What does that tell you? AP. Here's the money quote, and I mean the money quote:
It's all got to do with shifts in the economy. Even before the recession hit, employer-sponsored health coverage had been steadily shrinking, and many people couldn't afford the premiums for individual policies. Meanwhile, government programs have been expanding — and they've gotten increasingly friendly to private insurance companies. Insurers now play major roles as middlemen in Medicare, Medicaid and the children's insurance program.
And if the government requires everybody to get coverage — just what the overhaul legislation calls for — it could guarantee a steady stream of customers subsidized by taxpayers not only for insurers, but for all medical providers.
Bingo. It's all rent-seeking behavior by the insurance companies.
I'm shocked.
NOTE Thanks, "progressives"!
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
Um, I'm confused. I thought a stall benefited the GOP
'cause the GOP, historically the party of corporations (they're the ones who made the insurance companies the middlemen in Medicare -- Bush's drug Rx program, donut hole and all, remember? -- and it's the GOP who've been against expanding CHIP.
Sure feels like where we are, with this story, is what aviators call "inverted."
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
Two-Party, Shirts or Skins Thinking
Yes, it does arguably benefit the GOP in that the GOP wants to kill this bill for its own reasons. So what?
For it to really benefit the GOP, you have to believe that it's this bill or nothing. That if the GOP kills this bill, then the issue goes away.
I don't believe that. I think the problem the Dems have is that the GOP will oppose any healthcare bill and that the more people learn about their "reform", the more opposition grows to it among regular old Americans.
I think the GOP framing is being done to pressure people to get behind the crappy Dem bill. They know they've compromised the public option to the point that it isn't worth supporting so they hope to win support by making this a two-way battle between Dems and the GOP. Look, over there, Republicans! Beat 'em! Go Team!
But this has never been a battle just between the Dems and the GOP. Like so many things these days it's a battle between the American people and the corporatists and the corporatists know no party boundary.* That's why single payer advocates don't have a seat at the table. They represent the true other side. If you think a "win" is simply passing something over GOP objections, then yes a stall hurts that. If, however, you think a win is passing real healthcare reform and this is not real healthcare reform, it's been over-compromised, then while a stall helps the GOP mount opposition, it also helps by giving liberals time to push for a better bill (one that would not be so easily killed by the GOP because it would actually represent what Americans want).
The problem the Dems have is that people overwhelmingly support single payer or a public option that anyone - anyone - can get. This bill does neither of those things. The GOP, of course, will oppose any bill, but just because they oppose a bill doesn't mean it's not a bad bill. A lot of them opposed TARP and they were right to do it, even if they did it for the wrong reasons. Same here.
Now, I'm not 100% convinced that if the Dems pass some terrible bill that will take healthcare reform off the table. I think it means the Dems are going to get an earful from pissed off people about how they were promised X and got Y. But I can also see the logic of saying, this bill sucks and once it passes the media is going to lie about why it sucks (the government isn't doing enough, but the media is going to say the government failed), and that will make the fight harder because it will further erode people's confidence in government (which I'm beginning to think is the aim of the Obama Administration more generally).
Personally, I think economically we don't have much choice other than single payer, heavily regulated industry, or socialized medicine and so, in the end, we're going to win no matter what because we're on the right side of history. But getting their sooner would be better since people are dying. I'm just not entirely sure how soon it will be - or what it will take - for the old corporate system to collapse on this issue.
* Admittedly, there's also a battle between the GOP and the Dems in preparation for the 2010 election which is why the GOP is likely to oppose everything. First, they'll try to make the Dems water it down to make it bad policy (check). Then, they'll oppose it. Then, when the bad policy fails, they have something to run against. Ian Welsh did a good job explaining this dynamic. The idea that after they've watered it down so that it will fail, Dems should still pass it to claim victory makes little sense to me since at that point the damage has already been done and passing it won't, in fact, make the Dems winners in the long run. Because in the long run bad policy=bad politics. That's why the Dems are in power right now, all the bad policies of Bush. Not because they did anything in particular.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
"Strange bedfellows"
Glenn Greenwald did the same thing on Constitutional government, and he was right.
Some Republicans voted for the Kucinich amendment on "States Rights" grounds (!!). But so what?
And party loyalty is a two-way street anyhow.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Two Party Balckmail
Rememeber during the general election when you had to support Obama or at least spend your time demonizing McCain/Palin (often using lies or distortions) instead of asking questions of Obama? You weren't a "progressive", you were a racist, conservative mole if you wanted to get straight answers from team Obama.
Seems like when all hope FAILS, no better weapon than trying to imply you're helping the GOP. It seems more and more the two parties rely on this form of intellectual blackmail to saty in power. Fortunately, I don believe we need to operate in the current political paradigm so the attempts to bully me into submission by painting me as a racist or a GOP supporter. The way I see it is that FAIL is FAIL, no matter if its Dem or GOP.
Only tyrants rig elections.
The Dems are in power 'cause of Bush's bad policies? So, um ...
what's preventing the Dems from behaving just as badly as Bush?
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
Cognitive dissonance
In case you hadn't noticed, Sarah, the Dems are behaving as bad as Bush.
It's cognitive dissonance on the Dems part, to believe they won't be punished either.
Which is why those of us who are somewhat partial to Democrats, wish they would do something better.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
So doing the math....
a one trillion dollar 'reform' of health 'insurance' means the insurance companies will rake in 300 billion dollars (30 % their take of the health care dollar)? No wonder they want it. Another massive transference of wealth.
If high deductible plans end up the only affordable plans, Big
Insurers will probably take in more than 30%. With a $20,000 deductible* for the insuree to meet, the insurer will probably end up keeping most of the premiums as most people won't be able to afford to pay for the huge deductibles and will put off care if at all possible. I posit far lower payouts for the high deductible plans: it's a protection racket.
From Bill Moyers' Journal interview Friday, July 24th, with Trudy Lieberman and Dr . Marcia Angell.
Trudy Lieberman: ...policies that have very high deductibles. I've seen some being sold, by some of the Blue Cross plans, as being $20 thousand deductibles. And $40 thousand if you go out of network. So, is that really insurance? And are people going to be buying these, because they will be affordable, because the higher the deductible, the cheaper the policy. And so then what's going to happen to them when a serious illness strikes, and they have to cough up the money? They're not going to have it. So, this whole issue of underinsurance, which is kind of tied in with the conservative approach, hasn't even been discussed.
Link for video, transcript, and background of interviewees.
This is your health CARE on corporatist steroids, which Obama and the Dems seem to be shooting up with. But it's not about the CARE; Obama has admitted it's about keeping the parasites happy and well, well fed. Their feeding habits must not be "disrupted."
What's so ugly is that he's flim-flamming the public by implying that they will get to keep, even increase, their choice of doctors, hospitals, etc., Not in Big Insurers' world, unless the insured has a really, really good (and expensive) plan. With regular plans, HMO's, people have limited choice of doctors, therapists, labs, hospitals.
The Bamboozler in Chief is not treating people with much respect. While protecting the Big Insurers, he's leaving the people at their mercy. Preexisting conditons not prevent getting insurance? Well, the higher cost well may.
The only choice Obama is allowing most people MAY be through these co-ops, and, as has been pointed out, how do you get to understand, find, the real details in the fine print? When crap is sold through a government set up and authorized co-op, government gets the ire of the cheated public. Think about the public's attitude toward Big Insurers being transferred to government?
Repubs will fight good health care in order to get bad outcomes which will turn people off any government programs. They appear to have an ally in Obama and his WH team. Very effectively ruining a brand image.
I would just like to know - on the assumption
that something does get passed this year - what happens between now and 2013? Is it just business as usual for insurance companies until then - with continuing increases in premiums, more people dropped, higher and higher out of pocket costs?
And the reason I would like to know is that Obama's mantra of "people need help now" needs to be revealed for the bullshit it is if nothing is changing for the good of the people for the next 3 1/2 years, and in fact, if things are likely to just get worse. Does Mr. Brilliant Politician have any idea what happens when people wake up and realize that the legislation just gives the parasites more time to suck up more blood money before they get rewarded with what amounts to an unending, guaranteed trillion dollar payday?
Oh, and as if this whole thing weren't turning out to be the biggest bamboozling okey-doke since the selling of the Iraq war, I read this at Think Progress:
Grassley: Obama Has ‘Said To Me Privately’ That He Is Willing To Drop A Robust Public Option
Emphasis in the original.
Before 2013, two elections happen.
That's the short answer.
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
Oh, sure - that one's so obvious it seems odd
that more people aren't talking about it - and angry about it. So, given that none of the politicians will admit to it, what's their bullshit reason - has anyone heard one? I think it's long past time for the "politically infeasible" answer to why single-payer cannot be passed to be countered with, "politically infeasible for whom - you? Your job is more important than my health? Than the health of millions of Americans? That's pretty stunning to contemplate."
My thinking is, if they think it's such a great plan, let them put their political fortunes on the line, and make 2010 and 2012 referenda on how they did on health care by getting it operational in time for people to assess its value. 2010's probably a stretch, but there's no reason why it has to wait until after the 2012 elections. N. O. N. E.
It seems only fair that if the health of millions of Americans, and the health of the nation's economy, are on the line, their asses should be, too.
My theory is the Parasites are ramping up increases now to cover
their revenue asses and keep Wall Street happy, since they've said to Obama they would "control" cost INCREASES* in the future. But racking up more revenue before the Time of Restraint (and that will last only as long as Wall Street approves of their revenue affecting actions), they hope to forestall Wall Street selling their stock downward.
So, yes: This will be part of the Seven Fat Years -- for the parasites.
The people? It's all Lean Years, babeeee!
*And Obama has admitted that instead of doubling costs to the insured in the near future (post 2013), he hopes to achieve only 50 to 67% higher!!!!
When your cash cow is about to die...
... you suck as much cash out of it as you can.
So the rising rates really are a consequence of the failing business model.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Partly, but also to pre-earn rate increases they'll be deprived
of for a short while as they honor their commitment to Obama to cut increases by that few $B (I've forgotten). However, being for-profit businesses, they will not be honoring their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders if they don't make good profits.
Wall Street will trump Main Street. And estimated promised savings may well fall to the need to satisfy Wall Street.
Obama has promised them they can still have increases; he just hopes they'll keep them down to the 50% to 70% range, instead of 100%. So, before the reducing costs period starts, I expect them to increase like mad.
Here in NJ, the insurance commission looks at the individual market every five years. The initial rate increase is usually downscaled for that one year, but then they make up for the "loss" the next four years. They do know how to play the game, those parasites.
Follow the money
There you go, Andre.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
You're an optimist
Personally, I think economically we don't have much choice other than single payer, heavily regulated industry, or socialized medicine and so, in the end, we're going to win no matter what because we're on the right side of history.
I don't think there is a right side of history. Things got worse for most people at a number of times and places in history -- the Stone Age adoption of agriculture everywhere, the medieval period in Europe, the 17th through 20th c. in colonized areas, the late 20th c. in eastern Europe. From 1980 on here in the United States, life has in many ways gotten worse because of the rising risk and anxiety. Leftists like Michael Harrington kept predicting a hard political swing to the left because of the growing social disfunction. Richard Reeves kept writing about how America's social programs would continue to grow because people wanted them. What's going to push history to its right side, if in a proudly self-anointed democracy, the wishes of three quarters of the people can be disappeared? Powerfully entrenched elites are able to continue to accumulate power even in the face of rising misery. I'm waiting for the magic public demands to actually produce something for the public.
Happy Sunday morning from a pessimist.
Speaking of single payer
Which of course nobody worth listening to is. /snark
I may have missed the commentary here at Corrente but did anyone else hear Obama's answer at the July 22nd presser when he was asked about covering all Americans? From the transcript:
And then that was the last that was ever heard about that little pain in the ass issue. Although I know why single payer has been smothered, it's still clear that even Obama has clearly acknowledged it's the only *actual* solution - if care for all Americans is your end goal.
But since that is not the end goal then single payer is not the answer.
I heard that...
... until the sounds of my head pounding on the desk drowned it out.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
i used that quote
in my fax to waxman et al supporting the weiner amendment. that committee still hasn't voted on the amendment, or let the bill out of their committee, so there's still time to send faxes about it if you want to.