Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Health Reform - Reality

In my previous commentaries I talked about Health Insurance Reform because I saw the problem as being primarily one of insurance. Too many people are uninsured. Those who are insured often don’t get coverage when they most need it. The expense of insurance is astronomical and going up.

But as I study the problem in ever greater depth I have begun to realize that I have been looking at the tip of the iceberg. Insurance is only a part of the problem and I have concluded not the major one.

I have concluded that the cost of our medical delivery system is astronomically expensive and going up and while the inefficiencies of the private insurance companies are contributing to the problem they are not the primary cause. But the situation has been a problem since the time of Teddy Roosevelt and has now become nothing short of a crisis, which unless dealt with endangers the economy of the United States. If nothing is done health care is on a path where in a relatively short time it will bankrupt the country.

Let me repeat: If nothing is done health care is on a path where in a relatively short time it will bankrupt the country.

This is truly not a Republican or a Democratic problem it is in words of our President “an American problem.”

Fidelity Investments, a brokerage and Mutual Fund company, is not a political organization and certainly not a Democratic or a liberal one. Its mutual funds total $1.57 trillion in assets.

They write on their web site:

“The rising cost of health care in the United States represents a significant threat to the competitiveness of U.S. businesses and the fiscal sustainability of government finances.

“Reform that reduces the rate of health care inflation is critical to the long-term prospects for the U.S. economy.”

They go on to say:

“Health care expenditures have risen at more than twice the pace of overall inflation since 1970, …the United States spends far and away more money on health care …than any other country in the world. Health care spending makes up 15.3% of GDP compared to an average 8.8% for developed countries.

“…aggregate health statistics, such as life expectancy or infant mortality, are worse in the United States than other developed countries despite the extra expenditure. This is the essence of the problem: health care costs are rising more quickly than GDP, tax revenues, business sales, employee wages or any other measure of national, public, or private incomes. At this pace, health care will continue to consume an ever larger share of public and private sector resources. …it represents a large expense with inflation rates that are unsustainable.”

For Republicans to oppose change is irresponsible. To oppose reform by the use distortions and lies is inexcusable. To resort to comparisons to the Nazis or to euthanasia is despicable.

We probably should consider one of the systems that work, whether the British, the Canadian or the Swiss or any other as long as it controls costs. For an article that debunks some of the lies and myths about these systems see here.

For reasons that are incomprehensible to me, that is politically impossible.

An American single payer system like Medicare is the next best solution! A public option follows close behind. But, and this is directed at my liberal friends, reform of some kind is essential and the proposal, which seems to have support in the Senate, that if state co-ops or other programs failed to meet certain cost and coverage goals in five years, the president could create a public plan on a fast track without threat of a Senate filibuster has a lot to commend it as a compromise. 

It is not sensible to adopt the Republican approach of “My way or the highway.” Reform may have to be piecemeal, but we cannot forgo a start because it falls short. Time is short and neither inaction nor delay is an option.

The insurance companies, who have been the most effective entity in blocking reform in the past, make good villains. But they are doing what all business entities do in our capitalist system. They will fight to protect their profits and a review of their profits shows them not to be outrageously profitable. What they are is outrageously inefficient. According to Locker Gnome, Aetna, United Health and Tenet have profit margins of 3.85%, 4.1%, and 2.63% respectively, compared to e.g. Microsoft at 24.93%, Exxon 8.98% and Apple at 14.97%. But their inefficiency is most likely due to the huge amount spent cherry picking healthy people, denying insurance and claims to people with pre-conditions, and finding other causes for not paying claims. If the Health Reform legislation forbids these practices we will not only get people who are now uninsurable, insured, and get insured people reimbursed for their expenses, but we will have taken a huge step forward toward a better system.

 It doesn’t solve all the problems, but a half loaf is better than none, and we must guard against the perfect being the enemy of the good. Fighting for a public option is one thing, but making it the sin qua non of health reform, serves only to strengthen the hand of the enemies of all reform. Sometime it is better to win a battle and live to fight another day, than to gloriously go down to defeat, and lose the best opportunity for reform we shall see for a very long time. Right now liberal forces in sniping at the President are doing a disservice not only to Health Reform, but to all the other reforms that will follow once this battle is behind us.

17 comments:

Albert Nekimken of Vienna, Virginia said...

Thanks for this concise and insightful comment on the health care issue.
See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/25/AR2009082503413.html?hpid%3Dmoreheadlines&sub=AR
for a summary of a Town Hall meeting last night held in Reson, VA, by Rep. Moran (Alexandria, VA) and Dr. Howard Dean.
It is interesting to note that they expressed Scheller's points below exactly. In addition, in regard to the "public option", Moran said clearly that the goal of current legislation was to extend "Medicare" benefits to everyone. They said that the private health insurance sector should/could have a role in the reform, but only if prevented from cherry-picking policyholders, denying coverage for
maternity and pre-existing conditions. Dean pointed out that the Netherlands and Switzerland had systems that depended on private insurance
companies, BUT these countries treated them as regulated utilities with caps on profit, compensation, policy premiums and terms offered to policyholders. He speculated that the U.S. private healthcare insurance industry was unlikely to consider such an alternative to be attractive;
faced with this alternative, they would likely prefer to compete with the "public option.
Like Scheller, they insisted that maintaining the current arrangement was entirely untenable.

Pam Tiza said...

Very nice, reasonable and responsible analysis. We in America pay more for drugs than other countries--can this be solved???

Tanya Keith of Des Moines, Iowa said...

Think we don't need to change our system? Health care is fine, right? It's only people too lazy to buy it or work that get into trouble, right? Well, what happens if things don't go exactly as they always have for you? What happens if: The employer that provides you insurance, one day you find out that he's kinda shady. In fact, he's been claiming to pay your
premiums (even when you ask directly to his face) but really, he hasn't. For five months. You don't know this, because the insurance company is still paying for your baby's checkups and his ER visit, your daughter's Kindergarten physical, and your Rxs.
But one day, you try to get eye drops for your daughter and find out that your insurance was canceled 5 months back. Oh yes, and this corrupt CEO has also bounced your last 2 paychecks (but you won't find that out till tomorrow). Over the next year, you'll slowly be billed for $4000+ worth of bills that the insurance co. is now retroactively denying. (Luckily,
you weren't one of the co-workers that was on chemo, those people are totally f#$%ed).
But right now, you have a family of 4 without health care. So you have money (thank G-d for parents!) and you go to buy a policy.
Unfortunately, you were never notified that your insurance was canceled back in May (it's September now) so you're past the 63 days you need for COBRA and you're in pre-existing hell. Because you actually used your coverage, they want to charge you $600 a month.
Oops, sorry, that ER trip in July for the 106.1 fever (that wasn't covered by insurance you thought you had) for a NON-CHRONIC respiratory illness for your 1 year old is going to cost you (more than the $1000+ you already owe for it...yes, a few hours, some blood work and IV antibiotics is over $1000). Wellmark wants to rider his coverage on any respiratory illness for FOUR YEARS (that's 4x his life) in spite of your appeal w note from your Dr. stating he has no chronic conditions. So can you afford $600 a month to not get respiratory illness covered?
No. But you can fall back on Title 19 right? Your country will protect you. WRONG! Because your employer still says he's paying you your VP salary. (He's not, he just bounced your last 2 paychecks...tomorrow your bank will
call and tell you you're $2800 overdrawn)
So you literally have negative money, but you can't qualify for Title 19. You can't even qualify for Hawk-I for 4 weeks until your husband's salary finally falls off the books. In 5 days, your daughter will be bit by a tick, and 4 days
after that, your whole family will get strep throat. How will you deal with that? How do you feel, sitting in Social Services, a business owner and a former VP level employee, married 14 years with 2 kids having always paid into the system...how will you feel when they tell you there's nothing they can do for your family?
Because that is EXACTLY what happened to my family when the Baking Company of Boone went bankrupt on the backs of their employees. We need to detach health care from the employer, and we need to provide affordable coverage to EVERYONE. I'd like to say that I'd never wish this experience on anyone, but in fact, I wish it on everyone that doesn't support a government option for health care for all.
I can also talk to you about the absurdity of trying to own a business and pay for health care for my employees when I need to have 2 people who want coverage to form a plan and then can't budget for my expenses because the rates
changes so erratically. It's like saying that my rent is X, but if I want to use the space it's going to cost 15% more next year, and if I have the lights and water on at the same time it will be.....are you kidding me?
(I will continue in the next post)

Tanya Keith of Des Moines, Iowa said...

It's hard enough to retain employees, now I have to look for ones that have insurance through their husband, or don't, depending on what I need for our plan? It doesn't take long to figure out that women of childbearing age are the most expensive to insure, so you can't tell me that discrimination on some level isn't happening because of it.
I'd rather trust my government than the ethically questionable CEOs that definitely exist out there, and I'd rather have some government official making health care choices that an insurance executive who's job depends on profiting, not keeping me healthy.
I think preventative health care coverage is key to keeping our costs down. I think midwifery care should be covered and encouraged to keep expenses down and to improve our terrible ranking in maternal health care.
And I think if you really want to stimulate the economy, remove one of the most difficult expenses for business owners and allow us to work on creating jobs.

Barbara Valentino Crowley Baptiste Moreus of Port St. Lucie, Florida said...

A very fitting tribute to Edward M. Kennedy:
"For of those to whom much is given, much is required. And when at some future date the high court of history sits in judgment on each of us, recording whether in our brief span of service we fulfilled our responsibilities to the state, our success or failure, in whatever office we hold, will be measured by the answers to four questions: First, were we truly men of courage…
Second, were we truly men of judgment…
Third, were we truly men of integrity…
Finally were we truly men of dedication?"
from John F Kennedy's speech to the Massachusetts State Legislature, Jan. 9, 1961.

Nicole Scheller of Lawrenceville, NJ said...

I had a baby. This is something that presumably health insurance companies have dealt with
before. I have company-subsidized health insurance with a major insurance carrier. On the surface one would assume this would be very straightforward. Apparently, not.
There were some complications after the birth that the hospital staff determined required some tests and specialists. Fortunately, one doctor was able to determine the cause of my problems and my health gradually improved over the ensuing weeks. All was resolved except the bureaucracy that my complicated post-natal care created. Within a few weeks, the bills and claim notices started pouring in at least two, sometimes three or four a day. I spent hours over the first three months of my infant’s life on the phone with the health insurance company, the doctor’s offices, and the hospital. I had to send the bills to the insurance company and then turn around and send the checks to the doctors who had seen me in the hospital. I was billed for out-of-state care (strange since
I was ordered by doctors not to leave my bed). I received the bill for the hospital stay that neared $10,000, because it had taken everyone involved too long to get all the complicated paperwork together to simply get it covered by the insurance company. I took a picture of my desk in the midst of all this, covered, two inches high, with bills.
Now that I have a baby and a self-employed husband, my insurance premiums are just under $800 a month. This is just what I pay; my employer pays the remaining $500+ per month. I’m a teacher, I’m sure my employer could do something better with the $500 a month, and this sum, plus the $25 co-pay for regular doctor visits and $50 for specialists is a financial burden second only to our mortgage. How can it possibility cost $1,332 a month to keep three people healthy?

Roger Berkley of Hackensack, NJ said...

I am the President of Weave Corp. which employs 168 people.
My experiences and views can be found on three web-casts which can be found at: http://www.rogerberkley.com/
The first that I recommend
is entitled: Healthcare: "The Great American Boondoggle" for which you will have to scroll down just a bit. Then as you scroll up you can find two more that are worth listening to.

Penelope Sands of Boulder, Colorado said...

Wow thats great (and terrible) story. I hope she cc'd her congressman, senator, President Obama
and the entire group of Democratic and Republican representatives who are against health care (reform). I am Australian and every time I hear about this I want to cry or scream...

Herb Reiner of Cedar Grove, NJ said...

I recommend an article in the Washington Post at: http://tinyurl.com/nfhocw which argues that the problems that Health Care reform is encountering, lie in the innate resistance of people to change.

Bruno Lederer of Stamford, Conn. said...

Obama should lean hard on the Blue Dog Democrats until they are ready to go along. Waiting and postponing is very risky because the Republicans could win many seats in both houses in 2010, and Obama may even be a one term president if his popularity continues to decline. Numerically the Democrats are in the best position now, and may not have similar strength in the foreseeable future. If we settle for a half loaf now, what makes you think that we will be able to get a full loaf later?

Bruno Lederer of Stamford, Conn. said...

I think that we should fight hard to get a bill with a public option even if we can't get a single payer
plan..

Emil Scheller of Fort Lee, NJ said...

Bruno Lederer misses the point that I was making. I would love to get everything that is needed to reform health care. I just don't think it is politically possible.
What I see is groups on the left wanting Obama to say in effect, e.g. if Congress passes a bill that does not have a public option I will veto it. Or if it does not have needed cost savings or it doesn't have offsetting tax
increases, etc. I will not approve it. This attitude of all or nothing will net nothing, and I will take what we can get.
Should Obama pressure blue dog Democrats. Of course he should. I would even go so far as to say that Reid should tell Baucus report a bill out by September 15 or I will take your chairmanship away, since it is obvious Republicans are not
negotiating in good faith and are using the Finance committee as a delaying tactic, i.e. delay it to death.
As for the waning Obama popularity that is due in part to the unease about change that the public always has,
see: http://tinyurl.com/nfhocw and http://tinyurl.com/ng63kn but also to a large degree to the sniping at him from the left, where he is under constant attack, the stimulus isn't large enough, we need a second one; he isn't hard enough on the banks, we need to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq, he isn't moving fast enough on gay issues, i.e. "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and
repeal of the the Defense of Marriage Act. Prosecute the higher -ups for torture, get Cheney and Rumsfeld and on and on and on.
I say lay off - He has accomplished miracles in 200 days - Bruno and others like him are not helping.
What we need is to support our President.
This will also serve as a response to Herb Reiner who called the Washington Post story to our attention.

Bruno Lederer of of Stamford, Conn. said...

I do support the President - but I'm curious about the "miracles" Emil Scheller says he's accomplished in 200 days.
All I ask on the health care issue is a little more leadership and hand wringing of the democrats who are not in line, as Lyndon
Johnson would have done.

Bruno Lederer of of Stamford, Conn. said...

I do support the President - but I'm curious about the "miracles" Emil Scheller says he's accomplished in 200 days.
All I ask on the health care issue is a little more leadership and hand wringing of the democrats who are not in line, as Lyndon
Johnson would have done.

Emil Scheller of Fort Lee, NJ said...

In response to Bruno Lederer request for Obama's accomplishments I list many of them day by day for the first 100 days as set forth in an article in Time at: http://tinyurl.com/ntrazg
Day 2 - sets strict ethical guidelines for his new employees, including a pay freeze for senior White House staff making more than $100,000 a year as well as tougher rules regarding lobbyists in his Administration. He also fulfills a
campaign promise by meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on his first full day to begin discussions on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Day 3 - The President begins undoing the policies of his predecessor on Day Three by issuing a trio of Executive Orders dealing with torture — including one calling for the closure of Gitmo by 2010 and another banning torture
and other harsh interrogation techniques like waterboarding.
The day itself is dominated by foreign policy news from the Administration. Newly confirmed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrives for her first day of work at the State Department, where Obama attends a ceremony appointing
former Senator George Mitchell as his Middle East envoy and Ambassador Richard Holbrooke as his Afghanistan and Pakistan envoy. Obama uses the event to call for the opening of Gaza's border crossings and extend U.S. support for an international donors'
conference to bring much-needed humanitarian aid and reconstruction to the Gaza Strip.
Day 4 - signed an Executive Order overturning the policy banning federal funding for international groups that promote or perform abortions. The controversial rule has been implemented by Republican Administrations and ended by
Democratic Administrations for more than two decades since its establishment by Ronald Reagan in 1984. But unlike his predecessors, including Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Obama opted against issuing the abortion-related order on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade the day before.
Day 7 - Gives an interview to an Arab news network showing his seriousness about fixing U.S. relations with other parts of the world. In the interview, the President seems optimistic about a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians but warns that it will require time and new thinking about the problems in the region as a whole.
Directs federal regulators to move quickly on applications by California and 13 other states to set strict auto-emission and
fuel-efficiency standards. The order fulfills a campaign pledge and indicates yet another sharp reversal from the ways of the
Bush Administration, this time on environmental policy.
Day 8 - Obama visits the Capitol to meet with House and Senate Republicans intending to show how important bipartisan support is to him. The session ended with little promise of compromise as Obama stands firm on the part of his some $800 billion stimulus plan that calls for tax rebates for nearly all working Americans, including some, much to the dismay of Republicans, who make too little to owe income taxes.
Day 9 - Obama put his signature on his first piece of legislation: the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, designed to make it easier for workers to sue over gender-based pay discrimination.
Day 25 - Congress' approves the $787 billion economic-stimulus measure.
Day 28 - The Secretary of State makes it clear while in Japan that the U.S. is going to continue to take a hard
line with North Korea on nukes.
Day 30 - Obama announces that he'll use $75 billion to help millions from going into foreclosure.
Day 38 - Obama outlines a 10-year budget plan at the White House to pay for overhauling health care, curbing
global warming, expanding the government's role in education and shifting more costs to corporations and the wealthiest taxpayers.
Day 42 - Clinton plunges into Middle East politics, committing the Administration to seeking a "comprehensive
peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

Emil Scheller of Fort Lee, NJ said...

I am continuing my response to Bruno Lederer.
Day 47 - Clinton makes the announcement that the Syrian talks are under way while visiting Turkey and praising officials there for their help in brokering a meeting.
Day 49 - Obama continues undoing Bush Administration policies by signing an executive order reversing the ban on federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research.
Day 84 - In another sharp break with the Bush White House, the Obama Administration announces it will allow Cuban Americans unlimited travel to the island nation and money transfers to relatives there.
Day 88 - the EPA's adopting the position that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas emissions pose a danger to the public's health and welfare.
Day 95 - Obama puts his focus on higher education, saying he's pushing for an overhaul of the way the government distributes student loans and hopes to see a higher percentage of college graduates by the end of the next decade.
Somewhere in there, there should have been a mention of improved relation with Russia and an agreement to reduce the stockpile of nuclear weapons.
And this doesn't mention the Healthcare push, or the challenges ahead, including global warming, where the House passed a bill that is awaiting action in the Senate, fixing Social Security, and Medicare, our infra-structure and of course dealing with Iran, Korea and Afghanistan.
But to list all the accomplishments or for that matter challenges left for Obama by the previous Administration would make this already long dissertation endless.
However I recommend one other article in the Huffington Post which can be accesses at: http://tinyurl.com/krz6d7
and for the second hundred days which includes the nomination of Sonya Sotomayor I urge reading: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/obamas-second-hundred-day_b_253454.html and finally for an article that agrees with me on the need for dealing with Health Care reform over time see an article by Jonathan Alter in Newsweek which can be accessed at: http://www.newsweek.com/id/212162
As for the question about Lyndon Johnson getting his Great Society program, including Medicare, through the Congress, Lyndon Johnson's Senate had a Democratic majority of 68 seats in the Senate which is very different from the 60 and maybe only 58 if you eliminate the seats of Kennedy and Byrd. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1964
Also see: See: http://tinyurl.com/l4re9g
In addition the filibuster was not adopted as a standard policy by Republicans until Bob Dole announced it after the election of Clinton.

Emil Scheller of Fort Lee, NJ said...

Another reason it is so difficult to pass reform legislation is because of the increased and increasing influence of corporate money in politics.
I expressed this concern in a letter to the NY Times which was not publsihed, as follows:
“Paul Krugman in his insightful article on the Healthcare debate (Missing Richard Nixon August 30, 2009) points out “our corporate-cash-dominated system is a relatively recent creation, dating mainly from the late 1970. And now that this system exists, reform of any kind has become extremely difficult.
He is absolutely right, but he fails to mention that it is probably going to get much worse after the Supreme Court’s likely decision in Citizens United v. FEC, a case involving corporate spending, which is analyzed in the Times article, Supreme Court to Revisit ‘Hillary’ Documentary (August 29, 2009) and that is likely to overrule an earlier case upholding the applicable provision of the McCain Feingold Act, so as to allow even greater corporate influence on the political process, the very situation, which Krugman decries, and which I believe is a threat to our Democracy.
The two articles can be found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/opinion/31krugman.html and
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/us/30scotus.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Supreme%20on%20Clinton%20film&st=cse respectively.