Without a public option, Senate bill is a sop to the insurance industry. By David Sirota

[kpete]

Opposing view: Go back to drawing board
Without a public option, Senate bill is a sop to the insurance industry.
By David Sirota

The Senate health care bill betrays the promise of fundamental "change" Democrats made during the 2008 election. It cloaks a handout to the health industry in the veneer of "reform."

Though it includes some positive subsidies and regulatory tweaks, the bill creates few mechanisms to halt premium increases, bust insurance monopolies and end price discrimination — and it includes no public insurance option.

Worst of all, it doesn't actually extend "new coverage" to 30 million more Americans. Through the "individual mandate," it simply makes people criminals if they don't buy expensive insurance from the private corporations that helped create the health care crisis in the first place.

President Obama says this legislation "stand(s) up to the special interests" — but after spending millions of dollars on campaign contributions and lobbying, the special interests clearly disagree. When the Senate bill was unveiled, health stocks skyrocketed. Meanwhile, an insurance insider told reporters, "We win."

more:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/12/opposing-view-go-back-to-drawing-board.html

[NJmaverick]

1. The article neglects the fact that each state will have a not for profit option

but I guess if they noted that they couldn't have made the point they wanted to make.

[ixion]

2. even with the not-for-profits

it's still a huge new revenue stream for insurance companies.

There is also the issue that mandated consumerism, which is what the core of the bill, is unconstitutional.

[NJmaverick]

4. I hear the republican "it's unconstitutional" talking point

why on earth are you helping them spread their propaganda?

[ixion]

6. some day you'll learn that it's not about party, it's about what is right

just because it's the team I voted for that is proposing it, that doesn't make it any less unconstitutional.

I do not support mandated consumerism. I never will. I don't care who proposes it.

[NJmaverick]

7. some day you will open your eyes and see when you are being played and taken

advantage of.

[ixion]

8. lol

No, sir, I am not. Once again, you refuse to actually debate the issue, opting instead to try and lower the discussion to silly rhetoric.

Since I don't play that, I'll bid you good day.

[NJmaverick]

9. or not. Have you booked your appearance on FAUX news yet?

[femrap]

20. Your life at DU will improve if you

put the dude on Ignore. And I agree with you...it's not about 'winning,' it's about people's lives.

Our illnesses should not increase the profit of some corporation. PERIOD. Our health care system is based on creating profits. It's crazy.

[SandWalker1984]

33. Three cheers for ixion - I agree with you on mandates w/o public option

[ixion]

34. thanks!

I'm all for making healthcare affordable, but mandating consumerism is not the way to go, in my heartfelt opinion. :hi:

[truedelphi]

18. The people here in California would not have clean drinking water if the Republicans

Had not gotten on the ban MTBE band wagon.

Even a broken watch is right twice a day.

[Donnachaidh]

19. IIRC Blue Cross Blue Shield and oothers are stting up *supposed* non-profits

So the same shitty companies can control both the NP's as well.

What a racket for the corporations.

[KoKo]

3. My understanding is that the House Bill would allow states to offer a public financed

option. The Senate Bill does not allow that, according to Howard Dean and others who've parsed the bill.

BTW..BlueCross/Blue Shield is a Non-Profit and yet they pay their CEO's Millions. And jack up the policy costs every chance they get. Ours just went up 8%.

[NJmaverick]

5. no matter the pay, the not for profit serves to limit the profit of others

as the only way private insurance can compete is to be more effiecent than the not for profit (since they have the over head of profit to pay out). Plus what do you think private company CEO's make?

[nightrain]

10. that is a naive statement--"the not for profit serves to limit the profit of others"

So, we're not getting screwed as bad because BC is "not-for-profit"? It actually makes little difference in the exec compensation whether an insurance corp is listed one way or the other. Keep researching and informing yourself.

[NJmaverick]

13. Do you even read the nonsense you post? You seem to be clueless as to what a

not for profit entity even is. If you did you would know it's an organization dedicated to providing good or services, but not to making a profit. As a result of their lack of a profit motive they will not be raising their rates just because it can, because there is no where for the surplus funds to go.

Seriously and very honestly, you need to educate yourself to the facts.

[nightrain]

14. interesting how quickly you go to an ad hominem attack rather than

discuss substance. You have just NO idea who you are talking to about health care issues.

[NJmaverick]

15. you haven't explained where the surplus fund go

and so you haven't justified your point.

[nightrain]

16. I suggest that you look at how compensation structure of execs at BCs, for example,

are really not that different than for the for-profits.

[girl gone mad]

23. totally clueless, as usual.

Blue Cross CEO's Pay at the Top Lufrano's Compensation Not Affected By the Company's Recent Round of Cutbacks

Posted on: Monday, 14 November 2005, 18:00 CST

By URVAKSH KARKARIA

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida's chief executive drew $4.7 million in total compensation last year -- making him among the top paid Blue Cross CEOs nationwide. This as the Jacksonville-based insurer pink-slips some rank-and-file employees and trims administrative costs.

Robert Lufrano's pay topped that of CEOs at not-for-profit Blue Plans or subsidiaries, some of which reported higher 2004 revenues, according to an analysis of 27 Blue Cross plans by Atlantic Information Services.

Lufrano's package included $808,635 in salary, $2.35 million in bonuses and $1.56 million in other compensation, the Washington, D.C.-based health care publishing and information company said.

The CEO was not made available for comment, but Randy Kammer, vice president of regulatory affairs and public policy at Blue Cross Florida, defended the compensation as "fair and equitable" in a "complex market."

The pay package, approved by the board, was determined by an independent consultant after reviewing executive compensation surveys and the financials of publicly traded competitors.

33 million medical members across 14 states.

(snip)

CEO pay at Blue Cross Florida "is indicative of a broader issue among executive salaries in this country," Hays said.

"The ratio of what a CEO can expect to make and what a key professional employee makes . . . is way out of whack," he said.

Part of the reason for the escalation of salaries in recent years is that even though many of the Blues are incorporated as not-for profits they have to compete for talent with investor-owned insurers, Hays said.

Blue Cross's Kammer echoes that sentiment: Lufrano's pay is justified because that's what it takes to attract and retain top talent in a hypercompetitive market.

The compensation is worth it, Kammer said, because it translates into customers receiving the "the best bang for the buck."

"What are getting for their premium," she said, "is the best service and the best product and the best network, because we have the best people running our company."

While Blue Cross is a not-for-profit, Kammer said it operates like a for-profit and should be compared with publicly traded rivals.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/305369/blue_cross_ceos_pay_at_the_top_lufranos_compensation_not/index.html

[spiritual_gunfighter]

24. I heard Wendall Potter talk about this very thing on Countdown

You will get no response from the "Maverick".

[nightrain]

25. thank you for this information. Seems the Maverick has disappeared... Tough to get some

folks to do their own research. Although I think his/her question about "surplus" was an attempt at baiting...

[Jakes Progress]

26. Too many words for "mav"

Too many facts. You won't hear from him when his only honest options is "Golly. I guess I was wrong."

Although there might be a click-by snarking.

[eleny]

11. My concern about state run public options is twofold

First, it's a steep hill to climb for the states that are so fiscally stretched. Creating a new program could be out of the question. My state is struggling mightily right now to the point where our Dem governor will likely lose the next election. I doubt he'd be eager to back this.

Second, this solution doesn't sound portable. Uless it's a national program, people could be stuck in their own states. When job opportunities arise elsewhere, will people have to drop what they have and start all over in the new state? Working these things out later is no way to go about this.

So I see the public option as a bust unless it's national.

[Blue State Blues]

21. another problem with small, state public options

as with co-ops or even small private company's is that they're small. They don't have negotiating power. When they work out the rates they pay to hospitals, to imaging and testing facilities, to rehab facilities and to individual doctors, they're at a disadvantage compared to larger plans.

One way to potentially address the issue is to have an "all-payer" system, where a state commission sets a standard rate for a service that all insurance providers pay. That kind of regulation is key to making a system that relies on private insurance work. It's also the kind of regulation that is notably absent in the current bill.

[saracat]

22. What about the opt out?

[blueworld]

27. How do you know that since the final bill doesn't exist yet? n/t

[Daveparts still]

30. I'm sure that is useful

in states with strong insurance regulation but here in Georgia the insurance commoner has to ask permission to take a piss from insurance companies.

It will be just meaningless, impossible to reach, impossible to find fluff.
Ink on a page to allow the guilty to sleep at night.

[SandWalker1984]

32. We've got a state option like that now -- it doesn't work

It doesn't work because the insurance corporations have managed to manipulate state legislation and tweak things until the not-for-profit options cost as much as the private insurance plans.

Well duh, what do you expect from corporations?

[eleny]

12. Sirota talked about this editorial on his radio program this morning

(Just a little background)

He said that hesitated when USA Today invited him to write a guest editorial taking the opposing view of another editorial they printed that was for the HCR bill. But Sirota said that he felt he should walk the walk since he has publicly expressed misgivings about how HCR was shaping up. So he accepted the offer and submitted his thoughts on the matter.

[Vidar]

17. K&R.

[chill_wind]

28. K & R n/t

[glitch]

29. Yes but it's an historic sop to the industry. One none have achieved or even tried before.

So applaud, dammit.

[SandWalker1984]

31. 5 critical flaws in the senate bill - from MoveOn.org

Five Critical Flaws in the Senate Health Care Bill
The Senate bill would:


#1—Deny Americans the choice of a public option. In contrast, the House bill contains a national public option, the key to real competition, greater choice, and lower costs.1

#2—Leave insurance unaffordable for some lower income and working people. Both bills require virtually all Americans to buy insurance. But even with the subsidies provided, some families could have to pay up to 20% of their income on health care expenses.2


#3—Impose dangerous restrictions on women's reproductive health care. Unfortunately, both bills do this and the House provision is worse. Both versions would be a dangerous step and neither should be in the final bill.3

#4—Tax American workers' health coverage to pay for reform. The Senate would pay for part of reform by taxing the hard-won benefits packages of some working Americans. The House, on the other hand, pays for reform with a small surcharge on only the wealthiest Americans—a far better approach.4

#5—Allow insurance companies to remain exempt from anti-trust laws. Under current law, insurance companies are actually exempt from laws designed to prevent monopolies and price-gouging. The House bill would fix this, but the Senate bill leaves it in place.5

Of course, these aren't the only problems with the bill. Most glaringly, both the Senate and House bill would leave millions uninsured,6 a far cry from the vision of universal coverage so many of us have fought for. That remains a long-term goal.


But these five things need to be fixed immediately—and we need to spread the word to make sure House and Senate leadership and the White House get the message we're counting on them to craft a final bill with these key fixes.