enough, a couple of bloggers I thought were conservative seemed to think this was a good idea.

This is decidedly not a good idea Conservatives! If you don't understand why, well... maybe you're not as Conservative as you thought you were.

It should be obvious that not for profit health insurance companies would eliminate the profit incentive! Paying health care insurance CEOs tens of millions of dollars ensures you get the cream of the crop (talent wise). So what if people have to die in order for those CEOs to make their millions? Those who die are lazy good-for-nothings (or, if they are children, then their parents are). They don't deserve to live - that is, if the reason they died is because they couldn't afford insurance.

If they died because they had insurance but the insurance cartel refused to pay... I don't know what the rational is. I'm going to guess denial. That could never happen, because in the world of the "free market" contracts must be honored. If you signed a contract agreeing to arbitration when you're gang raped? The contract must be honored. Why involve the authorities? What the hell do we even need "authorities" for? Privatize the police. Those who have contracts with the private police companies will get protection. Those who do not pay (for whatever reason) have only themselves to blame. The free market provides for those who provide for themselves.

If an insurance company does deny coverage? The contract will address this type of situation. It must be because the "sick" individual is trying to cheat the insurance company. The scammer failed to disclose that he had a "pre-existing condition". Or the type of treatment the sickey is seeking is "experimental". The insurance cartel death panel "profit protection" panel will set you straight on that. "Experimental" treatments are not covered. Cheaters with pre-existing conditions are not covered.

If you're a right-wing Christian Conservative you should acknowledge the fact that a pre-existing condition is a sign from God that you don't deserve medical care. If God favors you he'll provide a sign by making damn sure you are not cursed with one, or provide you with enough money to pay for treatment out of your own pocket. Prosperity theology "implies both that people who are favored by God will be materially successful, and also that materially successful people are successful because God favored them".

Does this not dovetail nicely with the idea that the Bible can be used to justify homophobia? It can be used to justify greed as well. Certainly this is proof that Jesus believes in the free market. If you're a sickey whose treatment has been denied, or whose insurance policy has cancelled - or worse yet, if you can't afford to purchase insurance - you must acknowledge that the free market has spoken. You must acknowledge that the free market has decided that you should die. Sacrificed for the profit of others - those who have been blessed by God.

Free markets equal free people, after all. People who are free to die, that is. Those who live by the market must also die by the market. That's the way Jesus would want it.

.........................

I don't believe that converting the current insurance cartels into non-profits is within the realm of possibility. I support opening Medicare to whoever wishes to buy into it. And providing subsidies to those who can't afford the to pay the Medicare rates by increasing the premiums on those who can afford to buy in by a nominal amount, and raising taxes on individuals making more than $250,000. Such a plan could easily be deficit neutral. And it could be passed with 51 votes through budget reconciliation.

If that makes me a socialist, then so be it. I find the Republican plan, "Don't get sick, but if you do - die quickly", morally reprehensible. As someone who considers himself a progressive Christian, I don't see how conservatism and Christianity are compatible.

SWTD #26

Universal Coverage A Hardship for Health Insurers?

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed ~ Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) pre-eminent political and spiritual leader of India during the Indian independence movement.

If you didn't watch the coverage on MSNBC Wednesday night after the President's speech (9/9/2009) you probably missed what I think was the most important clarification of the evening. David Axelrod, appearing post-speech on the Rachel Maddow Show explained how there could be a mandate for everyone to buy insurance, yet what we would end up with would NOT be universal coverage. According to Axelrod, if you can't afford the not-for-profit health insurance, you will be granted a "hardship exemption". Which means, I suppose, that people who can't afford the reduced rate because they are too poor should be grateful they will be allowed to continue to not have access to health care.

Of course Republicans will approve, as we can not have more lazy lowlifes "suckling from the teat of big government". This explains why they're so upset about Obama's death panels - death panels fall under the purview of the for profit health insurers (Death panels are only bad when they are run by the government I guess). The Supreme Court has ruled that money is free speech - and it is the insurance companies who have spoken loudest. They are the ones who would suffer a "hardship" if the health insurance reform legislation included a true public-option (one which anyone could buy into). Think of the billions in lost profits!

I am not joking. These contract breaking death-panel running parasites actually DO have the temerity to argue that an overhead of up to 40 percent is reasonable while Medicare can do the same job for under 4%.

In an 8/25/2005 article from US News & World Report titled "Why Health Insurers Make Lousy Villains", author Rick Newman declares that, "blaming insurance firms for runaway healthcare costs is a weak argument, because the insurance industry isn't all that profitable to start with". As proof to back up this misleading claim that the health insurance racket "isn't all that profitable", Mr. Newman correctly points out that "the profit margin for health insurance companies was a modest 3.4 percent over the past year".

How can the profit margin stat be both correct AND misleading, you might ask? Mr. Newman reveals the fatal flaw in his own logic when he states that, "profit margins basically reflect the percentage of revenue left over after paying salaries, expenses, taxes and lots of other things. So it's possible for firms to pay their executives a lot and still have a low profit margin". They don't pay their executives "a lot", they pay their executives WAY TO DAMN MUCH. Even though he himself points out how looking at profit margins can be misleading, this fact goes completely unaddressed in Mr. Newman's article. Not even a quick dismissal.

I'm guessing he believes exorbitant Health Insurer CEO compensation to be justified, beyond reproach, and thus not even worth discussing (his article goes on to point a finger at the pharmaceutical industry, which, overall has higher profit margins). I agree that Big Pharma is another leaches draining the American health consumer, but that is a topic for a future blog post.

David O. Friedrichs of the Department of Sociology/Criminal Justice, University of Scranton PA asserts "some immense forms of social harm are not formally classified as crime" in a paper titled Exorbitant CEO compensation: just reward or grand theft? The article concludes that "such compensation is neither warranted nor necessary" and may very well jeopardize the "economy which produces their wealth in the first place".

The author's determination - which I happen to strongly agree with...

David O. Friedrichs: Walking into a bank with a gun and demanding money from a teller is one way to steal money. Walking into a corporate boardroom and securing from that board's compensation committee, made up of cronies, consultants, and even relatives, compensation of millions - sometimes tens of millions or hundreds of millions - is another way to steal money. ...exorbitant CEO compensation is, in a very real sense, a form of crime.

However, excessive CEO compensation is not the only way to dispose of dollars that would otherwise be profit. Former Vice President of corporate communications at CIGNA, Wendell Potter, knows all to well how policyholder money can be squandered on corporate jets, gold-plated silverware, country club memberships, security services and other "gilded excess".

Unlike Medicare, private insurance plan also have high administrative costs - which include sales, marketing, and underwriting expenses. Given these facts, can anyone explain why town hall protesters are falling for this "socialism" baloney? Government already provides public education, police and fire protection, not to mention health insurance for people over 65 (which the private health insurers love, by the way, since those individuals are the most costly to insure).

The solution, while it may be a "hardship" for the private health insurers, is a no-brainer. Expand Medicare to enable anyone to buy into it. Liberal talk show host Thom Hartman, in his article "Medicare Part E: Everybody", explains that if we used the rate "set by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) - which reflects the actual cost for us to buy into it ...Medicare Part E would be revenue neutral".

Revenue neutral means we wouldn't be adding to the national deficit, which is the primary Republican oppositional talking point. Or we can continue allowing health insurance execs to continue stealing billions because it would apparently be better than allowing lazy poor people to avoid dying.

Further Reading
[1] The Private Health Industry's Time is Up by Bernie Sanders, Christian Science Monitor 5/16/2009.
[2] The Health Care Racket by Paul Krugman, The New York Times 2/16/2007.

SWTD #21