How many times do they have to prove it? These health insurance companies are just no good. You can’t negotiate with them. They have to get everything they want, or they’ll take their marbles and go home. After all, they’re the princes of the earth. They’re entitled!
Today, the health insurance companies, through AHIP, released a study by Price Waterhouse Coopers that they had commissioned. The study asserted that if the Baucus bill passed in its current form, insurance prices would rise by 40% between now and 2013, 73% between now and 2016, and 111% between now and 2019. In contrast, if no bill at all were passed, prices would increase by “only” 26%, 50% and 79% during these three periods. The report tries to place the blame for the variance in these estimates on the provisions of the bill that specify a mandate with weak penalties that young, healthy people will be more easily able to ignore than they would a stronger mandate.
But the report entirely ignores the fact that under the bill, there are no cost controls or competitive arrangements that would prevent those prices from rising, and also that the insurance companies themselves are the only agents in the system who can decide whether or not to raise prices. So, these companies are not inanimate machines forced by the Baucus bill to raise prices to these levels. They are telling us that they will choose to raise prices by the amount they have indicated if there is no health care reform bill, or alternatively, if the present Baucus bill is enacted. And so they are saying to us, there are two alternatives: either you’ll pass the Baucus bill and sustain the prices we’ve indicated; or you can pass no bill at all and have lesser, but still outrageous price increases.
If our Democratic Senators were really representing the people of the United States, the reply of the Senate to them would and should be:
“Sorry, but there are many more than two alternatives. Here’s another. First, we’re going to pass a bill that prohibits all political activity of any sort by corporations that are exempt from the anti-trust laws, effective immediately. Then you won’t have to worry about any more “Harry and Louise” campaigns, or “tea bagger movements” or any campaigns that will oppose the rest of our program. Second, we’re going to use “the nuclear option” to remove the filibuster from all Senate deliberations. Third, we’re going to vote down the Baucus bill entirely, so you won’t have to worry about its accelerating insurance prices. Fourth, we’re going to amend the Senate Help bill to substitute S 703, Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All bill, for it. Fifth, we’re going to pass a bill prohibiting you from denying insurance to people based on preexisting conditions, or from rescinding policies already in force based on discovery of preexisting conditions, or failure by consumers to report those to you. Sixth, we’re going to freeze all insurance prices effective immediately, until S 703 or an Amended enhanced Medicare for All bill is operative. So, again, neither you nor we, nor any Americans will have to worry about your raising insurance prices again.”
“We’re going to do all of these things, because we and most other Americans have had about enough of you, your arrogance, your sense of entitlement, your lack of social responsibility, the 45,000 American fatalities that result every year from your actions, and the 80 – 100% excess in annual health care expenditures we pay because of your very valueless existence. We’ve also had enough of the more than a million bankruptcies you’re responsible for each year, and God knows how many divorces. It’s not worth it to the rest of America to keep you in business, and we’re not going to do it anymore. We’re not going to tolerate the banality of your evil for one more minute. As far as we’re concerned you’re done, and somebody ought to stick a fork in you. We’re going to move on and try something new. Enhanced Medicare for All, single-payer universal health insurance. “Everybody In, Nobody Out.” And when we’ve done that we’ll sing: “Free at Last. Free at Last. Great God Almighty, we’re free at last.””
Seriously, folks: this report should be the last straw. Let’s get over this compromise, Public Option bullshit. Let’s reset back to pushing for enhanced Medicare for All, single-payer. It’s time to go to war with the insurance companies, win that war, and get them out of insuring essential health care services forever. It’s time to take America back from the corporate plutocrats. Let this be the first step.
(Also posted at the Alllifeisproblemsolving blog where there may be more comments)



23 Comments







that’s only if healthcare and human rights is your first priority.
if your first priority is insuring that short-med term insurance industry $$$ continue to flow to dems and not switch to republicans, then you will never ever take it directly to the insurance companies with anything other than empty rhetoric — actual policy is right out.
iow, it’s a question of priorities, not pragmatism.
….
thanks letsgetitdone. i know where your priorities are.
Hi selise, you do indeed. But, I’ll differ with you on pragmatism a bit. A health insurance reform bill that won’t be operative until 2013, may continue to get you insurance company support, but it won’t bring Democrats to the polls to vote for your blue dogs candidates. No matter how much money they get from the Medical Industrial Complex, the majority of blue dogs are going down in 2010, because nobody will vote for representatives who didn’t stand with them.
When the program is finally operative in 2013, let’s see Rahm put lipstick on the pig of a mandate that forces someone to buy insurance that won’t be there when they need it and/or will still force them into bankruptcy with co-pays and deductibles. For a young family of four on the edge of poverty, making $30,000, now going without insurance, the Baucus bill would cost them $2500 per year after the Federal subsidies. Those folks aren’t going to be happy about being forced to spend that $2500 per year on health insurance they would not otherwise buy. A middle-class family making $102,000 would pay $19,800, which they will view as a pay cut of 20%. Do the Democrats really think that people at this level would rather see this kind of outcome, rather than no bill at all? My God, their health insurance bill will greatly exceed their Federal tax bill, more than doubling it. Why are Democrats so self-destructive?
Pragmatism Rahm-style, is just a slogan for selling out to the insurance companies, and destroying their own political future. Once the bill really hits the public in 2013 the Democrats will be set-up for a real landslide in 2014 and a horrendous loss in 2016 — that is if they survive 2010, and Obama survives 2012.
all good points. but i think the pols are looking to their own immediate future. not the future of their party or of the citizens of their country. and they fear the insurance companies more than they fear us.
just guessing. because i don’t think they are that stupid (about getting elected, they are stupid when it comes to governance). the only other thing possible explanation i can come up with is that they care more about their friends, the ceos of the insurance companies, than they do about the rest of us.
I think it’s a mix. these folks live in Washington. They do go back home, but there they meet with people who are relatively influential and relatively respectful of them. They don’t go to many meetings where the part of the public that’s very angry at them gets to express its view on the situation in Washington. So they live in a bubble. They don’t really know when political change is coming, and I don’t think they can gauge very well whether they’re likely to be defeated a year ahead of time.
They’re smart about the politics of getting re-elected when the ground isn’t shifting under them. But they’re not very smart when things are changing fast. In health care, I think things are still changing fast. Over the next year or so, prices are going to rise drastically in this area and more people will be subjected to abuses, deaths, and bankruptcies. I don’t thing members of Congress are in touch with that. And I think if they pass a reform that doesn’t change anything over the next year in health insurance, then they’re going to hear about come election time.
I agree. Health insurance companies too have a “social contract” with its stakeholders, and with the American public as its most important external stakeholder. The content of the contract specifies what a company’s duties and (moral) obligations are to society, expressed in terms of its relevant stakeholder groups. The theoretical basis of a social contract is “the license to operate” that a company receives from society, in return for which it arguably owed certain duties and obligations to ensure well-being. For me we are talking here about normative principles and policies regarding what the impact of their operations should be on vital capitals on which stakeholders depend for their own well-being. It is obvious that health insurance companies actually deplete (the stock of) monetary capital, human, social and natural capital needed for the well-being of our generation and our next ones. There is no added value; we have to stop giving them a license now (or are they less bad than Enron and others, etc). Let’s look together for new, innovative solutions and create new institutions not solely focused on the financial bottom line of their operations.
Government is one of the stakeholders too within their social contract. With their recent action insurance companies deplete social political capital too. I wonder what Obama really feels and thinks about all his; he worked closely with them; he had their commitment to look for new solutions improving the health and well-being of Americans. He had a deal and a (moral) “contract”. Does he still trust them (while stabbed in the back)? Why does he still want to give them “a license to operate”; what are his moral and normative principles regarding the impact of health insurance activities on American health & well-being? Why does he (and his government) need them so badly? All questions ……about Obama’s own “license to operate” !
Thanks Henk, for your very valid comments. I think that Americans tend to view corporate licences and incorporation papers as an entitlement, and they can’t imagine Government viewing their right to operate as a privilege and not a right. It is a privilege, however. Corporations here are creatures authorized by individual states, and the Federal Government has the authority to pass corporate regulatory laws that would apply in all States, mandating that the States must revoke the charters of corporations that behave in ways prohibited by the Federal Government.
The situation I’ve posited above, where the Federal Government prohibits activity by corporations exempt from the anti-trust laws would undoubtedly be contested by the corporations in Court as a violation of free speech rights guaranteed by the constitution and claimed by corporations as legal persons. But the law is unclear as to whether legal fictions like corporations have the same constitutional rights as biological persons, so this would be something that the Supreme Court would have to decide.
If Democrats were actually to do this, and institute a national health plan, they could revitalize their Party for the next 100 years, and stomp the (R)’s into a regional rump Southern Christian party.
loyal Democratic activists on places like FDL should relish that prospect.
Well, not for the next 100 years. In politics it’s always what have you done for me lately. But certainly if the Democrats were wise enough to that, I think they’d win in 2010, and Obama would have no problems in 2012, especially since Medicare for All would produce 2.5 million jobs too. By 2014 other issues would probably command attention and the rethugs would be back. Even Roosevelt/Truman couldn’t stop the Republicans from coming back and taking Congress in 1946, and the Presidency in 1952. After all, if all else fails they can always nominate some General, and wrap themselves in the flag.
Let’s hope that the upshot of the Citizens United case is that Democrats, federally and at the state level, reconfigure corporate charters to explicitly constitute them without the civil rights that personhood granted them in the SP v. Santa Clara case.
If they don’t, then a tsunami corporate money is going pour into the Republican Party and wash away the Democrats.
Yeah, I know. I’m worried about that too. This is the most conservative Supreme Court since the Court of “the Four Horsemen” in the 1930s. If they dare to do anything there, the Dems should immediately propose a Court Packing plan to reverse.
It will be like the last straw, hiding in a hundred acre field, and us trying to find it.
The people don’t know what’s good for them, they are being Governed by a bunch of retards we voted in there, and we all are at the mercy of big money and corporate interests.
Wow! This means we will get healthcare fixed. Not Likely! The same people who caused the problems in the Congress, and the same corporations, are again controlling the Conversation.
We need to nationalize the Health Insurance Industry, and send the profiteers packing.
The people our Government, and the Country as a whole, doesn’t understand what’s right or wrong, or what’s needed to fix it.
Sad, but the true realality.
I agree one thousand percent. This would be an entirely different country if the anti-trust laws were enforced and if private, corporate ownership of public servants came to a halt.
Right. So what can we do to get those things done?
Thanks. Good to keep the fires going. Things are only going to get worse. And they will probably have to in order to get better.
I’m afraid that’s true. The President is a great disappointment.
Sic!! At this page on the right I just saw a food add by McDonalds for some new burger. To Hell with them too ! ….for the sake of our good health, the health of our next generation and our planet. BTW, a good question to comtemplate on: “What is the difference between US health insurance companies and McDonalds regarding our health”?
Hi henk, the US Government doesn’t make burgers? -:)
5
OK. Here’s the question to all you anti-PO folks: What’s the plan?
I’m all ears, but here’s the problem as I see it. I’ve talked till I’m blue in the face for years in favor of single payer to all kinds of people in all parts of the country. (I’m a traveling CT tech.) I used to live in Montreal and spent a fair amount of time in the UK w/my English girlfriend so I have a lot of personal firepower in my arguments for SP. My conclusion: Americans are simply too heavily indoctrinated to accept SP. (I could say they are just too stupid but I’m trying to be nice.) That’s just the people. Their legislators are just as dumb plus totally corrupt. So to work through the system would probably take another 15-20 years and might never happen UNLESS the system reaches the point of total collapse. That would fit my pop’s old point that nothing fundamental ever changes in America w/out a full-blown, system threatening breakdown. To wit: civil rights for Blacks was basically going nowhere until the cities started burning. Ditto in a sense for unions – no progress in the beginning w/out flames, strikes and the sound of heads cracking violently. OK, is that, in some form or another what you guys want? Wendell Potter has said that the current system is simply unsustainable. Do we just let things take their course even if that course leads to a humanitarian abyss?
Now I can go for chaos as much as any good anarchist, but if a strong PO can allow some reasonable working space and a chance to avoid descending into misery and mayhem I think we should give it an honest shot. What’s your plan?
Hi GDC707, There are enough SP people in Congress to block anything else if they just say no. If they have the guts, my plan is here. I think it’s practical, and would produce at least a good PO on the first try.
“Sorry, but there are many more than two alternatives. Here’s another. First, we’re going to pass a bill that prohibits all political activity of any sort by corporations that are exempt from the anti-trust laws, effective immediately. Then you won’t have to worry about any more “Harry and Louise” campaigns, or “tea bagger movements” or any campaigns that will oppose the rest of our program.
This is dreaming and you bloody well know it! Congress will never pass it and if they did the Prez would never sign it and if he did the Supreme Court would never affirm it. It’s just wankering. Tell me how, (on Planet Earth) we get from here to Single payer within five years. If it is halfway reasonable I’m in with guns blazin’.
GDC707, the quote refers to what I think they should do, not what I think they will do. Look, I think it’s very important that all you PO styrat talking about what Congress ought to do, and not about what you think they will do, or might do, or would be willing to do. Specifically, squeeze them as hard as you can first, then see what they do. Don’t bargain or negotiate for yourself, or compromise with yourself. Compromise with your opponents when and if they offer a compromise. The God-damned PO is a compromise. It’s not what we want. it’s what we might be forced to settled for. So we shouldn’t even talk about it, much less say: “public option please.”
What we should be saying is give us enhanced Medical for All, or you guys are all toast, and then if we have to settle for a great PO, then let’s do that kicking, screaming, and complaining all the way. And as far as settling for a weak PO or anything less is concerned, no, a thousand times no. Let’s defeat thos loser bills instead.
Today, I was watching Chris Mathews talk about the “great event” of the Baucus bill passing the committee and in discussing the PO he characterized it as “liberal” and then proceeded to say that for his whole life, in every Congress, liberals would insist on a single payer bill, go down fighting, and get no health care reform. I listened to this and concluded that he ought to retire because he’s certainly becoming senile. My memory of things is that the only time single-payer was pushed all the way to a vote by the Democrats was under Truman. Since then, they’ve always tried to pass compromises.
Medicare itself was a compromise. Carter tried to pass bills of narrow scope because he was unwilling to try to back national health care. Clinton tried to push a managed care monstrosity that no one could understand rather than Medicare for All. And Obama took Medicare for All, single-payer off the table. Chris’s narrative is BS. The Democrats haven’t sold Medicare for All because they haven’t tried to sell it for more than 30 years. No one knows what would happen if they’d quit being “smart asses” and really backed it.
What is the difference between US health insurance companies and McDonalds regarding our health?
McDonalds gives you fries with your shake(down)…
;^)
Thanks. -:)