I am going to vote for John Corzine for governor of NJ on Tuesday November 3 for many reasons, but the most important is that he is not a Republican, and that a vote for him is the only vote that will prevent the election of the Republican candidate.
There was a time when I might have voted for a Republican. There was a time when there were some decent Republicans around, like Senator Case of New Jersey, or Senator Javits of New York, or Senator Morse of Oregon. But the big tent Republican Party is no more. They have systematically purged all who do not fit the ideological bent of the party.
To be sure the Republican Party had its genesis in the election of Lincoln and the abolition of slavery, but by 1877 less than a dozen years after the martyrdom of Lincoln, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes sold out the newly freed slaves in order to gain the Presidency. The website Travel and History put it this way: “To the four million former slaves in the South, the Compromise of 1877 was the ‘Great Betrayal.’ Republican efforts to assure civil rights for the blacks were totally abandoned. The white population of the country was anxious to get on with making money. No serious move to restore the rights of black citizens would surface again until the 1950s.”
Thereafter, Republicans and their big business allies dominated the political landscape with such “luminaries” as Chester A. Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, William Howard Taft, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover representing a dominant Republican Party. Lincoln must have been revolving in his grave. This sorry lot were were interrupted only by the ascendancy of Teddy Roosevelt, who became the only distinguished Republican during this whole era leading up to the Great Depression, and he was never the choice of the Republican establishment. After being elected governor of New York, he was kicked up to the Vice-Presidency to get him out of the way, and much to the dismay of the Republican establishment became President upon the death of McKinley. The Great Depression was not the sole fault of Herbert Hoover. It became inevitable through the policies of three Republican Presidents from 1921 to 1929, eight years, which in many ways resembled the eight years of the Bush Administration. Fortunately for the US and indeed the world, Bush who was only the head of the monster, realized in the last year of his Administration that we were facing a potential repeat of 1929 and took drastic steps to avert disaster, which true to form were opposed by the majority of his party. Also happily, while it took four years between the onset of the Depression in 1929 and the inaugural of FDR, it took only one year between the beginning of the recession of 2008 and the inauguration of Barack Obama in 2009.
To be sure the Democratic Party for most of the years after the Civil War was identified as the party of racism and the Republican party continued to bask in the image of Lincoln, but this was the result of the Democratic Party being a House divided against itself, with the part from the old South hanging on to the vestiges of slavery, and the Northern part becoming increasingly the party of emancipation and Civil Rights. Such Democratic Senators as Bilbo and Eastland of Mississippi, and Richard Russell of Georgia along with Strom Thurmond of South Carolina were determined to hold onto the quasi slavery that continued in the Unreconstructed South while northern Democrats like Lehman of New York and Humphrey of Minnesota worked for reform. Thurmond even ran for President in 1948 on the Dixiecrat Party. But the Nixon Administration’s Southern strategy changed that and invited such segregationists into the Republican fold. Thurmond became a Republican in 1964, and as late as 2002 the Republican about to become majority leader of the Senate, Trent Lott, hailed Thurmond with these remarks, “I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either." See The Nation for more background on Lott.
The Republican Party gave us McCarthyism in the 1950’s and torture in this century and even the relatively benign Eisenhower ordered the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected President of Iran, Mohammed Mosedegh, and installed the hated Shah, which was directly responsible for the ascendancy of the present theocracy in that poor country.
But what of New Jersey? The Star Ledger endorsed the 3rd party candidate, Chris Daggett, but the latest poll shows Daggatt garnering 9% of the vote, so a vote for Daggett is a wasted vote. The Republican candidate, Chris Christie, stands for all the Bromides of the National Republican party. He would be a disaster for the state and his election would be interpreted as a repudiation of Obama. His main attack on Corzine is that NJ has the highest property taxes in the nation, but he forgets to tell us that neither the governor nor the State legislature has any control over property taxes, which are levied by the many towns and villages that dot New Jersey, and that New Jersey had the highest property taxes long before Corzine became governor. He tells us about the high unemployment rate of New Jersey, but he forgets to tell us that it is no higher than the National average and is the product of the Republican induced recession. He also forgets to tell us that New Jersey has the 2nd highest personal income per capita in the nation. As for the income tax, which is under State jurisdiction, New Jersey is 23rd in tax revenue as a % of personal income.
There are only two ways to reduce property taxes. One, with which I fully agree, was suggested by the NJ Chamber of Commerce in a Letter to the Editor in August of 2006. They wrote, “Property tax reform will only happen when there is consolidation of some of the more than 1,000 layers of government that currently have taxing authority” but only Governor Corzine of the three candidates has made any proposal that would further this objective. He has suggested that money should be put into a fund to incentivize municipal and school consolidations. This is the only sound idea on the table.
The other is to raise the income tax and finance our schools with those taxes. Since the main purpose for local property taxes is to fund local schools, changing the funding formula so that schools are funded by state taxes would lower property taxes and remove a major inequity in school funding.
But the biggest problem that New Jersey faces is its huge deficit, which is the direct result of the popular but shortsighted Republican penchant for tax cuts. When Republican Christie Whitman became governor in 1994, she cut the income tax by 1/3 but never found the savings that would offset this loss of revenue. The result, NJ is saddled with huge debt, the interest that goes with it, and no end in sight. Christie promises more of the same, but like all Republicans will not say what programs he will cut, or how he will finance the debt. If Christie is elected NJ will not long continue to be second in per capita income.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Continuing the Health Care debate
In my last commentary I took time off from the Health Care Debate to focus on the power of money in politics, and my concern with an impending Supreme Court decision, which would allow corporate and union money to dominate our political discourse. My article can be found on the web under the title: "Money and Politics". Before that I addressed Republican Talking Points on Health Care focusing primarily on McCain’s purported proposal.
Now I want to return to the Health Care debate where there continues to be a great deal of deliberate misinformation (lies) and also a great deal of just plain misunderstandings. Some of these can be found in the fears engendered in my own generation who have the best overall health insurance of any segment of the American population and it is a “Government plan” – in fact it is a single payer plan. But it was vigorously opposed by the same groups who now oppose reform for the rest of Americans and who now try to convince us that reform will either undermine Medicare or that somehow Medicare is in fact bad. Thus when we look at the Letters to the Editor column in the NY Times of October 6, we find, e.g. this, “Medicare, is riddled with fraud and waste, has trillions in unfunded liabilities and is not accepted by many of the best doctors.” I think this would be news to most Americans and particularly those over 65. Let me take that reverse order.
1.) Without doubt some doctors don’t take Medicare, though in my personal experience I have not encountered one. On the other hand most doctors don’t take one or more of the private insurance companies and I constantly see signs in doctors offices to the effect that they no longer take United Health Care or Aetna or some other private insurance carrier.
2.) “It has trillions in unfunded liabilities”. That is simply not true. Medicare is now having some relatively small short falls and the same people who oppose reform of the whole system, oppose taking the steps that will make Medicare viable for the foreseeable future. The Bush Administration imposed an unsustainable burden on the Medicare fund when it instituted Medicare Advantage.
Here is what one of my Libertarian physician friends, one Gerry Wachs had to say about it:
I frankly question the $9,000 as an exaggeration, but whatever it is, this windfall for insurance companies cannot be sustained, but it is trumpeted as an attack on Medicare. In fact the reform plan, while cutting back on payments to insurance companies, increases payments to doctors to make sure they stay in Medicare
3.) “Riddled with fraud and waste.” It is well established that the costs of administering Medicare are way below those for private insurance, and while there surely is fraud and waste, that is unfortunately true in every plan, more so in private insurance than in Medicare.
Another letter to the Times from an ophthalmologist that Medicare doesn’t reimburse him for a cheap off label drug so he uses a more expensive one, which costs the government millions. He doesn’t say what items the private insurance companies refuse to reimburse, and examples of insurance companies refusing life saving cancer treatments are legion. He doesn’t even tell us whether private insurance companies reimburse for the drug, which Medicare has removed from its formulary, nor does he tell us what, “off label” means. An “off label” use of a drug means that the drug is being used for a purpose, which has not been proven to be efficacious and has not been approved by the FDA. Physicians use such off label drugs on the basis of their own anecdotal experiences or sometimes obscure articles in Medical Journals.
Finally, I come back to that favorite hobbyhorse of Republicans, Malpractice claims. In previous articles I have pointed out that none of the reforms that have been proposed or have been enacted in the states do anything to prevent or discourage frivolous claims. In fact we have protection against such claims at the present. If the facts proven at trial don’t support it judges can throw the case out and not let it go to the jury. If the judge finds the case to be frivolous he can penalize both the claimant and the attorneys. If that is not enough we could set up special courts, so malpractice cases would be tried before a panel of experts, but that is not what is being proposed. Reform in the states has meant, and means to its advocates in the Congress, limiting awards to “economic damages”, plus a maximum of $250,000 for pain and suffering, which as I have pointed out in the past, means that those who earn large incomes get millions, while a bank clerk who has lost his eyesight only gets that small amount which his/her earning capacity justifies, plus what is left otf the $250,000 after fees and expenses. This is not justice except to those who believe that only the rich have rights, and those who have less are the flotsam of our society to be discarded and disregarded.
The NY Times had an interesting article on the subject on August 31 entitled, “Would Tort Reform Lower Costs?” which is definitely worth reading. It quotes a law professor at the Pennsylvania School of Law as describing tort reform as “a red Herring” and points out that, “As the cost of health care goes up, the medical liability component of it has stayed fairly constant. That means it’s part of the medical price inflation system, but it’s not driving it. The number of claims is small relative to actual cases of medical malpractice.” He adds, “Medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. He adds: “We have approximately the same number of claims today as in the late 1980s. Think about that. The cost of health care has doubled since then. The number of medical encounters between doctors and patients has gone up — and research shows a more or less constant rate of errors per hospitalizations. That means we have a declining rate of lawsuits relative to numbers of injuries.” He adds: “…studies looked at the rate of claims and found that only 4 to 7 percent of those injured brought a case. That’s a small percentage. And because the actual number of injuries has gone up since those studies were done — while claims have remained steady — the rate of claims is actually going down.”
What we need is less medical malpractice – not a cap on the ability to be compensated for the harm done.
Now I want to return to the Health Care debate where there continues to be a great deal of deliberate misinformation (lies) and also a great deal of just plain misunderstandings. Some of these can be found in the fears engendered in my own generation who have the best overall health insurance of any segment of the American population and it is a “Government plan” – in fact it is a single payer plan. But it was vigorously opposed by the same groups who now oppose reform for the rest of Americans and who now try to convince us that reform will either undermine Medicare or that somehow Medicare is in fact bad. Thus when we look at the Letters to the Editor column in the NY Times of October 6, we find, e.g. this, “Medicare, is riddled with fraud and waste, has trillions in unfunded liabilities and is not accepted by many of the best doctors.” I think this would be news to most Americans and particularly those over 65. Let me take that reverse order.
1.) Without doubt some doctors don’t take Medicare, though in my personal experience I have not encountered one. On the other hand most doctors don’t take one or more of the private insurance companies and I constantly see signs in doctors offices to the effect that they no longer take United Health Care or Aetna or some other private insurance carrier.
2.) “It has trillions in unfunded liabilities”. That is simply not true. Medicare is now having some relatively small short falls and the same people who oppose reform of the whole system, oppose taking the steps that will make Medicare viable for the foreseeable future. The Bush Administration imposed an unsustainable burden on the Medicare fund when it instituted Medicare Advantage.
Here is what one of my Libertarian physician friends, one Gerry Wachs had to say about it:
“The government pays the companies a fortune to offer them to Medicare beneficiaries. I pay $0 (that is free) each month and get doctor co-pays, $2500+ in free medications, twice a year free dental cleaning, a health club membership… free glasses, free hearing aid etc, etc. That replaces all the ancillary plans out there for backup coverage. The government was paying my plan administrator, Oxford, $9,000/year to cover me so of course they could offer all these benefits.”
I frankly question the $9,000 as an exaggeration, but whatever it is, this windfall for insurance companies cannot be sustained, but it is trumpeted as an attack on Medicare. In fact the reform plan, while cutting back on payments to insurance companies, increases payments to doctors to make sure they stay in Medicare
3.) “Riddled with fraud and waste.” It is well established that the costs of administering Medicare are way below those for private insurance, and while there surely is fraud and waste, that is unfortunately true in every plan, more so in private insurance than in Medicare.
Another letter to the Times from an ophthalmologist that Medicare doesn’t reimburse him for a cheap off label drug so he uses a more expensive one, which costs the government millions. He doesn’t say what items the private insurance companies refuse to reimburse, and examples of insurance companies refusing life saving cancer treatments are legion. He doesn’t even tell us whether private insurance companies reimburse for the drug, which Medicare has removed from its formulary, nor does he tell us what, “off label” means. An “off label” use of a drug means that the drug is being used for a purpose, which has not been proven to be efficacious and has not been approved by the FDA. Physicians use such off label drugs on the basis of their own anecdotal experiences or sometimes obscure articles in Medical Journals.
Finally, I come back to that favorite hobbyhorse of Republicans, Malpractice claims. In previous articles I have pointed out that none of the reforms that have been proposed or have been enacted in the states do anything to prevent or discourage frivolous claims. In fact we have protection against such claims at the present. If the facts proven at trial don’t support it judges can throw the case out and not let it go to the jury. If the judge finds the case to be frivolous he can penalize both the claimant and the attorneys. If that is not enough we could set up special courts, so malpractice cases would be tried before a panel of experts, but that is not what is being proposed. Reform in the states has meant, and means to its advocates in the Congress, limiting awards to “economic damages”, plus a maximum of $250,000 for pain and suffering, which as I have pointed out in the past, means that those who earn large incomes get millions, while a bank clerk who has lost his eyesight only gets that small amount which his/her earning capacity justifies, plus what is left otf the $250,000 after fees and expenses. This is not justice except to those who believe that only the rich have rights, and those who have less are the flotsam of our society to be discarded and disregarded.
The NY Times had an interesting article on the subject on August 31 entitled, “Would Tort Reform Lower Costs?” which is definitely worth reading. It quotes a law professor at the Pennsylvania School of Law as describing tort reform as “a red Herring” and points out that, “As the cost of health care goes up, the medical liability component of it has stayed fairly constant. That means it’s part of the medical price inflation system, but it’s not driving it. The number of claims is small relative to actual cases of medical malpractice.” He adds, “Medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. He adds: “We have approximately the same number of claims today as in the late 1980s. Think about that. The cost of health care has doubled since then. The number of medical encounters between doctors and patients has gone up — and research shows a more or less constant rate of errors per hospitalizations. That means we have a declining rate of lawsuits relative to numbers of injuries.” He adds: “…studies looked at the rate of claims and found that only 4 to 7 percent of those injured brought a case. That’s a small percentage. And because the actual number of injuries has gone up since those studies were done — while claims have remained steady — the rate of claims is actually going down.”
What we need is less medical malpractice – not a cap on the ability to be compensated for the harm done.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Money and Politics
I have been devoting my energies to writing about the ongoing health care debate and will continue to do so hereafter, but we are faced with a situation that so fundamentally changes the character of our Democracy, that I must digress to alert my readers.
As early as the 19th century Mark Twain said, “We have the best government that money can buy.”
This was dramatically illustrated when in 1896 the champion of the masses, of the debtor classes, William Jennings Bryan, ran against the champion of the entrenched business interests, corporations, and the banking industry, William McKinley. McKinley, who outspent Bryan by an estimated 10 to 1, won handily, proving Hanna’s famous dictum: “There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can’t remember what the second one is.” By 1904 the popular outcry was so great that the then losing Democratic candidate declared, “The greatest moral question which now confronts us is shall the trusts and corporations be prevented from contributing money to control or aid in controlling elections?” In 1907, Congress passed the Tillman Act, the first federal law barring corporate campaign contributions. States adopted similar laws. Since then, Congress has repeatedly ratified the federal ban. In 1925, it folded the Tillman Act into the Federal Corrupt Practices Act. In 1947, it made clear that the ban included not just corporate contributions, but corporate expenditures on campaigns — and that it also applied to labor unions. In the 2002 McCain-Feingold law, Congress once again underscored that corporations cannot contribute to campaigns. See here.
Thus this principle has stood the test of time, having been affirmed by the people’s elected representatives in Congress time and time again and by the Supreme Court as well.
But now with a court dominated by these same interests, it appears that they are getting ready to strike down these essential restrictions and open the floodgates to the domination of the political process by the billions upon billions contained in corporate treasuries.
The Los Angeles Times summarized potential result when they wrote: “If the justices were to issue such a ruling in the next few months, it could reshape American politics, beginning with the congressional campaign in 2010…
“For example, the health insurance industry would have a much greater ability to target for defeat lawmakers who supported a so-called public option for medical insurance. Banks and investment firms could oppose representatives who favored stricter regulation of the financial industry…And far more money could flow into elections. Last year, the political parties spent about $1.5 billion on campaigns, while corporations earned more than $600 billion in profits.” See here.
Justice Scalia and his brethren on the Right by their questions during argument suggested that in their view corporations are no different from individuals or association of individuals and are entitled to the same rights, but for one who claims to be an “originalist” he ignores that the constitution gives no such rights to “artificial persons” and that Jefferson in 1816 even expressed the hope to, “crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” See here.
To suggest that corporations are no different from associations of individuals they would not have the many rights that are unique to them, such as limited liability or as the Solicitor General put it, “Corporations are artificial persons endowed by the government with significant special advantages that no natural person possesses,’’ or as the Boston Globe wrote, “publicly traded business corporation, driven to maximize profits by market competition and its own charter, can’t rise above that mission any more than it can dance nude. Corporations aren’t “voluntary associations’’ with republican intentions, as Justice Antonin Scalia claims; in a civic sense, they’re mindless, because their shareholders change with every stock-price fluctuation.” See here.
But last, but not least, corporations don’t even represent the views of their stockholders. As I wrote on my blog in another context, “Unfortunately, it is not shareholders who decide on compensation. It is the Board of Directors! And who chooses the Board of Directors? Usually the CEOs. To be sure Shareholders get a chance to vote at shareholder meetings for the Board, and whatever issues are placed before them, but the only choices they really have is to vote yes or no on whatever the management chooses to let them vote on. And increasingly, shareholder meetings are held at out of the way places so as to discourage shareholders from attending. God forbid, they might ask embarrassing questions. They are asked to send in their proxies to confirm what has already been decided. The Chinese communist voting system is not much different.” See here. Thus Corporate CEOs, a small select group would have the power to spend untold billions to further whatever their political predilections may be.
A few years ago in a dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia sought to counter concerns by reform advocates about the potential corrupting influence of money in politics. Justice Scalia alluded to the signers of the Declaration of Independence as pledging their "fortunes" as well as their "sacred honor."
The solicitor General commenting on this put it very well when she said, "John Hancock pledged his own fortune, …When the CEO of John Hancock Financial uses corporate-treasury funds for electoral advertising, he pledges someone else's."
The impending decision of the Supreme Court may well be the most important event of a century. It could well end Democracy in the US as we know it. Instead of “power to the people” we may have “power to a few oligarchs.”
As early as the 19th century Mark Twain said, “We have the best government that money can buy.”
This was dramatically illustrated when in 1896 the champion of the masses, of the debtor classes, William Jennings Bryan, ran against the champion of the entrenched business interests, corporations, and the banking industry, William McKinley. McKinley, who outspent Bryan by an estimated 10 to 1, won handily, proving Hanna’s famous dictum: “There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can’t remember what the second one is.” By 1904 the popular outcry was so great that the then losing Democratic candidate declared, “The greatest moral question which now confronts us is shall the trusts and corporations be prevented from contributing money to control or aid in controlling elections?” In 1907, Congress passed the Tillman Act, the first federal law barring corporate campaign contributions. States adopted similar laws. Since then, Congress has repeatedly ratified the federal ban. In 1925, it folded the Tillman Act into the Federal Corrupt Practices Act. In 1947, it made clear that the ban included not just corporate contributions, but corporate expenditures on campaigns — and that it also applied to labor unions. In the 2002 McCain-Feingold law, Congress once again underscored that corporations cannot contribute to campaigns. See here.
Thus this principle has stood the test of time, having been affirmed by the people’s elected representatives in Congress time and time again and by the Supreme Court as well.
But now with a court dominated by these same interests, it appears that they are getting ready to strike down these essential restrictions and open the floodgates to the domination of the political process by the billions upon billions contained in corporate treasuries.
The Los Angeles Times summarized potential result when they wrote: “If the justices were to issue such a ruling in the next few months, it could reshape American politics, beginning with the congressional campaign in 2010…
“For example, the health insurance industry would have a much greater ability to target for defeat lawmakers who supported a so-called public option for medical insurance. Banks and investment firms could oppose representatives who favored stricter regulation of the financial industry…And far more money could flow into elections. Last year, the political parties spent about $1.5 billion on campaigns, while corporations earned more than $600 billion in profits.” See here.
Justice Scalia and his brethren on the Right by their questions during argument suggested that in their view corporations are no different from individuals or association of individuals and are entitled to the same rights, but for one who claims to be an “originalist” he ignores that the constitution gives no such rights to “artificial persons” and that Jefferson in 1816 even expressed the hope to, “crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” See here.
To suggest that corporations are no different from associations of individuals they would not have the many rights that are unique to them, such as limited liability or as the Solicitor General put it, “Corporations are artificial persons endowed by the government with significant special advantages that no natural person possesses,’’ or as the Boston Globe wrote, “publicly traded business corporation, driven to maximize profits by market competition and its own charter, can’t rise above that mission any more than it can dance nude. Corporations aren’t “voluntary associations’’ with republican intentions, as Justice Antonin Scalia claims; in a civic sense, they’re mindless, because their shareholders change with every stock-price fluctuation.” See here.
But last, but not least, corporations don’t even represent the views of their stockholders. As I wrote on my blog in another context, “Unfortunately, it is not shareholders who decide on compensation. It is the Board of Directors! And who chooses the Board of Directors? Usually the CEOs. To be sure Shareholders get a chance to vote at shareholder meetings for the Board, and whatever issues are placed before them, but the only choices they really have is to vote yes or no on whatever the management chooses to let them vote on. And increasingly, shareholder meetings are held at out of the way places so as to discourage shareholders from attending. God forbid, they might ask embarrassing questions. They are asked to send in their proxies to confirm what has already been decided. The Chinese communist voting system is not much different.” See here. Thus Corporate CEOs, a small select group would have the power to spend untold billions to further whatever their political predilections may be.
A few years ago in a dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia sought to counter concerns by reform advocates about the potential corrupting influence of money in politics. Justice Scalia alluded to the signers of the Declaration of Independence as pledging their "fortunes" as well as their "sacred honor."
The solicitor General commenting on this put it very well when she said, "John Hancock pledged his own fortune, …When the CEO of John Hancock Financial uses corporate-treasury funds for electoral advertising, he pledges someone else's."
The impending decision of the Supreme Court may well be the most important event of a century. It could well end Democracy in the US as we know it. Instead of “power to the people” we may have “power to a few oligarchs.”
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Republican Talking Points on Health Care
In my series of posts on this blog, I have dealt with the crucial need for reform of our health care system, and have decried the inexcusable outright lies and libels deployed against the reform attempts.
While Republicans, their allies, and cohorts have brought all their energy into the attempt to block all meaningful change, they have on occasion pretended that they do want reform, but an examination of their “positive” proposals shows them to be sham.
Thus Senator McCain in addressing his Town Hall Meetings always begins with an attack on the Public Option, which as most of us know is a government sponsored insurance plan, like so many other government insurance plans such as Medicare, which are run much more efficiently than private insurance plans, but which unlike Medicare, which is a single payer plan, would be but one among many plans, and would compete on an equal footing with private plans. But McCain does not discuss the merits or demerits of the public option, he hold forth with “the Public option is the “government option” using a sound in his voice clearly intended to make it sound sinister. That is not discussion – that is not debate – that is in keeping with the attack line of innuendo and distortion.
But then McCain goes on to talk about “his plan” and I think it is necessary to examine what it is that purports to be “his plan.”
He starts by having a large poster on an easel that supposedly summarizes it as follows:
1.) Focus on what we can afford-don’t burden the future. 2.) Insurance Reform to improve access. 3.) Reform Medical Malpractice 4.) Tax Reforms/incentives to purchase insurance ($5,000 advanced, refundable tax credit) 5.) Increase freedom and real competition to choose the best plan in any state. 6.) Risk pools for those with difficult conditions. 7.) Address long term cost reductions 8.) Incentives for Wellness and fitness.
1.) I have listened again and again to McCain perorations and I have never heard him set forth what he thinks we can afford. What McCain forgets to tell us is that the one thing we cannot afford is the status quo.
2.) Insurance Reform – Again it is hard to fathom what this means to McCain. He apparently does not want to force insurance companies to stop discriminating against those with pre-conditions, or against women, or to have lifetime limits, or to drop people when they are become sick. It is only clear what he does not want. What he is for is a mystery.
3.) Reform Medical Malpractice. This is the only area where he is clear but he does not want to focus on preventing malpractice, which is rife in our medical system. Nor does he want to set up procedures to more effectively weed out non-meritorious claims. What he wants is to put limits on how much injured people can recover so that only those who have large incomes could recover significant amounts. What he want is to limit recoveries to economic damages, i.e. if someone who earned millions was injured and could not work for a year they could recover millions, but someone who earned $30,000 a year could recover only $30,000. He would disallow all non-economic damages. Thus if medical malpractice caused an unemployed person to lose his eyesight, or lose a leg, or become paralyzed, they could recover zilch. That is what is meant by Medical mal-practice reform.
4.) As for incentives to purchase insurance it is hard to understand how this would cover the uninsured. It would give a $2,500 tax credit to every person in the US ($5,000 per family) toward buying health insurance. The rich, who don’t need it, would get it. The poor, and indeed the middle class who still could not afford insurance with the $2,500 subsidy toward a $5,000 or $6,000 premium would get nothing and would continue without insurance. How this would move toward universal coverage is hard it envision but it would be another windfall for those who don’t need it.
5.) Increase freedom and real competition to choose the best plan in any state.” What does that mean. Well during the campaign he expressed it this way: “Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products, less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.” McCain would actually bring the banking debacle to our health insurance system. Instead of regulating them – he would free them from regulation. He would make a bad situation worse. Has he learned nothing at all? But there is a reason why insurance companies can’t operate across state lines and it is explained in a post found here. It prevents a race to the bottom. It does not create better choice.
6.) And how would he deal with people who are sick and who now can’t get or can’t afford insurance. He would create “Risk pools.” In other words take all the ones who need health care and put them all in the same insurance pool where the cost of their insurance, rather than being spread over a diverse risk population, would contain only those with existing health problems. Can anybody imagination what the cost of such insurance would be. Only the very wealthy could afford it. People like McCain. This is reform?
7.) Address long term cost reductions. How would he do that? He opposes all attempts to rationalize health care so that only effective treatment would be reimbursed.
8.) And finally incentives for Wellness and fitness. How would he do this? Again he opposes all attempts to get people to lead healthier lives, such as a tax on high calorie beverages, which would go along way to reduce obesity and improve health outcomes,
But there is no substance to anything on the positive side of McCain or the other naysayers. All they really have in their bag of tricks is “NO” and lies intended to sow fear.
Why does the viciousness and deception never stop?
While Republicans, their allies, and cohorts have brought all their energy into the attempt to block all meaningful change, they have on occasion pretended that they do want reform, but an examination of their “positive” proposals shows them to be sham.
Thus Senator McCain in addressing his Town Hall Meetings always begins with an attack on the Public Option, which as most of us know is a government sponsored insurance plan, like so many other government insurance plans such as Medicare, which are run much more efficiently than private insurance plans, but which unlike Medicare, which is a single payer plan, would be but one among many plans, and would compete on an equal footing with private plans. But McCain does not discuss the merits or demerits of the public option, he hold forth with “the Public option is the “government option” using a sound in his voice clearly intended to make it sound sinister. That is not discussion – that is not debate – that is in keeping with the attack line of innuendo and distortion.
But then McCain goes on to talk about “his plan” and I think it is necessary to examine what it is that purports to be “his plan.”
He starts by having a large poster on an easel that supposedly summarizes it as follows:
1.) Focus on what we can afford-don’t burden the future. 2.) Insurance Reform to improve access. 3.) Reform Medical Malpractice 4.) Tax Reforms/incentives to purchase insurance ($5,000 advanced, refundable tax credit) 5.) Increase freedom and real competition to choose the best plan in any state. 6.) Risk pools for those with difficult conditions. 7.) Address long term cost reductions 8.) Incentives for Wellness and fitness.
1.) I have listened again and again to McCain perorations and I have never heard him set forth what he thinks we can afford. What McCain forgets to tell us is that the one thing we cannot afford is the status quo.
2.) Insurance Reform – Again it is hard to fathom what this means to McCain. He apparently does not want to force insurance companies to stop discriminating against those with pre-conditions, or against women, or to have lifetime limits, or to drop people when they are become sick. It is only clear what he does not want. What he is for is a mystery.
3.) Reform Medical Malpractice. This is the only area where he is clear but he does not want to focus on preventing malpractice, which is rife in our medical system. Nor does he want to set up procedures to more effectively weed out non-meritorious claims. What he wants is to put limits on how much injured people can recover so that only those who have large incomes could recover significant amounts. What he want is to limit recoveries to economic damages, i.e. if someone who earned millions was injured and could not work for a year they could recover millions, but someone who earned $30,000 a year could recover only $30,000. He would disallow all non-economic damages. Thus if medical malpractice caused an unemployed person to lose his eyesight, or lose a leg, or become paralyzed, they could recover zilch. That is what is meant by Medical mal-practice reform.
4.) As for incentives to purchase insurance it is hard to understand how this would cover the uninsured. It would give a $2,500 tax credit to every person in the US ($5,000 per family) toward buying health insurance. The rich, who don’t need it, would get it. The poor, and indeed the middle class who still could not afford insurance with the $2,500 subsidy toward a $5,000 or $6,000 premium would get nothing and would continue without insurance. How this would move toward universal coverage is hard it envision but it would be another windfall for those who don’t need it.
5.) Increase freedom and real competition to choose the best plan in any state.” What does that mean. Well during the campaign he expressed it this way: “Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products, less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.” McCain would actually bring the banking debacle to our health insurance system. Instead of regulating them – he would free them from regulation. He would make a bad situation worse. Has he learned nothing at all? But there is a reason why insurance companies can’t operate across state lines and it is explained in a post found here. It prevents a race to the bottom. It does not create better choice.
6.) And how would he deal with people who are sick and who now can’t get or can’t afford insurance. He would create “Risk pools.” In other words take all the ones who need health care and put them all in the same insurance pool where the cost of their insurance, rather than being spread over a diverse risk population, would contain only those with existing health problems. Can anybody imagination what the cost of such insurance would be. Only the very wealthy could afford it. People like McCain. This is reform?
7.) Address long term cost reductions. How would he do that? He opposes all attempts to rationalize health care so that only effective treatment would be reimbursed.
8.) And finally incentives for Wellness and fitness. How would he do this? Again he opposes all attempts to get people to lead healthier lives, such as a tax on high calorie beverages, which would go along way to reduce obesity and improve health outcomes,
But there is no substance to anything on the positive side of McCain or the other naysayers. All they really have in their bag of tricks is “NO” and lies intended to sow fear.
Why does the viciousness and deception never stop?
Monday, September 14, 2009
Health Care Reform – Facts and Fiction
In a series of commentaries I have set forth the misconceptions, the distortions and the outright lies to which the American Public has been subjected.
It is difficult to understand why this is being done. There are some business groups that have a stake in the status quo and I can understand their struggle to protect their profits and increase them, even if it is at the expense of the Nation's needs.
The Republican Party stands opposed, as they oppose all Democratic initiatives, because they see obstruction and denunciation as the means to further their own political fortunes. These positions are unpatriotic for even a “loyal opposition” should put the Nation’s needs ahead of their parochial ambitions.
It is harder to understand the rank and file Republicans who write columns and who write Letters to the Editor distorting the facts, for they have no “horse in the race.” They remind me of the Communists of the ‘30s and even the ’40s who followed the party line no matter where it led them.
In my posting entitled “Health Insurance Reform” posted on August 11, 2009, I set forth unassailable facts and figures to show that we do not have the “best medical care in the world.” In fact dollar for dollar we have one of the worst.
In my commentary, “Health Insurance Reform - Lies and Damned Lies” posted on 8/19/09, I called attention to some of the lies being circulated and the viscous attacks being orchestrated against reform, running the gamut from unfounded claims of “death panels”, the use of swastikas and the word “Nazi”. I waited for some Republicans out of some sort of decency, some sort of honesty, some sort of responsibility to denounce these lies but instead found them using weasel words to defend them, and sadly this included that “maverick” John McCain. I looked for Republican columnists and Letter to the Editor writers to distance themselves from the worst of these outrages, but their loyalty apparently is to their party and not their country.
In my posting, “Health Reform - Reality” posted on August 25, 2009, I quoted at length from a major brokerage house that pointed out that if nothing is done about reforming our present system, we face economic disaster.
Among the commentaries to Health Reform Realities there are three particularly worth reading. Tanya Keith and her husband, professionals, and middle class earners who had insurance set forth the disasters that befell them because of our crazy quilt system.
Nicole Scheller, a recent mother, in another comment to Health Reform Realities related her horrific experiences with trying to gain coverage from her insurance company after she had her baby. No facts, no personal disasters, move these opponents. They keep inventing dangers from reform that must emanate from their own nightmares, or from the Right wing nut factory, for they have no basis in reality.
Roger Berkley is a small business man but with a business much larger than Tanya’s. He employs about 200 people. He tells at length what is happening to him under the present system. His is in the form of a podcast and I particularly commend the antepenultimate message entitled: Healthcare: The Great American Boondoggle, though the two following are also worth listening to.
One widely circulated e-mail about that the Democratic bill, claims that it “would cede vast powers to a “Health Choices Commissioner”. Where do they get such nonsense? I investigated these claims on the web. It appears that this one is just another one of the endless e-mails on all kinds of subjects that are circulated, and I have received many, that are out and out lies, but which naïve people are impressed with, and they hit the forward button. Snopes.com is a web site that specializes in exposing such e-mails. I suggest to the reader that they go here for the top 25. If nothing else it will be good for a laugh. But what about the “Health Choices Commissioner”? This one is dealt with at length by PolitiFact.com that won the Pulitzer Prize in 2009, and they point out that this lie originated in what may be the “longest chain e-mail ever received” filled completely with falsehoods about the bill pending in Congress.
The only part of this e-mail that is true is that the bill provides for the creation of a Health Choices Commissioner. This is part of the Health insurance exchange that is to be set up to create a market place for insurance shoppers. The bill says that a Health Choices Commissioner will run the exchange, and that he or she will make sure that insurers are offering basic benefits and adhering to the regulations. Individuals then choose their own plan from offerings on the exchange. To the extent that insurance plans have to meet basic requirements, those instructions are ultimately coming from Congress. See here for a discussion of this, and for those who want to really know what is and what is not in the bill.
But as usual the liars are ahead of the game. The truth has to always play catch-up, and for many people the truth never catches up with the fears engendered.
I have been wanting to discuss the merits and demerits of the few suggestions that have been offered by Republicans, but so much space has to be devoted to rebutting lies, that there is little left for an honest discussion.
Is a public option desirable? What are the true pros and cons? But even beyond this, if this is the Republican main concern, as it appears to be, let them say, “if you take this off the table we will join you in reform.” But if no concessions will bring them on board, then action must proceed without them, or with such few as allow patriotism to trump partisanship.
If medical malpractice reform is the hang-up, Obama has already met them more than halfway. But except for space limitations, I could show this to be a red herring. What we need to do away with is malpractice, not the right to recover for those injured. This is not a right of lawyers, though to be sure they benefit; it is a right of the injured. If a surgeon amputates the wrong leg am I to be denied an adequate remedy?
Are we all agreed that people with medical pre-conditions should not be discriminated against? If not, let’s debate that.
But stop the lies! Stop the smears! Stop the innuendo!
Debate is good. But opponents of reform don’t want to debate, they don’t want to discuss, they don’t want to compromise. They want delay till hell freezes over. They want the status quo, and the status quo is not sustainable. The status quo spells disaster for the country.
Finally, I commend to the reader the article by Hendrick Herzberg in the curreent issue of the New Yorker.
It is difficult to understand why this is being done. There are some business groups that have a stake in the status quo and I can understand their struggle to protect their profits and increase them, even if it is at the expense of the Nation's needs.
The Republican Party stands opposed, as they oppose all Democratic initiatives, because they see obstruction and denunciation as the means to further their own political fortunes. These positions are unpatriotic for even a “loyal opposition” should put the Nation’s needs ahead of their parochial ambitions.
It is harder to understand the rank and file Republicans who write columns and who write Letters to the Editor distorting the facts, for they have no “horse in the race.” They remind me of the Communists of the ‘30s and even the ’40s who followed the party line no matter where it led them.
In my posting entitled “Health Insurance Reform” posted on August 11, 2009, I set forth unassailable facts and figures to show that we do not have the “best medical care in the world.” In fact dollar for dollar we have one of the worst.
In my commentary, “Health Insurance Reform - Lies and Damned Lies” posted on 8/19/09, I called attention to some of the lies being circulated and the viscous attacks being orchestrated against reform, running the gamut from unfounded claims of “death panels”, the use of swastikas and the word “Nazi”. I waited for some Republicans out of some sort of decency, some sort of honesty, some sort of responsibility to denounce these lies but instead found them using weasel words to defend them, and sadly this included that “maverick” John McCain. I looked for Republican columnists and Letter to the Editor writers to distance themselves from the worst of these outrages, but their loyalty apparently is to their party and not their country.
In my posting, “Health Reform - Reality” posted on August 25, 2009, I quoted at length from a major brokerage house that pointed out that if nothing is done about reforming our present system, we face economic disaster.
Among the commentaries to Health Reform Realities there are three particularly worth reading. Tanya Keith and her husband, professionals, and middle class earners who had insurance set forth the disasters that befell them because of our crazy quilt system.
Nicole Scheller, a recent mother, in another comment to Health Reform Realities related her horrific experiences with trying to gain coverage from her insurance company after she had her baby. No facts, no personal disasters, move these opponents. They keep inventing dangers from reform that must emanate from their own nightmares, or from the Right wing nut factory, for they have no basis in reality.
Roger Berkley is a small business man but with a business much larger than Tanya’s. He employs about 200 people. He tells at length what is happening to him under the present system. His is in the form of a podcast and I particularly commend the antepenultimate message entitled: Healthcare: The Great American Boondoggle, though the two following are also worth listening to.
One widely circulated e-mail about that the Democratic bill, claims that it “would cede vast powers to a “Health Choices Commissioner”. Where do they get such nonsense? I investigated these claims on the web. It appears that this one is just another one of the endless e-mails on all kinds of subjects that are circulated, and I have received many, that are out and out lies, but which naïve people are impressed with, and they hit the forward button. Snopes.com is a web site that specializes in exposing such e-mails. I suggest to the reader that they go here for the top 25. If nothing else it will be good for a laugh. But what about the “Health Choices Commissioner”? This one is dealt with at length by PolitiFact.com that won the Pulitzer Prize in 2009, and they point out that this lie originated in what may be the “longest chain e-mail ever received” filled completely with falsehoods about the bill pending in Congress.
The only part of this e-mail that is true is that the bill provides for the creation of a Health Choices Commissioner. This is part of the Health insurance exchange that is to be set up to create a market place for insurance shoppers. The bill says that a Health Choices Commissioner will run the exchange, and that he or she will make sure that insurers are offering basic benefits and adhering to the regulations. Individuals then choose their own plan from offerings on the exchange. To the extent that insurance plans have to meet basic requirements, those instructions are ultimately coming from Congress. See here for a discussion of this, and for those who want to really know what is and what is not in the bill.
But as usual the liars are ahead of the game. The truth has to always play catch-up, and for many people the truth never catches up with the fears engendered.
I have been wanting to discuss the merits and demerits of the few suggestions that have been offered by Republicans, but so much space has to be devoted to rebutting lies, that there is little left for an honest discussion.
Is a public option desirable? What are the true pros and cons? But even beyond this, if this is the Republican main concern, as it appears to be, let them say, “if you take this off the table we will join you in reform.” But if no concessions will bring them on board, then action must proceed without them, or with such few as allow patriotism to trump partisanship.
If medical malpractice reform is the hang-up, Obama has already met them more than halfway. But except for space limitations, I could show this to be a red herring. What we need to do away with is malpractice, not the right to recover for those injured. This is not a right of lawyers, though to be sure they benefit; it is a right of the injured. If a surgeon amputates the wrong leg am I to be denied an adequate remedy?
Are we all agreed that people with medical pre-conditions should not be discriminated against? If not, let’s debate that.
But stop the lies! Stop the smears! Stop the innuendo!
Debate is good. But opponents of reform don’t want to debate, they don’t want to discuss, they don’t want to compromise. They want delay till hell freezes over. They want the status quo, and the status quo is not sustainable. The status quo spells disaster for the country.
Finally, I commend to the reader the article by Hendrick Herzberg in the curreent issue of the New Yorker.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
