Blogs and Stories
Will Business Kill Health Care?
Charles Rex Arbogast / AP Photo
As Obama kicks off his summer drive for health reform, Matt Miller, who was in the White House during Hillarycare, on why corporate America wants to stay at the heart of the welfare state.
American business is about to miss a historic opportunity. The stars are finally aligning in Washington for major health-care reform to be enacted in the next few months. President Obama’s courtship of the American Medical Association on Monday was the start of a charm offensive aimed at keeping every major stakeholder at the negotiating table (in the docs’ case, by signaling his openness to malpractice reform).
But the biggest mystery of the debate is the peculiar feature of American health care that Obama isn’t tackling, because the interest group affected—big business—hasn’t asked. Despite the fact that soaring health costs are strangling business, employers are slated to emerge from reform still stuck at the heart of America’s welfare state. Why? Because that’s what business says it wants!
The persistence of business’ determination to remain at the heart of America’s welfare system doesn’t make sense.
Not long ago, union leaders representing thousands of workers at one of America’s best-known companies asked the firm to look at an interesting question. What would the impact be on profits and shareholder value, they asked, if national reforms were adopted that assured health coverage for every American while permanently lowering the amount the company contributed to such benefits? The company did the analysis, and a top executive called the union with the news.
“We looked at what you suggested,” he said, “and the impact is huge.”
“Great,” said the union leader. “We’d love to review it with you.”
“I’m afraid we’re not comfortable sharing it,” said the executive.
“What do you mean?” the union official said. “Why not?”
The executive paused.
“Because the numbers are so big you’d never understand why we won’t want to pursue this as a matter of policy.”
Think about the tangled mind-set that could produce that last sentence and you’ll see that American business is in the grip of a dead idea. America’s unique employer-based health-care system may have made sense 50 years ago, when health care was cheap, U.S. business faced little global competition, and fending off socialism was a Cold War priority. Today, though, despite radically changed circumstances, corporate America remains caught in a time warp in its attitude toward government. Business resolutely resists the idea of government funding a basic minimum health benefit (along the lines of Social Security providing a universal basic retirement benefit) that might supplant its own current funding and administrative role. Inexplicably, business’ message to Uncle Sam seems to be, “Whatever you do, don’t get me off the hook for this mess.”
When you ask business leaders why this is the case—why Americans in the 21st century should still look to their companies, not their country, for such support—you bump up against uncharacteristically muddled thinking or non sequiturs, sure signs that something beyond reason is at work.
“If I’ve got a good health-care program that you can go home and tell Muriel about, I’ve got a better chance of recruiting you than the guy down the street who doesn’t have one,” says Tom Donahue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, by way of explanation.
But if government assured a basic benefit, companies could still lure talent with supplemental offerings, as they do on the pension side.
“We’ll end up paying for it anyway, and we won’t have control over the costs this time,” says John Castellani, president of the Business Roundtable.
But our employer-based system already delivers the costliest health care on the planet. That hardly makes a case that it’s the answer. And business won’t pay, or won’t pay as much as today, if the powerful business lobby sensibly makes permanently lowering business’ contribution to health costs its reform aim, rather than mindlessly fighting off government altogether.
Steve Burd, Safeway’s CEO, who was praised by Obama in his speech Monday for his leadership on cost-effective benefit design, says that if government picked up the tab, we’d lose the innovation and efficiency that companies like his feel is essential for their employees. But that’s not clear, either. The Veterans Administration health-care system, for example, has been hailed as the leader in using technology and evidence-based medicine to improve health while lowering costs. And the reform proposals now on the table in Washington ask government to take to scale the preventive-care ideas that Safeway and others have helped pilot. Besides, on Burd’s logic, Safeway ought to be running its own schools for employees, too, and raising its own army to protect them. That can’t be right. So what’s really going on in the corporate mind?
History and common sense suggest only one answer: Corporate America’s reflexive anti-government ideology now stands in the way of its self-interest. This reflex is hardly new, but to the extent it now stops America from adapting successfully to the global economy, this mind-set has become an economic threat in itself. Business originally resisted many government actions that have become widely supported fixtures of American life: child labor laws, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Social Security, the Marshall Plan, national parks, federal aid to education, Medicare. The list is endless, and embarrassing.
“Often it fought them with such gruesome predictions of awful consequences to our private enterprise system,” wrote Theodore Levitt of the Harvard Business School in 1968, “that one wonders how the foretellers of such doom can now face themselves in the mirror each morning and still believe themselves competent to make important decisions on major matters in their own companies.”
None of this means business needs to love government, or overlook its idiocies and inefficiencies. (I’ve worked at senior levels in both sectors, and while government has problems, business ain’t perfect, either, as businesspeople well know.) It just means realizing, as executives in every other advanced nation do, that government plays a legitimate, indispensable role in assuring the provision of certain public goods.
This kind of common sense is virtually taboo in American business today. One prominent Republican billionaire I know—who is appalled by our health-care woes and who is outspoken on just about every other subject—refuses to go on record with his private view that government should provide a basic benefit via some kind of single-payer plan and let folks who want more coverage add private plans on top. The gang at the club just wouldn’t understand.
Carl Camden, CEO of Kelly Services, whose “free agent” work force has sensitized him to the inanity of the American way of health, says that for too many CEOs, “blind allegiance to free-market principles has obscured the fact that our system isn’t working and that health care can’t be a free market anyway.”
For now, only one capitalist redoubt seems to realize that we’re living in a new world: the Committee for Economic Development, the business-led think tank. Its most recent health-care report doesn’t mince words: “The nation needs a new system to replace employer-provided health insurance.”
The CED would offer people access to private group coverage via regional insurance exchanges and would subsidize lower-income folks who need help. Over time, it would like government to pay for a basic plan for everyone and fund it via a consumption or value-added tax. The system would include new incentives for health-delivery systems to compete on value. Says the CED’s president, Charles Kolb: “Business needs to wake up and rethink this if we’re going to compete in a global economy and do right by ordinary Americans.”
Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon and Republican Senator Robert Bennett of Utah have a comprehensive bill with bipartisan support that reflects these principles, but for now it's been a sideshow to the main event taking shape under Max Baucus and Ted Kennedy.
I asked the Business Roundtable’s Castellani why another business group was coming down differently from his organization, which wants to keep employers at the center of things. Castellani thought a moment, then said maybe it’s because the CED is composed mainly of retired CEOs, whereas the Roundtable’s CEOs are still active.
I’m not sure what that means. Why would active CEOs want to have business continue to bear more of the health-care burden? It doesn’t make sense. And maybe that’s the point: The persistence of business’ determination to remain at the heart of America’s welfare system doesn’t make sense. I suspect the real difference between the Business Roundtable and the CED is that active CEOs are under the sway of their naysaying human-resources departments, whose benefits empires are threatened by fundamental change. The missing ingredient in every reform plan is a generous buyout package for human-resources chiefs at the Fortune 500, whom politicians in both parties privately tell me are part of the problem.
There’s still time for business to come to its senses before it signs up for another few decades of back-breaking health-care duties when it has better things to do—like compete with China and India. America vanquished communism and socialism after an epic struggle, and the employer-based benefit system deserves its share of the credit for the triumph. But that decades-old choice set in motion political patterns and habits of mind that have calcified to the point where we can’t do what global competitiveness (and social justice) now require.
The only force that can break this logjam is business, and business can only do it by looking at the facts and changing its mind. We won’t become socialist. Firms that want to can still serve as facilitators (if not primary funders) of coverage for their employees. And none of this means business is “walking away from the problem”; indeed, business will need, more than ever, to be a constituency for the changes that are necessary. All this is doable. But one tumbler first has to click into place, and fast.
As health-care legislation is negotiated this summer, business has to realize that when it comes to its pervasive role in America’s welfare state, it’s OK, and sensible, to let go.
Matt Miller is a management consultant, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, and the host of public radio’s popular political week-in-review, Left, Right & Center. His new book is The Tyranny of Dead Ideas, named this week by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as one of the top books "Driving the Debate" in 2009.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
The Runaway Senate
Matt Miller is a management consultant, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, and the host of public radio’s popular political week-in-review, Left, Right & Center. His new book is The Tyranny of Dead Ideas.
The GOP’s Next Obamacare Attack
Matt Miller is a management consultant, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, and the host of public radio’s popular political week-in-review, Left, Right & Center. His new book is The Tyranny of Dead Ideas.
The Democrats' Midterm Nightmare
Matt Miller is a management consultant, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, and the host of public radio’s popular political week-in-review, Left, Right & Center. His new book is The Tyranny of Dead Ideas.
Why should business trust Obama's promises on health cares? He's broken all his other promises. He campaigned on balancing the budget and created trillion dollar deficits. Obama says he doesn't want to run GM or see it bankrupt, but there he is arranging GM bankruptcy and running GM.
If Obama says something, chances are it will turn out to be just the opposite.
Old skool business leaders always prepared for the worst and worked like hell for better. That, as in the day, when market share was more important than the profit margin. Businesses hates uncertainty but there has always been a raw edge to investment, risk, and it is high time that government quit buffering business and the economy from that edge lest we continue to lose our ability to compete. Business leaders need to focus on the bottom line of entrepreneurship and when they decide to spend their margins on benefits they can cut off government intervention and regulation. Until that time business will have to deal with reality and take their bumps as the buffer is drained.
Bush was a tough act to follow, wasn't he? How 'bout that deficit he left us??? And how 'bout his bailout last fall - the one that supplied CEOs with big bonuses, had no oversight, and never seemed to make its way to the American people in the form of loans? He poured grease on the floor of the White House, and left Obama to slip and slide his way across the room. What a guy.
Dance, Obama, dance! Bush was absolutely diabolical in his incompetence.
As for GM, they created their own mess (whereas Ford didn't, which implies that a mess did not HAVE to be made). Unfortunately, taking thousands and thousands of jobs away from Americans, and giving them to Canada and Mexico, didn't save GM from their inevitable self-destruction. Bankruptcy is their last hope.
plantagenet
Why don't you actually wait for the results of what he's doing before you start complaining. Bush and his admins had 8 years to ruin america and you expect obama to turn america into a debtless prosperous nation in 5 months..... come back to reality
you have to be quite a idiot if you think that mess left for him could be sorted out in less then 6 months.
USA is one of the only countries in the west that does not have free health care.
It is amazing to see so called patriots rather save a few dollars in tax then help their fellow countrymen who are probably worse off.
Free health care should be a human right like in other countries ,especially a country which beats its own chest about how great and free it is.
I'm going with
The two comments above me.
And I'm done.
Exactly what promises has Obama broken?
Did he say the deficit would be $0 by June 16, 2009? No, he did not.
He is stuck running GM because the old white men in power at GM
ran the company into the ground.
Republicans are welcome to leave the country if they do not like
the direction our country is taking. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
This is a three page intro to his new book about dead ideas. He is described at Amazon as a technocrat. I believe this is to soften the stereotype of progressive, which is the new liberal. Rather than calling out the government and big business for proliferating the ponzi scheme of entitlement programs he chooses to pit the two against each other. It's a distraction. The ponzi scheme of SS and medicare are finished and we do need to change our thinking and programs to move past them but this is not anything new. People needing to arm themselves with an education and skills to keep up with the global market is nothing new either. Nor is the government grab of money from private sources and upping the social in social democracy. The pendulum swings but the progressives were no more aware of these problems than any other political group and their attitude of self appointment is a bit much and this is evidenced by their attempt at remaking the wheel rather than strengthening the wheel we have.
BINGO!! You can keep adding new agencies, laws, etc, but if you aren't going to enforce what is already on the books, you're back to square 1.
New agencies, czars, etc will probably register as an up-tick in employment. The government grows at our expense, and the private sector languishes.
BINGO!! More agencies equal more government control. Once the government controls your health care they can control everything you do. If they don't want you to eat McDonalds they can make it a felony to have a Big Mac.
I am just proud that my leaders are not letting the Constitution get in their way.
This is an interesting article. It is clear to me, however, why big business wants to retain its role in healthcare - it's all about retaining a layer of obfuscation over companies' activities. Let's face it, if the government controlled healthcare it would be massively more transparent and accountable than the current mess.
The way America's healthcare system works is a national disgrace. Anyone who claims or believes otherwise needs to climb down out of their ivory tower and remove their rose-tinted spectacles. Germany has a population of 80 million and a working healthcare system. If you don't stop worshipping some holy cow idea of capitalism as the great infallible one, your way of life will die, whether you like it or not. It may already be too late.
It's very important that -- whatever healthcare system we create -- it effectively deals with the clap. George Patton
G
Abstinence or antibiotics--you choose. Easy. (And solved a long time ago.)
Now. On to the infinitely more difficult problem of how to make sure everyone can have access to (and afford) the antibiotics.
p.s. A visit to your local public health office will help you solve your little "problem." Unless you object to use of public funds. Then, by all means, I leave to contemplate your yellowish discharge without outside interference.
Essentially big business wants to choke small business owners? That apparently is their primary point in clinging to a competitive health care advantage over the little guys.
So small business owners are not only going broke trying to insure their employees (who are not as talented as employees who can successfully bargain for decent benefits elsewhere), but the employees pay more in premiums to get crummy coverage.
I've never been able to understand why small business owners haven't rebelled against this system. It's financial oppression, and they and their employees are the victims.
My understanding is that the majority small business owners support or did support the republican party.
If you are voting for the foot soldiers of big business would you expect any other outcome?
Small businesses may have been duped into believing that they will pay more if they don't vote repub.
That's the mystery, isn't it? That small businesses support the Republican party, whose primary concern is big business, even though big business is deliberately holding them down with a competitive disadvantage?
Maybe they're small for a reason, eh? Maybe this whole thing is Darwinian.
"Why would active CEOs want to have business continue to bear more of the health-care burden? It doesn't make sense"
And take away an IRS business deduction that lessens the tax they pay?
Surly you jest.
Obfuscation may be the word of the day! Big business can't afford to let the genie out of the bottle. What's left of business in the US.
1) Fast Food Industry - brings to mind "super size it" obesity
2) Agriculture - Beef ---Is there a connection to feeding cattle rendered chickens, pigs, dead pets, etc and the increase of over 4000% in Alzheimer's disease?(new form of TSE's)
3) Agriculture - Produce -How many people are dying from salmonella, e-coli etc. from contaminated lettuce and such?
4) Dairy- Has anyone done the statistics on hormones used in milk production versus increase in breast cancer?
5) Petrochemicals - Has anyone done the statistics on cancer vs new chemicals?
6) Manufacturing - most of that is now overseas - non issue
7) Service Industry - Huge but typically they don't offer much in the way of healthcare plans to the grunts
This is a short list. In no way am I saying that industries 1-5 are causing any health issues in our nation. I am parroting what I have read in the news, organicconsumers.org, notmilk.com, in books like "Madcows and Milkgate". Remember what happened to Oprah.
If our government were to offer an option to the current health insurance, all of the issues in 1-5 would possibly be brought to light as the government would/might be obligated to correct what was causing healthcare problems.
In the past....Much like why are all the fish dying in the Hudson? Oh, let's pass a law that fines people for dumping toxic wastes in the river. Why are the people in Love Canal glowing in the dark? Oh, let's stop that. These revelations are expensive for business.
If government is footing the bill for healthcare, these questions might be asked. 1-5 could be devastated economically. They could be in a position much as the tobacco industry.
Government in healthcare, look at "Agent Orange". We could quickly run out of colors!
UGH!!! It's NOT working!!! How can anyone with ears and eyeballs not see that the current state of our healthcare system is contributing -heavily- to the collapse of our empire?
I would just LOVE for any of those STUPID talking heads on TV to have my budget and my HSA policy for just one year, and then come back and tell me how wonderful everything is with our healthcare system. I just about PUKE whenever they say IDIOTIC things like, "Those are decisions Americans want to make with their doctor." WOW!! Americans stil "have" doctors? I only go to A doctor when the pain is more unbearable than the need to make the mortgage payment. I'm sure my method of healthcare management is what every American should asipre to who wants to keep the broken system on the same tracks -- because it's coming for ALL OF YOU.
child labor laws - Good but legislation not the government operating a business.
the Federal Reserve - This argument is as old as the US and both sides have good points. However, it is now being run like a printing press instead of a bank.
Securities and Exchange Commission - How did we get into this economic mess in the first place!? Those morons were not doing their jobs and the US taxpayer got stuck with, S&L Crisis, Enron, Global Crossing, Madoff, etc. Oh sure, their doing a bang up job.
Social Security - I sure as heck will not collect and that is why I'm investing in India and China, at least they'll have money.
Marshall Plan - Worked but now it is long forgotten history as most of our so-called allies recently reminded us.
national parks - A great thing but it is being used as a political tool to ban drilling for much needed oil. Ol' Teddy would flip.
federal aid to education- Frankly this one scares the hell out of me. When Mr. finally gets his grubby hands on this the US government will then decide who studies what ensuring a liberal mindset in academe for decades.
Medicare - Bankrupt in 20yrs, need I say more?
Yes, indeed Mr. Miller, US businesses have fought against some real losers over the past 230 years. And it looks like it may have learned its lesson. Only fools argue with fools.
pencarolina, please don't leave out these Gov. expenses !
Vietnam War $584 billion 58,000 American Lives
Iraq War $656 billion to date 4311 American Lives
comments--
"federal aid to education" are you talking about federally backed student loans that are paid back?
"Much needed oil", isn't oil cheap again!! Isn't Obama pushing for clean energy and clean energy jobs! Oh my goodness, this fight be successful and the right would then be wrong!
"SEC" are you saying we would have been better off without the SEC?, you probably agreed with Bush's proposal to let social security funds be invested in the stock market, can you imagine?
"medicare" I think I would rather spend my tax dollars for medicare than unecessary wars (hmmm $s to save lives or $s to take lives)
Student loans - you're right about that. Their rate of repayment is high.
Oil - we could be drilling here, drilling for natural gas to convert cars, more wind power, where feasible, more nuclear power plants, etc. We should be doing all of it right now. Should have done it years ago....
SEC - yep, they fell asleep at the switch when it came to Fanny May and Freddie Mac, Bernie Madoff, and the list goes on......
SS funds- it was an option to put part of your money into the stock market. It reminds me of President Obama suggesting that you can stay with your medical insurance plan, or buy into the government plan.
Medicare - we don't mind paying into it, since we benefit in retirement. However, with fewer people working and paying to SS and Medicare and more going out to baby boomers, payments will have to increase or it will go bust.
This article seems to be in direct conflict with what the small business owners have been saying for some time now.....and that is that they cannot continue to afford to operate and offer healthcare. The price is just to steep and leaves nothing left over to increase the business itself. Many business owners no longer offer healthcare to their employee's and if your older with possible health problems (or even if your pre-medicare) your more than likely to be turned down by the big insurance companies. Isn't that why so many millions of Americans find themselves in the precarious spot they are in today?
The fact remains that our system, as it is currently operated, is only efficient for those who are young, healthy and work for a large employer who has been able to get a deal from big insurance. Where does that leave small business and the millions who work for them? And some think this is working.....
Perhaps another way of looking at what Miller's saying:
Can't recall who this was, but 15 years ago, while Hillary's plan was being disembowelled, some liberal or other was talking about health care with a high-end CEO who (to the liberal's surprise) readily agreed that business would be better served by handing the matter off to government . . . except for one thing: "You have to understand, we're sort of a country club group." IOW, regardless of their individual interests, just as a matter of solidarity no one from their side would consent to sacrifice members of their tribe through the nationalization of a major industry. Period.
As a former CEO, I love reading such crap by people who've never run a kool-aid stand. The role of a CEO is to generate the largest possible profit to the shareholders, not support Obama, the Republicans or any other group. That is our system. Those are the rules. If you do not do this, you will be sued by the shareholders and fired by your board. CEO's, truth be told, would love to off-load health coverage to someone else. The administration of benefits requires a huge infrastructure of otherwise nonproductive employees. The argument isn't that they disapprove of reform, they fear they are going to be required to pay for it and have zero control over it.
Truer words were never spoken.
But it doesn't change that fact that the system we have now is broken and unsustainable. It has to be changed. If we don't get it right the first time, there is nothing keeping us from changing it again.
Why are the politics of this nation always either/or? Life is neither simple nor static.
"... they fear they are going to be required to pay for it and have zero control over it."
Anybody who runs a business today knows, you have very little control over the cost of your health care currently. Whether it be genetics, lifestyle choices, or freak accidents, people need care- the cost of that care and the sometime denial of service generates profit for an industry. The rates of different companies create more collusion than competition for quality service.
Sorry, your dog don't hunt as an argument.
Obvioulsy, Claus Industries has socialized healthcare. Of course you can control it. Healthcare is just another line in an annual budget. You can make people pay higher deductibles, you can up the price for dependents, you can shop other companies, decide not to cover massages and chiropractors. There are all types of varibables you can play against how much you have to offer to keep your employees. Santa, you better be nervous. You are about to be replaced by Obama and he comes every day of the year.
flyoverland
Unless you run the kool-aid stand completely on your own, the success of the stand lies not only with you ,my freind, but with the other people mixing and serving the kool-aid. Right? (Even if kool-aid WAS your idea. Kudos.) So, unless you can find a bevy of dolts who just love the kool-aid brand so much that they forsake their own interests in how much they earn at the stand, and the quality of life their earnings afford, you're being disingenuous at the very least--or simply ravenously selfish. It's PRECISELY these "rules" you seem to adhere to (e.g The CEO's only reason for existence is to serve shareholders; Capitalism is sacrosanct)--that those of us who work, and who are not CEOs, are calling into question.
In my own professional life, I've seen (in 10-year span of time at my present job) a high turnover of CEOs. Their collective "vision" and "talent for the job" have resulted in huge losses of market share. And, guess what...each and every one of them were "punished" with a golden parachute of leaving their positions with multi-millions of dollars. With each regime change, the rest of us (who, might I add, are still working and getting stellar job reviews) are asked to suffer reductions in wages and benefits while simutaneously increasing our "efficiency." When it wasn't our collective efficiency that damaged the bottom line.) Forgive me, but there is a fundamental sense of illogic and injustice in your stance. And it seems to serve not talent, but power.
p.s. The "have-nots" membership includes intelligent, discerning, hard-working and decent people.
oops...
I misspelled "friend." Still in all, I don't consider everyone with whom I have philosophical disagreements enemies.
I beg your indulgence.
That's OK spinoza-
I managed anyway.
Rita
Just trying to edit my response; not invite ridicule.Glad you managed.
and Rita,
Hope I misinterpreted your response. Thought we were kindred spirits in the argument for Reason.
I was a NASDAQ CEO for 17 years. I made it that long because I recognized and rewarded those with whom I worked. I've created dozens of multi-millionaires. Today, however, you are correct the average tenure for a public CEO is 3 years. Therefore, the CEO has to hit targets (set by the board) or be fired. I am not saying it is the way I would do it, or did it. I am saying that is how it is. It isn't just a preference, it is the law. You have to do what is best for the shareholders, or risk being sued. I am not ashamed of my tenure (I was not fired, I sold the company I started). I've written here before about my first receptionist who exercised stock options and paid cash for a new house. My point is simple. Right now. executives have some latitude in what healthcare costs. In a bad year it is a variable that can be adjusted (albeit at the expense of the employees). So, if you are a CEO, why would you support something that the government dictates? As I said, most CEO's would prefer not to be in the business of providing healthcare at all. This is wat happens when class action lawyers lurk. It is what happens when you criminalize business and tt is no different than defensive medicine. The system is full of vague rules whose interpretation changes every four years. CEO's, just like doctors are only playing by the rules. They didn't establish the rules. If you don't like the rules, change them. By the way, the top four executives of my former company were summarily fired recently and told to pound sand by the board.
Yeah.
Spinoza-
I don't know how you interpreted
My response.
I wasn't being a wise acre.
It was more like such a tiny mistake
Was barely noticable with some of
The things you see on these boards.
That's it bro-
The entire health care process is orchestrated by 2 powerful lobbies- The HMO lobby and the Trial Lawyers. The doctors and nurses are voiceless and have been for 30 yrs. The only profession that remains untouched is the legal profession!! The administration is packed with lawyers they should recuse themselves from the process. Talk about conflict of interest! When will the lawyers live by the rules they impose on everyone??? They make up the rule of law as they go along-
Derida
Don't forget the powerful lobbying interests represented by the AMA, the pharmaceuticals, the for-profit and non-profit hospitals, and the list goes on.
Believe me, there's enough greed and self-interest to go around here. And there are a lot of well-fed pigs who've been bellied up to the healthcare money trough for 40-50 years. I wish healthcare in this country had never been anything but a single-payer system from the outset. If you could only charge X price for an MRI, no matter where in the country the MRI is performed, then that's the price. Period. And as far as reimbursement for the MRI goes, since there's only one payor (the Government) there aren't dozens of different insurers negotiating what they will pay for the MRI--which leaves people with different insurance coverage paying wildly varying co-payments.
I also think that, since we will always have a segment of the population who is disabled, infirm, out of work, or uninsurable, it would be great if we could just say to all doctor's practices--"Okay, the uninsured represent X% of the population, so the expectation is that each physician serve X% in his/her practice. This would be an attempt to equitably disperse the burden over all physicians, instead of allowing them to discard the uninsured, and only treat people with insurance--as is happening now. When doctors "skim" all of the well-insured patients for themselves, and divert the rest to not-for-profit hospitals, it shifts the burden of cost and care to the taxpayers, essentially.
Some say public funded medicine won't work and use false evidence and scare tactics. It will be hard for it to succeed as long as doctors and insurance companies are allowed to get away with Medicare/Medicaid fraud. At one time doctors practiced medicine as a service to humanity. The best example of public funded medicine that works is the US military. My father-in-law retired from the USAF and during his retirement and last days received the best medical care available from doctors that cared about medicine and the patient and not about their $50 million mansions.
The President always has these hotshot business people visiting him why can't he loan ten billion to Buffet, Gates, et al as the board of director overseeing a non-profit health insurance company instead of putting it in the same organized crime hands that area already pilfering money out of the federal pipeline?
Also, where are the incentives for states to drop the artificial barriers which shut out residents from the best health plans in the country? We've been stuck with Dodd in Connecticut and his insurance racket pals and practically had to sue him and his henchmen to allow Health Savings Accounts when 49 other states had them.
Also, the Feds need to offer incentives for states to drop their artificial barriers that prevent their health care professionals, hospitals, clinics, etc. from participating in the best medical malpractice insurance programs.
So while the Democrats in CT are trying desperately to dump insurance-racket thugs like Dodd, the President has started to campaign for him. What's THAT about? Why on earth would anyone believe Chris Dodd should be anywhere near anything that involves money?
(Okay, fair point. Chris Dodd WAS the only Stanford fund ponzi-scheme participant who made money, but this is not the kind of business plan America likes to follow.)
Anyway, get some good people like Gates to sit on the board of the non-profit (NO! NOT EMANUEL LIKE ON FANNIE MAE!), work on incentives to drop the insurance barriers--and maybe throw a cap in on non-medical damages and let's get this system cleaned up!
What will kill health care reform is the fact that the costs are too big to "sweep under the rug," and no politician, including Obama, wants to tell the American people the truth. Even Obama seems to realize he can't use his pat "tax the rich" answer on this one. McCain presented an honest alternative in the recent presidential race and got clobbered. Right now both sides are posturing to use reform failure as a battering ram against each other.
I agree with you about McCain's plan. Since we really don't know exactly what the plan is, I am still holding out hope that some of his ideas might be included. However, I won't hold my breath waiting..............
Single payer insurance will not work . As things are doctors over charge , and order unnecessary treatments and raise the charges by large per-centages every year . This would either drive the single payer insurance out of business or they would be as present day insurances . Raise rates to where more people lose insurance . Our Cities , Counties , States , and the US Governments all own and operate clinics and hospitals . Since these governments are already in the health care business why not expand it and allow the uninsured to be treated at these facilities instead of getting in to the insurance business . There is some posibility this could be done without the total approval of Congress . This would also put an end to the insane increases of health care costs and would compare with Canada and other intellegent countries .
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.