Robert Reich, once again on health care
Reich has a way of explaining things so even a Tea-bagger could understand it. Tuesday he wrote about Anthem, his insurance carrier, who feels (apparently this corporation feels?) that it needs to raise it’s rates by 39%. It used to be Blue Cross, now it has merged to become Anthem Blue Cross. The supposed reason for the increase being that the pool of insured has decreased while it’s needs have increased. Hmmm, interesting.
This argument sounds logical until you look more closely. First, Anthem and its corporate parent, WellPoint, are enormously profitable. WellPoint’s profits rose to $2.7 billion last quarter. Even if you subtract one-time-only financial maneuvers, WellPoint is still fat and happy, which makes Anthem fat and happy. Everyone is fat and happy except Anthem’s policy holders, who are being skewered.
Anthem’s argument is even more questionable when you consider that Anthem has been among the most aggressive opponents of the health-care bills passed by the House and Senate. If Anthem were sincere about why it’s raising its rates, it would be embracing the legislation. The Senate and House bills would add tens of millions of Americans to insurance pools – thereby spreading the costs over more people and avoiding the very problem Anthem says is now forcing it to raise its rates so much.
Ah, big insurance corporations, can’t live with ‘em, can’t live without ‘em.
So, maybe it’s time for that Kumbaya, group hug moment with the Republicans to move health care reform forward, because, regardless of our political affiliation, what is best for the people is our goal, *right? No one is heartless enough to put politics over people, *right?
Obama says he’s open to any new ideas from Republicans for how to control health care costs and expand coverage. The problem is Republicans don’t want to play this game. They don’t care about controlling costs or expanding coverage. They care only about taking back the House and/or the Senate next November. And they believe a means toward attaining this goal is to prevent Obama from achieving a victory on health care. The sooner the President accepts that undeniable fact — and gets the House to pass the Senate’s bill, and then uses the reconciliation process (that requires only 51 votes in the Senate) to deal with any remaining irreconcilable differences between the House and Senate — the better.
*Wrong
Related posts:
- Robert Reich weighs in on health care reform
- Robert Reich: The underlying philosophy of just passed Health Care reform. It’s not the Great Society but…
- Extending Health Care Coverage. Thanks, Governor Paterson!
- Americans are dying for health care reform
- Health Care Lobbying efforts - “killing a key plank in Obama’s reform platform”
The health care reform debate needs to start from scratch and focus on 2 main points that are driving costs up. 1. Lack of competition 2. Lack of cost accountability between patients and providers.
2. Lack of cost accountability between patients and providers.
Explain to me what you mean by this? Example?
I’m not being contentious, I just don’t really understand the concept.
Most people rely on private insurance or government provided insurance to pay for medical expenses. When routine procedures are paid in this manner, people perceive the service as free and drive up demand and costs. You end up with people consuming significant medical resources for things like the common cold, because it is “free”. That ultimately drives the true cost up. The cost is also driven up by the extra layers of accounting necessary to pay for things. People also do not even consider cost when choosing a doctor or service, again, because it is “free”.
A system based on actual “insurance”, not 3rd party payer systems, that is used mainly for expensive and catastrophic treatments, with people paying directly to doctors for routine care, would considerably lower overall health care expenditures. That would benefit everyone.
A recent event really hit home the message about health care in America and what it means to have health insurance and what it means not to have it.
All the media seemed to report pretty much the same thing….President Bill Clinton sought medical attention after “experiencing discomfort in his chest.” The key word here being “discomfort”. Whether the media was being overly weird about using the word “discomfort” when Clinton was experiencing pain is another issue, but this really does make a point.
How many ordinary working people seek medical care when they experience discomfort? I’d imagine not many. And if you think about the reasons why then you get the picture. Say someone is at work and is experiencing “chest discomfort”, he/she (ordinary citizen) is going to think about many things–”I can’t leave work now”…”It’s probably nothing”…”If I go to the doctor, that’s another $25 to $40 out of my pocket”…
So in many cases, average Joe or Josephine doesn’t do anything….and later dies.
Clinton, not having a worry, knows he’ll get the best care in the world, doesn’t hesitate to seek medical attention and 24 hours later he’s out of the hospital after undergoing a lifesaving procedure. That is something most people will never experience.