A small army of lobbyists
Even before Democrats finish drafting bills to create a single-payer health care system, the health care and insurance industries have assembled a small army of lobbyists to kill “Medicare for all,” an idea that is mocked publicly but is being greeted privately with increasing seriousness.
How could we possibly want universal health insurance instead of the thrillingly frightening risk of losing insurance along with a job or never being able to get it in the first place because your job doesn’t provide it or because you’ve been unemployed for too long or because there’s an R in the month?
The lobbyists’ message is simple: The Affordable Care Act is working reasonably well and should be improved, not repealed by Republicans or replaced by Democrats with a big new public program. More than 155 million Americans have employer-sponsored health coverage. They like it, by and large, and should be allowed to keep it.
“Reasonably well” is good enough for the peasants who have the bad taste not to be rich, is that the idea? Just plain “well” is too much to ask?
The Democrats’ proposals could radically change the way health care providers do business and could drastically shrink the role and the revenues of insurers, depending on how a single-payer system is devised.
Well, you know, shrinking the role (and $$$) of insurers would not be a bad thing, given that they are useless unless your goal is to extract profit from brokering health care. They don’t provide health care or help people find the best health care, they simply sell insurance for health care, adding a step that adds nothing of value. If people were automatically insured as of right there would be no need for insurers and nothing of value would be lost.
The hospital federation and two powerful lobbies, America’s Health Insurance Plans and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, created a coalition last June to pre-empt what they saw as an alarming groundswell of interest in proposals to expand the federal role in health care.
In a daily fusillade of digital advertising, videos and Twitter posts, the coalition, the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, says that Medicare for all will require tax increases and give politicians and bureaucrats control of medical decisions now made by doctors and patients — arguments that echo those made to stop Medicare in the 1960s, Mrs. Clinton’s health plan in 1993 and the Affordable Care Act a decade ago.
Blah blah blah, but what it will really do is eliminate the vast superstructure that withdraws money from the system because it can. Nobody needs a vast superstructure that withdraws money from the system because it can.
When members of Congress unveiled legislation to let people age 50 to 64 buy into Medicare, the coalition conflated it with proposals to put all Americans into Medicare.
“This is a slippery slope to government-run health care for every American,” said David Merritt, an executive vice president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a lobby for insurers.
Oh no, a slippery slope to guaranteed health care for everyone! The horror!
What next, free college for everyone? What will they do with all those administrators who spend vast amounts of time in meetings designed to make the system profitable, and to make sure students are “customers” and faculty are downsized to save money? (Money to hire more administrators, of course).
Next thing, they might decide on food for everyone. What would the middle men do, the ones that spend their days advertising and packaging food to be sold for as much as they can get for it?
Wow. What a concept. Managing to make a system more efficient by cutting out those who do little to benefit the system, but manage to enrich themselves bigly?
From what I hear from American friends and family, health care decisions are already made by HMO bureaucrats rather than by doctors and patients. Whereas I don’t think I’ve ever heard or seen a “bureaucrat” anywhere near any exam, test, or therapy I’ve ever needed, in the 40+ years I’ve been the one to worry about it. This “bureaucrat” bullshit is a lie that needs to be called out ever time some lobbyist or boot-licking politician utters it.
Steve Watson, that’s been my experience. And many of the insurance company decisions are made based on representatives from pharmacy companies who give them kickbacks to promote their drugs by putting them on the formulary. I tried for a long time to explain why my insurance (and every other insurance I’ve been on in the past 20 years) had the more expensive asthma medicine on its formulary; it seemed to me they would prefer the less expensive one (the one I am on, which is more expensive to me as a result). Then a pharmacist explained it; they are getting a special deal from the drug company because they will sell more drugs by it being on the formulary.
It doesn’t matter to them that the other one doesn’t work for me, and causes bad side effects. I should be on the one they prefer. Fortunately, I am able to afford the extra $20 a month, but some of my other medicines are closer to an extra $80 a month, which can get pretty difficult.
No, no NO It’s free healthcare, free education then GOVERNMENT JOBS FOR EVERYONE! That is the order of the unreasonable demands you’re supposed to be making. Come ON now! If you don’t follow Howard Schult’s script, how’s he supposed to come off looking like the Sensible Billionaire Moderate who’s better than Both Extremes?
Yeah, well, I’ve already got a government job; it’s my fourth (or fifth?), and I can tell you, it’s nothing to look forward to. I got treated better at McDonald’s when I was 20 years old and had few to no skills and not much education. Now I have a Ph.D. and 20 years of experience, and I’m treated like an unskilled kid. And I work more hours than I ever dreamed possible when I was working those 6 to 8 hour shifts. (I’m not putting down anyone who works for McDonald’s, though. It’s damn hard work, I was good at it, and I was respected for being good at it. My current job is damn hard work, I’m good at it, and I’m treated like a garden slug).
So, yeah, can’t demand government jobs for everyone, ’cause I wouldn’t wish that on my neighbors, my friends, or my colleagues. Only on my family, and they won’t hold down jobs, while dissing all those who are on food stamps (like them) for being lazy (they, of course, are not, it is just underappreciated how wonderful, awesome, and genius they are, which could be because they never do anything to demonstrate that to anyone).
Honestly, part of the problem is that they were ever allowed to call it ‘insurance’ in the first place. Every other form of ‘insurance’ is essentially a bet against yourself–you bet the company that X bad thing will happen to you (house fire, car accident, death, even lawsuits), and if you are right, you win (sorta). Or at least you blunt the effects of losing.
Health insurance doesn’t work that way–at best, it’s a buyer’s club, where being a paying member gets you discounted services from a limited pool of providers with whom they’ve worked out a deal on bulk purchases. But they don’t use that language when they talk about ‘health insurance’ because they need to cloud the issue. Hell, Aflak is actually a truer model of ‘illness insurance’–it follows the ‘bet against yourself’ model I mentioned above, by paying out when you have the Bad Thing happen.
I see they’re trying the ‘both sides are equally bad’ approach. A bold move.
It’s funny how now that they’ve all but gutted the ACA, they’re suddenly singing praise to its virtues.
The important thing here, though, is that these decisions aren’t being made by some souless, SOCIALIST state functionaries, but by Champions of the
FeeFree Market, who are motivated by the spirit of Freedom and Choice, who know that if they don’t provide the bestest of services, they will see their clients Vote with Their Feet and go to a More Efficient and even Freer Markety Freedom of Choice Provider, elsewhere in The Marketplace.I should make clear that my comment above applies only to doctors and hospitals and the like (as in: when my gall bladder cost the Ontario system probably about $25k a couple of years ago, notably for the CT scan and the surgery). We’re still on our own for drugs and adjunct services like physio. And sure ’nuff, that’s when one finds that privately purchased insurance covers this, but not that, and the other only up to a certain amount….which as YNNB just observed, is hardly an effect of Ebill Soshullism.
I noticed that the Australian government has put another very expensive drug on the PBS (subsidised ) list.
Oh, the horrors of ‘socialized medicine’! The US health insurance companies are perfect examples of the ‘rentier’ class.
Oh, yes, I’ve heard all about the long waits to see a doctor. I recently had to wait 6 weeks for a doctor, even when my doctor’s office made the appointment, and he indicated he wanted me in right away. I have waited long times for doctor’s appointments, even being in great pain and needing relief.
One time, I went to the emergency room in horrible pain. They left me waiting for 30 minutes (when there were literally NO OTHER patients there, either in the waiting room or in the ER; no one with priority). The symptoms I was having could have been symptoms of heart attack in a woman, and I was still left waiting. I could not sit up, and had to lie on the cold tile floor, and I was still left waiting.
By the way, this was not “socialized” medicine. This was the good old U.S. of A, in the heart of capitalist central, where the Free Market ® will get things right every time. Just like the contrast between the public and private schools here in town. Our public college, the horrible public employees, have the streets cleaned and the sidewalks salted immediately after the snow if there is going to be school (or weekend activities). The private college will clear a few spaces in the snow large enough to park a compact car, but not open the door because of the snow piles between the parking spaces. And as for the sidewalks, forget it.
I’m so glad we’re spared the horrors of a public system here, and allowing the oh, so efficient, effective, and inexpensive private sector to do it all. (I’ve had my say before on the cost of the private sector, so I’ll shut up now).
iknklast
If Americans had any curiosity about the rest of the world, they might discover that there are more efficient health systems in other countries. That is, better outcomes for less money.
I have a terminal disease and the treatments are expensive, so far I haven’t paid a cent apart from small amounts on subsidised medications. Presumably if I lived in the US, I’d probably be bankrupt.
I don’t want to appear smug, conservative governments are continually attempting to undermine social democracy here.
Good Luck.
A quick run-down of Australia’s system, and a comparison of it against USA’s system in particular:https://www.sbs.com.au/news/how-does-australia-s-medicare-compare
tl;dr of that article: USA spends more and gets less. I hope you were seated when you read that.
Darth Cheeto would probably spin it as the US being duped by other countries into say, spending more on NATO, allowing them to spend billions that would otherwise be unavailable on socialized medecine.
What am I thinking? He couldn’t possibly string together an argument like that. He’s an idiot. He’d just lie and say it’s “bad healthcare,” “the worst,” “just terrible.” America is the best country on Earth, so it can’t possibly be behind other countries or missing anything.
YNnB, I doubt Cheeto has reached the advanced argumentation section of his colouring book. Unlikely to either. However, he has already complained that Americans pay so much for drugs because of evil countries with single buyers of pharmaceuticals. Somehow New Zealand negotiating a discount for a limited range of drugs forces pharmaceutical companies to stick their prices up horrendously in the US.
Bruce,
You might recall this accidental admission from Trump:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqKoSqzWxs8