You have been warned. This is a really long thread. It is about the American way of greed, which is a monstrously large topic.
Lipstick on a Pig 
We hear this one over and over.
Any healthcare reform is better than nothing. Or
Incremental change is better than no change. .
This is simply not true. Here is an example. Current resident felon and former Congressman Bob Ney promised to hold hearings to reform Ohio’s broken election system in the wake of Grand Theft Election Ohio 2004. And yes, he kept his promise. He held hearings. Hearings in which people like Sen. Bill Frist’s attorney came forward to claim that the NAACP had handed out crack cocaine before the 2004 vote. The Ohio state legislature took advantage of the popular demand for election reform to make their system even more draconian and easy to corrupt. In other words, they put lipstick on a pig .
We are witnessing the same thing now with healthcare reform. Congress is getting ready to compile a package made up of the stuff health insurance executive wet dreams are made of---and sell it to us as “reform.” This, even though health insurance company profits are high and health insurance executive CEO salaries are obscene. This, even though Big Pharm is the biggest game in town. This, even though the businesses and providers who make up the Medical Industrial Complex rake in over 15% of our GMP annually. These folks already benefit from laws that have been specially tailored to help them make money. And now they are going to change the laws for the express purpose of letting a bunch of fat cats make even more money.
As someone said not so long ago, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.
"You know, you can put lipstick on a pig," Obama said, "but it's still a pig."
He added, "You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called 'change.' It's still gonna stink after eight years."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09092008/news/politics/obama__put_lipstick_on_a_pig__its_still__128280.htmHe said that, didn’t he? About how phony change is not really change at all.
Hmmm. I wonder how the "reform" healthcare package which Congress and the President are wrapping up is going to smell in 2016.
“All Your Premium Are Belong to Us” 
The private health insurance industry has made their wishes clear. The support universal health insurance---as long as they are the ones who will get to collect the benefits (but not pay the claims.)
Reporting from Washington - Lashed by liberals and threatened with more government regulation, the insurance industry nevertheless rallied its lobbying and grass-roots resources so successfully in the early stages of the healthcare overhaul deliberations that it is poised to reap a financial windfall.
The half-dozen leading overhaul proposals circulating in Congress would require all citizens to have health insurance, which would guarantee insurers tens of millions of new customers -- many of whom would get government subsidies to help pay the companies' premiums.
"It's a bonanza," said Robert Laszewski, a health insurance executive for 20 years who now tracks reform legislation as president of the consulting firm Health Policy and Strategy Associates Inc.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/healthcare/la-na-healthcare-insurers24-2009aug24,0,6925890.storyYou know, if the greedy blood suckers at the nation's private health insurance companies are jumping for joy, maybe we should take a look at what kind of legislation Congress is working on...
There is more. Congress is going to add a sweetener to this already sugary deal. Currently, most health plans cover 80-90% of their policy holder’s medical bills.
In May, the Senate Finance Committee discussed requiring that insurers reimburse at least 76% of policyholders' medical costs under their most affordable plans. Now the committee is considering setting that rate as low as 65%, meaning insurers would be required to cover just about two-thirds of patients' healthcare bills. According to a committee aide, the change was being considered so that companies could hold down premiums for the policies.
I wonder how many Tea Baggers who are yelling their heads off at Town Hall meetings about how they want to protect their private insurance realize that after next year, their private insurance may be worth a whole lot less. There is a big difference between paying $1,000 of a surgery bill and paying $3500 of a surgery bill. The difference could well be enough to discourage people from getting necessary health care---which will make the health insurance industry even more money. This will offset the losses they may incur from accepting people with pre-existing conditions. Plus, people with severe health problems will be even more likely to apply for Medicare or Medicaid, since they will be unable to afford the higher deductibles. In other words, even though the privates will agree to accept all comers, in fact, the sickest Americans will continue to be on government sponsored insurance.
Wait! It gets better---or worse, if you are not an health insurance industry executive. But first , a quick quiz? Who pledged that he would never require folks to buy health insurance and who mocked his opponent for even suggesting that a fine might be used to encourage compliance?
That’s right. Congress is ready to level fines starting at a $1000 per person (more on families) against people who do not purchase crappy private health insurance that only pays 65 cents on the dollar.
WASHINGTON -- Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a health care overhaul bill unveiled Thursday by key Senate Democrats looking to fulfill President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fines will raise around $36 billion over 10 years. Senate aides said the penalties would be modeled on the approach taken by Massachusetts, which now imposes a fine of about $1,000 a year on individuals who refuse to get coverage. Under the federal legislation, families would pay higher penalties than individuals.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/senate-democrats-trim-cost-health-care/You do not need to be a health care analyst to know where this one is going. Health insurers will offer bare bones, fly by night coverage that is designed to keep people from paying the fine. These plans will have ridiculously large deductibles, they will exclude many necessary services, they will have few providers---and they will allow Blue Cross, United and the others to extort money from the people who currently can not afford health insurance without actually giving them access to healthcare.
Another loophole sure to make money for insurers: Congress brags that it will make insurance affordable by getting rid of pre-existing conditions clauses. Congress lies through its teeth. In fact, it is thinking about allowing Blue Cross and United to charge older folks a whole lot more for these mandatory policies. And age is the most significant pre-existing condition there is.
The House and the Senate health committee bills would limit age-related premiums so that a 64-year-old pays no more than twice as much an 18-year-old. But Senate Finance Committee negotiators are considering allowing as much as a 5-to-1 difference, a big savings for the young but a significantly higher cost for older people who are more likely to have health problems.
http://cbs2.com/consumer/health.care.consumers.2.1120762.html Remember how the article above suggested that the feds would collect about $3.6 billion a year in fines with which to help pay for the subsidies? That's a lot of money for a program that is supposed to make insurance affordable for everyone. Will that money come from the rich who can not need to buy insurance? Hell no! Will it be paid by young people who can not be bothered to buy insurance? For a thousand bucks, they will be able to buy a policy that covers them in case of a catastrophe. Those billions are going to come from the nation's middle aged low income workers, who will be forced to pay the thousand buck fines because they can not pay the $10,000 per year or more that insurers will demand in premiums. That’s right, the nation’s 40 and 50 year olds, whom insurers hate because they are old enough to develop significant health problems but too young for Medicare. These are the ones who are hurting the most. And under our brand spanking “new” lipstick on a pig health care reform, they are going to be out $1000 a year---and still have no insurance.
When reviewing that last link, be sure not to miss the final line.
The federal consumer protections would set a basic standard for the whole country, changing a situation in which state-level safeguards vary widely.
But…but…
state insurance boards regulate the practices of insurers, the same way that they regulate nurses and doctors. Why would we want to take the job of regulating health insurance companies out of the hands of locally elected officials and hand it over to a federal government run by a Congress that has proven that it can easily be bribed?
Because that is the way the health insurers want it.
Ignagni said insurance companies "accept the premise that the system is not working today and needs to be reformed." Therefore, the industry is calling for "a full-scale renovation and a complete overhaul of the existing regulatory mechanisms," Ignagni said (Politico, 5/6). She called on the government to overhaul regulations governing insurance markets nationwide and replace inconsistent elements in state regulations. Ignagni said specific changes to the industry's operations could expand health care coverage and hold insurance companies more accountable, thus negating the need for a public plan.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/149190.phpHere is a translation:
Br’er Insurance Company CEO "Oh please, pleeease, whatever you do, don’t throw me in that their federal regulation briar patch.
But if you will scrap the public option, I’ll let you throw me into the federal regulation briar patch…"
In fact, the health insurance industry desperately wants to get out from under the very real control which some state insurance boards exert and instead allow a panel of industry insiders
to pretend to regulate them. Think the FDA.
Would it surprise you to find out that the health insurance industry friendly Bush administration already tried to strip away state regulation and replace it with federal “oversight”? From 2008:
Killing State Oversight of Insurance: Now the Bush Administration, led by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (pictured), has proposed a sweeping new proposal, its Blueprint for a Modernized Financial Regulatory Structure, to "reform" regulatory oversight of different financial sectors. But the proposal is little more than an industry wish list that has only tangential relationship to fixing the problems that actually led to the subprime lending disaster. Despite the fact that the insurance sector, covering everything from health insurance to disaster coverage, has been notably free of financial problems, part of the administration's proposal is the replacement of state regulation of insurance with a single federal regulator, which would likely preempt stronger consumer insurance protections at the state level. "It's no surprise that the Bush administration comes out with an exclusively pro-business proposition," said Michael McRaith, insurance director for the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation. Under the Bush plan, "ery large, wealthy companies would get to choose the lesser level of regulations."
http://www.progressivestates.org/content/811/me-sen-passes-npv-bushs-proposed-gutting-of-state-insurance-regulationSo when health insurers act like they are making a big concession in agreeing to federal oversight, do not be fooled. This is exactly what they have been angling for for a long time.
To sum it up, our “better than nothing” health care reform is shaping up to be a set of laws that will 1) require all of us to buy a policy from a private insurer 2) will reduce the amount that our private insurers actually pay out in claims 3) will put health insurance under federal regulation, making it all but impossible for consumers to file claims or seek legal action (you ever tried to wade through the federal court system?) 4) will allow insurers to discriminate against people based on age 5) will fine us if we are not living in abject poverty but we still can not afford the crappy private plans which we are offered and (drum roll) 6) will increasingly fragment the working class in this country by telling one low income group “You are paying a thousand bucks a year fine so that a _____can get a tummy tuck at federal government expense.”
And that is just the health insurance industry wish list.
The Drug Business 
The world’s pharmaceutical giants know what they want. They want to continue to have Christmas every day with Medicare Part D, the Republican Congress enacted, Bush sponsored law that gave Big Pharm the right to charge whatever it likes to Medicare beneficiaries and their insurance provider (the U.S. government).
Right now, the feds are prevented from doing any kind of collective bargaining for reduced prices for seniors. This means that when grandma hits her “donut hole”, she is going to pay an arm and a leg for her drugs for the rest of the year. Or maybe lose an arm and a leg when she finds that she can not afford her blood thinner. Sounds bad, but it gets worse. After Medicare Part D was enacted, the prices of the drugs most commonly used by seniors increased in cost. Almost as if the industry was conspiring to defraud the U.S. government. Industry profits went up, too. This site estimates that Big Pharm makes $2 billion a year
just from Medicaid patients who have been switched to Medicare (because Medicaid negotiates for lower prices).
http://theruralpatriot.wordpress.com/2006/07/27/medicare-part-d-the-costs-the-profits-and-the-donut-hole/This site estimates that the drug industry made a windfall $ 8 billion
in the first six months , a 27% increase in their usual profits.
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20060919115623-70677.pdfOk, let’s do some math. Obama got tough and talked Big Pharm into trimming $ 80 billion over the next decade from the amount they would charge seniors. Sounds like a start.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31464689/ns/politics-white_house/However, a couple of months later, we find out that the White House has cut another deal with the drug manufacturers. In exchange for a promise of $80 billion in savings, Obama will do nothing to change Medicare Part D and especially the clause that allows Big Pharm to set the rates that Medicare (i.e. we) pay.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html?_r=3&hpNow, even if drug company profits do not rise (and I can already tell you that with the aging of the U.S. population, more and more people will be on Medicare, which will give the companies more clients) and they continue to make excess profits of only $16 billion a year, as they did the first year, they still stand to make an excess $160 billion over the next decade. Minus the $80 billion that is a cool $80 billion in profits.
And that is assuming that they keep their part of the bargain---which they won’t. This is just another stalling measure. In the last Congress, they paid the Republicans to filibuster a popular bill that would have allowed Medicare to bargain for reduced rates. This time around, with the Dems holding a sizable majority, they have bribed the White House. They will do what they can to make the health care package that comes out of Congress look doable and affordable by agreeing to hold down costs—at least until Obama is sworn in for a second term on a platform of “See, I gave you some healthcare reform. And some reform is better than none.”
At that point, they will expect payback.
Hospitals: The Machines that Go “Ca-ching!” 
Just like the Drug Companies, the nation’s hospitals have cut a deal with Obama. They are going to trim a whopping $155 billion over the next decade. In exchange, they will see more profits as the ratio of insured to uninsured increased. Since some hospitals have written off as much as $300 million or more a year in care to the uninsured, I think that it is safe to say that they will get a good return on their investment.
However, the hospitals want more. John Geymen sums up their demands in The Huffington Post. In particular, they want Congress to scrap proposed regulation of so called “Specialty Hospitals”---doctor owned facilities that do nothing but elective surgery for well insured patients and which avoid treating the indigent by having no emergency room. The problem with these hospitals is obvious. If a physician owns a chunk of the profits, then he will be tempted to send people for unnecessary surgery. Better yet, if he is a surgeon, he can bill for the unnecessary procedure and make extra profit from his hospital investment.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-geyman/the-corporate-alliance-fo_b_273924.htmlAnyone with an ounce of sense can see that a bargain like that is no bargain for the U.S. taxpayer. Our public expenditures for health care are as high as the total health care spending in Western European countries like France. One thing that keeps medical costs high is our disproportionate number of surgeons and other specialists compared to primary care docs. The surgeons choose their specialties, because they can make a lot of money doing procedures like lumbar disc surgery which has never been proven to be any more beneficial than conservative, low cost treatment. They convince American consumers that a quick, surgical cure---paid for by the government---is the best treatment for what ails them. They attack European style health care models as taking away people’s choice. However, who would choose to have an unnecessary possibly dangerous and certainly debilitating and painful surgery if he knew that it was not going to do him any good?
More Doctors Smoke Camels…. 
The nation’s physicians killed the first attempts to pass universal health insurance under Truman. They almost killed Medicare (and in the process, they got Ronald Reagan into politics). They hemmed and hawed over Hillary Care. Now that they have had to deal with a couple of decades of managed care, a little more government intervention does not sound as bad as it used to---especially if the “new” lipstick on a pig health care reform increases the nation’s pool of insured patients.
However, they are not about to give up their support for nothing. Like all the others, doctors have an agenda. They want higher pay. They want to be able to recommend unnecessary surgery without being vetoed by an insurer. Most important of all, they want to see federal limits on malpractice. From the AMA:
Eases the crushing weight of medical liability and insurance company bureaucracy
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/our-vision.shtmlBecause lord knows, no cardiologist can survive on the $400,000 annual average salary that they make. You can check out salary ranges for a variety of specialists here:
http://www.studentdoc.com/salaries.html The Brave New World of Health Care Reform 
Industry insiders have been invited to the table, while health care consumers have been left out in the cold. If every member of the Medical Industrial Complex has his way, we will see a bill which requires all of us to purchase health insurance policies, some of which may be exorbitantly priced (if we are older than 40) and all of which will offer reduced benefits in order to discourage us from using them. The Medicare Part D drug company rip off bonanza will continue as is for another decade. Specialty hospitals will proliferate---and the number of medical students choosing to become specialists will increase. That will leave fewer doctors to do preventive medicine, so our nation will continue to become increasingly disease ridden (compared to the world’s other industrialized nations) and our health care costs will skyrocket, with most of the payments coming out of federal tax coffers at the same time that health insurers are collecting a whole lot of money for doing nothing. Medicare and Medicaid will continue to exist as the federally funded parallel health insurer which provides care for most of the nation’s medically needy, while the rest of us will make do with crappy private policies that insure against nothing except paying the fine for not having insurance. Bankruptcies for medical bills will increase in number, since 35% of most hospital bills will be too much for the average American to pay. Drug prices will rise. Profits will sore. As the medical industries see their coffers full to overflowing, they will have even more money with which to bribe federal officials—laws that allow the feds to pre-empt state regulation will save them a lot of money on local campaign contributions and make it easier for them to solidify their power. Since the government will be close to bankrupt subsidizing all those powerful companies and paying inflated medical costs for Medicare beneficiaries, there will be no federal money left over to spend on the type of public health disease prevention programs they have in Europe---
Under this scenario, I see no reason why expenditures for health care could not top 20% of the GNP by the end of Obama’s term of office. And our already abysmally low health standards could fall even more.
No change at all would be better than this kind of change. At least with no change at all, people would know that their will has been thwarted by a bunch of lying sack of shit politicians who care more about keeping medical industry players happy than in keeping their campaign promises.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
